# Southwest Chief Re-Route?



## NETrainfan

What is the latest update on the (possible) Southwest Chief re-route?

Is there a link to this? Thanks.


----------



## zephyr17

No changes. None of the states have come up with any money. Decision to stay or go has to made by 2014 (not sure when in the year) and service to move, if it does, 2016.


----------



## NETrainfan

How important is it for Amtrak to make this change?

Are there many people wanting to keep the present route?


----------



## VentureForth

I think Amtrak's preference is to stay put. But financially, it will be nearly impossible. Amtrak will capitulate and join the extremely busy transcon if no one else ponies up money to maintain Class I standards.


----------



## MikeM

Personally, I'd bank on a reroute myself, unless funds are provided at a national level. Kansas state government is in the midst of a major conservative rewrite, and funding for all programs are being cut in order to pay for reductions in income taxes. The current governor is a protege of the Koch brothers, and believes that state government should be significantly smaller than it is today. Not that he is prepared to cut airline subsidy's for several airports in the state, but funding for ground transportation will suffer along with other state welfare and school spending. Really a shame, I think part of the fun is seeing the small towns along the northern route, but economically it just isn't going to work out. BNSF has pretty much dropped the marker that they'd be happy with a 40mph branch line, maybe even spun off to a short line operator now that the transcon is double tracked. At least from the outside, it appears they are being very reasonable with Amtrak to get them to move to the new route.


----------



## George Harris

VentureForth said:


> I think Amtrak's preference is to stay put. But financially, it will be nearly impossible. Amtrak will capitulate and join the extremely busy transcon if no one else ponies up money to maintain Class I standards.


What we are actually talking here in track class is that defined by the FRA. Class 3 = 60P/40F, Class 4 = 80P/60F, Class 5 = 90P/80F.

By the way, these numbers also explain why BNSF is content to continue allowing 90 mph passenger service west of Albuquerque. If they want to run 70 mph freight, the track must be maintained to Class 5, so there is nothing extra in the way of track maintenance to allow the passenger trains 90 mph. Before someone gets all exicted about saying that can be done in many other places, let's not forget that there are significant signal system costs to go above 79 mph. The facilities are already in place and have been for many years on the tracks where the Southwest Chief is cu.rently allowed 90 mph, but not on many (all?) of the other lines allowing 70 mph freightsw


----------



## George Harris

MikeM said:


> The current governor is a protege of the Koch brothers,


Let's don't go down the political opinion and name calling drain.


----------



## amtkstn

Where the chief is allowed 90 MPH still has to have a working ATS system in place. They are only a few seqments where it still in effect. BNSF freights get no good out of it and it also dates from the 1930's.


----------



## WICT106

NETrainfan said:


> How important is it for Amtrak to make this change?
> 
> Are there many people wanting to keep the present route?


One thing to keep in mind is the Scout use to get to Philmont. The train stops in Raton, NM. For the past couple of decades, many Scouts' first exposure to train travel was on the Chief, on the way to and from Philmont. I think exposure such as this, and other train rides, are important if we are to have new passengers, younger train advocates, and more folks, riding trains. I was a bit fortunate in that one of my assistant Scoutmasters during my youth insisted on taking the train when practical for High Adventure trips. It meant that we traveled from WI to FL by train, as well as taking the train to and from Philmont. by taking the train to High Adventure trips such as Philmont, it can create an interest in train travel that lasts into one's adulthood. While the overall ridership and passenger volume may not change with the addition of service to Lubbock and Amarillo TX, the number of poeple exposed to train travel in the Scout days will most certainly decline. What I'm saying is that if the Chief is rerouted off of the Raton Pass line, the Scout business will evaporate. This may result in a drastic reduction of future train passengers and train supporters.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

WICT106 said:


> NETrainfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How important is it for Amtrak to make this change?
> 
> Are there many people wanting to keep the present route?
> 
> 
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is the Scout use to get to Philmont. The train stops in Raton, NM. For the past couple of decades, many Scouts' first exposure to train travel was on the Chief, on the way to and from Philmont. I think exposure such as this, and other train rides, are important if we are to have new passengers, younger train advocates, and more folks, riding trains. I was a bit fortunate in that one of my assistant Scoutmasters during my youth insisted on taking the train when practical for High Adventure trips. It meant that we traveled from WI to FL by train, as well as taking the train to and from Philmont. by taking the train to High Adventure trips such as Philmont, it can create an interest in train travel that lasts into one's adulthood. While the overall ridership and passenger volume may not change with the addition of service to Lubbock and Amarillo TX, the number of poeple exposed to train travel in the Scout days will most certainly decline. What I'm saying is that if the Chief is rerouted off of the Raton Pass line, the Scout business will evaporate. This may result in a drastic reduction of future train passengers and train supporters.
Click to expand...

It won't happen just because of Philmont. There's other ways to Raton, and nobody will fund maintainence of the line. The SWC has a 90% chance of being rerouted. Don't get your hopes up too high. The Transcon is simply a better line.


----------



## Nathanael

George Harris said:


> The facilities are already in place and have been for many years on the tracks where the Southwest Chief is cu.rently allowed 90 mph, but not on many (all?) of the other lines allowing 70 mph freightsw


However, the "PTC mandate" is going to require ATS along most of these lines on December 15, 2015 in any case. Wwhich should release the 79 mph speed limit and allow 90 mph operation on a number of the busier mainlines; I would expect higher speeds on the Lake Shore Limited, Empire Builder, and Crescent routes, for instance. (On routes like that of the Cardinal, however, the track isn't maintained for 70mph freight.)

The Scout business is not going to be nearly enough to pay to keep the SW Chief on its current route.

Back when Richardson (D) was governor, he was going to buy the New Mexico part of the Raton Pass line -- which is no longer used for freight at all -- but his successor Martinez ® actually reneged on the deal, sparking lawsuits. (And wasting, IIRC, $15 million in "earnest money" in order to save $5 million -- I think I have the numbers right but I could be misremembering). Martinez isn't up for election until November 2014. Amtrak told the states they have to commit to funding the route by the end of 2014 in order to preserve it; that clearly won't happen in New Mexico. Judging by what MikeM says, it won't happen in Kansas. So unless Colorado suddenly decides that the route is of paramount interest, which seems unlikely, it's going away.

Now, it seems clear that Amtrak will continue to serve Albuquerque (going north to ABQ and then south again out of it). The greater worry I have is -- will anyone bother to open stations in Amarillo and Wichita? If stations are opened in those two cities, I think the patronage would be substantial, and I think the awareness of rail travel would go up significantly in those highly populated areas, and I think it would be an all-around improvement. But if the train blows through without stopping... that would suck. There are at least *some* businessmen and activists pushing to get a station in Wichita, but I've heard *nothing, zilch, nada* from Amarillo.


----------



## BNSFboy

Nathanael said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The facilities are already in place and have been for many years on the tracks where the Southwest Chief is cu.rently allowed 90 mph, but not on many (all?) of the other lines allowing 70 mph freightsw
> 
> 
> 
> However, the "PTC mandate" is going to require ATS along most of these lines on December 15, 2015 in any case. Wwhich should release the 79 mph speed limit and allow 90 mph operation on a number of the busier mainlines; I would expect higher speeds on the Lake Shore Limited, Empire Builder, and Crescent routes, for instance. (On routes like that of the Cardinal, however, the track isn't maintained for 70mph freight.)
> 
> The Scout business is not going to be nearly enough to pay to keep the SW Chief on its current route.
> 
> Back when Richardson (D) was governor, he was going to buy the New Mexico part of the Raton Pass line -- which is no longer used for freight at all -- but his successor Martinez ® actually reneged on the deal, sparking lawsuits. (And wasting, IIRC, $15 million in "earnest money" in order to save $5 million -- I think I have the numbers right but I could be misremembering). Martinez isn't up for election until November 2014. Amtrak told the states they have to commit to funding the route by the end of 2014 in order to preserve it; that clearly won't happen in New Mexico. Judging by what MikeM says, it won't happen in Kansas. So unless Colorado suddenly decides that the route is of paramount interest, which seems unlikely, it's going away.
> 
> Now, it seems clear that Amtrak will continue to serve Albuquerque (going north to ABQ and then south again out of it). The greater worry I have is -- will anyone bother to open stations in Amarillo and Wichita? If stations are opened in those two cities, I think the patronage would be substantial, and I think the awareness of rail travel would go up significantly in those highly populated areas, and I think it would be an all-around improvement. But if the train blows through without stopping... that would suck. There are at least *some* businessmen and activists pushing to get a station in Wichita, but I've heard *nothing, zilch, nada* from Amarillo.
Click to expand...

I live very close to Amarillo, and know that there is significant available ridership in Amarillo and the surrounding area. As for the station, there is no reason to open a station if they don't have definitive proof that the SWC will roll through Amarillo or not. As soon as they know a station will be built or additions to the existing station. The station platform lies on the mainline but it is very feasible for #3 and #4 to stop on the main line because Amtrak would take about the same to a little more time than it would take for a freight train to change crews. The owner of the station has even told Amtrak that he would let them use the station before, so i wouldn't say Amarillo being quiet about, they are just waiting to see what happens


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure that when the routing is comfirmed that Wichita and Amarillo will get some stations ready. There's too much pax to miss out.


----------



## VentureForth

I agree. The defacto scenario is that the train WILL be rerouted. $100 Mil + $10 Mil per year is steep for cash strapped states, and their respective departments of transportation have said so in a memo to Amtrak. The problem that I see is that even if they keep the Transcon up to Class 5 standards, the line is so busy that it's doubtful that Amtrak will be able to leapfrog around the freight traffic, relegating their speed to the freight max. When I lived in New Mexico, I would hang out in Belen and train watch. There were often 4-5 trains in the yard just waiting for a position in the constant stream of traffic. Granted, that was while Abo Canyon was still single track, but still the fact remains that it will be difficult to actually let Amtrak keep max "P" speeds when it is stuffed between "F"s.


----------



## Notelvis

I agree with those who put the chance of a reroute at over 90%.

I was on the SWC Albuquerque-Chicago with my family this past July and was surprised by how much slower the train was moving through certain areas...... slow orders around Lamy, the trip over Raton Pass itself..... compared to trips on the Chief just 5 and 10 years ago.

The more time passes without any heavy maintenance being done on the line, the more costly it will be to bring it up to acceptable standards later. The traditional passenger route over Raton Pass is very much on borrowed time.

I can even envision a scenario where a major washout somewhere in Northern New Mexico forces the Chief to 'detour' via the transcon sooner than 2016 and when all things are considered, the detour simply becomes permanent with a handful of temporary passenger shelters hastily put in place along the transcon.


----------



## jis

Nathanael said:


> However, the "PTC mandate" is going to require ATS along most of these lines on December 15, 2015 in any case. Wwhich should release the 79 mph speed limit and allow 90 mph operation on a number of the busier mainlines; I would expect higher speeds on the Lake Shore Limited, Empire Builder, and Crescent routes, for instance. (On routes like that of the Cardinal, however, the track isn't maintained for 70mph freight.)


I think you are in for severe disappointment. Since PTC is not going to retime crossing gates, and CSX, NS or BNSFisn't going to do it unless paid for by someone else. LSL, Crescent and EB will continue to run at exactly the speed at which it runs now, PTC or not.


----------



## SarahZ

When we were on the SWC in November, the crew talked as if it's a definite. Our SCA made announcements between La Junta and Raton, teaching us the history of the area. She told us to hang onto our route guides and timetables as souvenirs, as this route wouldn't be around much longer. She didn't get into politics; she just said that it cost a lot to maintain the tracks, so Amtrak would likely move to a new route and BNSF would use the current route for their coal trains.


----------



## abcnews

So does the S W Chief reach 90 mph between Chicago & Albuquerque?

And how much longer do you think we can ride the current route through Raton Pass?


----------



## Notelvis

abcnews said:


> So does the S W Chief reach 90 mph between Chicago & Albuquerque?
> 
> And how much longer do you think we can ride the current route through Raton Pass?


At most three more years...... but quite possibly less if some disruption (ie: washout) deemed too costly to bother with occurs.


----------



## abcnews

On the current route, where would you say are the points of track that the Southwest Chief can run at speeds up to 90mph?

Or is most of the route 90 mph? We plan to take the Chief in early April. Just wondering where the top speed zones will be....


----------



## SarahZ

I used my GPS last time and noticed 90 mph through portions of western IL, north central MO, and KS. The overnight through KS is pretty quick, and the train rocks and rolls.

There are several long stretches of 65-75 mph; the average speed for the entire trip was 60 mph.

The CO and northern NM portions are sometimes mind-numbingly slow. We were going approx. 9 mph through the Raton and Glorieta area, sometimes hitting a whopping 19 mph. 

Keep in mind our trip is always CHI to ABQ. Past ABQ, I'm not sure where the 90 mph stretches are.


----------



## abcnews

Yes - we are going CHI to ABQ - but we may change our tickets to be Lamy to Santa Fe, since we plan to stay in Santa Fe. Was not sure if we should stay on the train for that last hour? I hate to miss the station in Albuquerque and the tradition there. Also has a car rental counter which is nice for getting in and out quickly..

What are your thoughts on that last segment from Lamy to ABQ? I know we would miss seeing Sandia Peak too.


----------



## VentureForth

I used to make point runs between ABQ and Lamy. I enjoyed it, but after going through Raton Pass to Lamy, you won't miss too much more. If you are encumbered by luggage, I recommend the Lamy - Santa Fe shuttle from either direction. If you are interested in mileage and railroading, go into ABQ, experience the atmosphere there, and take the NM Railrunner Express back up to Santa Fe. Only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the back tracking to Santa Fe will be on the same rail.

Now, keep in mind - you can book your trip to Santa Fe through Lamy and just take the NM Railrunner Express down to ABQ & back (or heck - take it all the way to Belen; there's a nice coffee shop there), but you will likely miss the platform vendors as they are only there while Amtrak is in the station.


----------



## amtkstn

When I rode out last April there were burst of 90 MPH for about five or ten miles at a time. It is quite a rush when you blast past a freight on the other main track. The 90 MPH running allows the Chief to get into LA early most days.


----------



## cirdan

From a purely operations point of view, I can imagine that the up side of Raton Pass is that there are no other trains so there's not much that can slow the SWC down apart from itself.

So even if from a purely running-time perspective the Transcon route is equivalent, how is it from the point of view of reliability versus conflicts.

I was on a road-trip with a railfan friend through NM some years ago and this trip took us broadly parallel to the transcon and we saw plenty of trains, which was nice, but less pleasantly we saw quite a few that weren't moving. That doesn't bode well for the SWC. Of course I don't know if this was typical or if BNSF was having a bad day.


----------



## printman2000

VentureForth said:


> The problem that I see is that even if they keep the Transcon up to Class 5 standards, the line is so busy that it's doubtful that Amtrak will be able to leapfrog around the freight traffic, relegating their speed to the freight max.


Maybe I am wrong here, but shouldn't the freight traffic be just about the same on this segment of the transcon as it is on all the rest of the transcon?


----------



## BNSFboy

printman2000 said:


> Maybe I am wrong here, but shouldn't the freight traffic be just about the same on this segment of the transcon as it is on all the rest of the transcon?


It should except for a few trains coming in and out of the Red River sub,the line that goes to Lubbock and another line that pulles off of the transcon at Clovis.


----------



## VentureForth

BNSFboy said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I am wrong here, but shouldn't the freight traffic be just about the same on this segment of the transcon as it is on all the rest of the transcon?
> 
> 
> 
> It should except for a few trains coming in and out of the Red River sub,the line that goes to Lubbock and another line that pulles off of the transcon at Clovis.
Click to expand...

There's just gonna be a whole lot more Transcon. Right now, there is minimal traffic between Belen and Topeka. True, once they join the transcon at Dailies Junction in Los Lunas, it's the same ol' Transcon from there West. After the reroute, it'll be busy Transcon all the way from Topeka to LA.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

It's not that busy and the double-track will definately help. There's less booming traffic on the Southern Transcon and reliability should be fine.


----------



## MAW66

Sorcha said:


> I used my GPS last time and noticed 90 mph through portions of western IL, north central MO, and KS. The overnight through KS is pretty quick, and the train rocks and rolls.
> 
> There are several long stretches of 65-75 mph; the average speed for the entire trip was 60 mph.
> 
> The CO and northern NM portions are sometimes mind-numbingly slow. We were going approx. 9 mph through the Raton and Glorieta area, sometimes hitting a whopping 19 mph.
> 
> Keep in mind our trip is always CHI to ABQ. Past ABQ, I'm not sure where the 90 mph stretches are.



I'm surprised to hear of the Chief running 90mph in Illinois... thought Illinois was 79mph max. Bet he was speeding!  I last rode the Chief in December 2007 from Topeka (KS) to Flagstaff (AZ) and back. The speeds in western Kansas and eastern Colorado had not yet been downgraded to 60; it was still 79, and the ride was pretty bumpy. LaJunta (CO) to Albuquerque (NM) was 79mph, excepting the passes. Once west of ABQ, the Chief gets back up to 90mph. IIRC, the train does 90 all the way out to Barstow (CA), with some exceptions (e.g., Holbrook, approaching Flagstaff westbound, running between Flagstaff and Williams Junction, etc.). Barstow to LA is basically 70-79mph, I believe, excepting Cajon Pass.

I've ridden this train the entire route, both directions, but it was back in the days when the train ran 90mph nearly the entire trip, including Illinois. Those were the days! Westbound was in August 1992, with Pepsi-Can Dash-8s and F40s for power. Eastbound was in June 2001, with 4 P42s and miles and miles of boxcars and RoadRailers on the back. Interesting times.


----------



## Guest

VentureForth said:


> I agree. The defacto scenario is that the train WILL be rerouted. $100 Mil + $10 Mil per year is steep for cash strapped states, and their respective departments of transportation have said so in a memo to Amtrak. The problem that I see is that even if they keep the Transcon up to Class 5 standards, the line is so busy that it's doubtful that Amtrak will be able to leapfrog around the freight traffic, relegating their speed to the freight max.


BNSF has been pretty good at leapfrogging the Empire Builder and California Zephyr around freights -- on double-tracked sections with sidings. Not so much on single-tracked sections.



> When I lived in New Mexico, I would hang out in Belen and train watch. There were often 4-5 trains in the yard just waiting for a position in the constant stream of traffic. Granted, that was while Abo Canyon was still single track, but still the fact remains that it will be difficult to actually let Amtrak keep max "P" speeds when it is stuffed between "F"s.


If the Transcon is *fully* double-tracked and a few sidings (triple track) are installed in key locations, I think it will be quite do-able. believe the plan *is* to double-track the Transcon completely; does anyone remember which parts are not double-tracked right now? If there remain single-track bottlenecks, it won't be possible. Perhaps the most annoying area will be the vicinity of Wichita, where BNSF currently uses "directional running" which Amtrak can't use; after reading the report on the proposed Heartland Flyer extension, it seems clear more double-tracking and triple-tracking from Mulvane to Newton in the vicinity of Wichita would be highly desirable.


----------



## BNSFboy

Guest said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. The defacto scenario is that the train WILL be rerouted. $100 Mil + $10 Mil per year is steep for cash strapped states, and their respective departments of transportation have said so in a memo to Amtrak. The problem that I see is that even if they keep the Transcon up to Class 5 standards, the line is so busy that it's doubtful that Amtrak will be able to leapfrog around the freight traffic, relegating their speed to the freight max.
> 
> 
> 
> BNSF has been pretty good at leapfrogging the Empire Builder and California Zephyr around freights -- on double-tracked sections with sidings. Not so much on single-tracked sections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I lived in New Mexico, I would hang out in Belen and train watch. There were often 4-5 trains in the yard just waiting for a position in the constant stream of traffic. Granted, that was while Abo Canyon was still single track, but still the fact remains that it will be difficult to actually let Amtrak keep max "P" speeds when it is stuffed between "F"s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Transcon is *fully* double-tracked and a few sidings (triple track) are installed in key locations, I think it will be quite do-able. believe the plan *is* to double-track the Transcon completely; does anyone remember which parts are not double-tracked right now? If there remain single-track bottlenecks, it won't be possible. Perhaps the most annoying area will be the vicinity of Wichita, where BNSF currently uses "directional running" which Amtrak can't use; after reading the report on the proposed Heartland Flyer extension, it seems clear more double-tracking and triple-tracking from Mulvane to Newton in the vicinity of Wichita would be highly desirable.
Click to expand...

I do know that it is double tracked from Waynoka, OK through Amarillo, to Belen, NM


----------



## SarahZ

MAW66 said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used my GPS last time and noticed 90 mph through portions of western IL, north central MO, and KS. The overnight through KS is pretty quick, and the train rocks and rolls.
> 
> There are several long stretches of 65-75 mph; the average speed for the entire trip was 60 mph.
> 
> The CO and northern NM portions are sometimes mind-numbingly slow. We were going approx. 9 mph through the Raton and Glorieta area, sometimes hitting a whopping 19 mph.
> 
> Keep in mind our trip is always CHI to ABQ. Past ABQ, I'm not sure where the 90 mph stretches are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised to hear of the Chief running 90mph in Illinois... thought Illinois was 79mph max. Bet he was speeding!
Click to expand...

I could be wrong about IL. I wish I had a breakdown on my GPS, but I just have the entire route with the average speed. I remember flying through western IL, but we may have been going 79.  My GPS has been wrong before too, especially when I'm walking. (I do not walk 45 mph.)


----------



## yarrow

abcnews said:


> Yes - we are going CHI to ABQ - but we may change our tickets to be Lamy to Santa Fe, since we plan to stay in Santa Fe. Was not sure if we should stay on the train for that last hour? I hate to miss the station in Albuquerque and the tradition there. Also has a car rental counter which is nice for getting in and out quickly..
> 
> What are your thoughts on that last segment from Lamy to ABQ? I know we would miss seeing Sandia Peak too.


the station in abq isn't the old alvarado station but a new bland series of waiting rooms. looks kind of like the old station from the outside. the station in lamy is the old station and is really cool. i don't recall car rental in the station at abq. we have always taken the swc to abq and rented from enterprise which is just a few blocks away and will pick you up, i believe. the shuttle from lamy is expensive, imho so i would go to abq and rent or take railrunner.


----------



## SarahZ

These are pictures I took during two different trips.

*Albuquerque:*







*Lamy:*


----------



## jphjaxfl

Keep in mind that rail lines with frequent heavy freight trains get worn out more quickly than rail lines with passenger trains and less frequent lighter freights. If Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico could fund some maintenance along with Amtrak to the existing line, it might make for a smoother passenger experience. States have funded highway maintenance for years. It would not bankrupt them to fund some rail maintenance to keep passenger train service to smaller towns that may lack alternatives.


----------



## MikeM

I think the deal breaker is that most of the passenger route is jointed rail, last replaced in the late 1940's. It's pretty much at the end of it's life, and since there hasn't been much major maintenance for a number of years, upgrading to CWR would be pretty pricey. Not to mention signal systems (including some semaphores) that are most likely due to be upgraded.

Although I suspect both Kansas and New Mexico governments will make the appropriate sad sounds and look for federal support and assistance, any real state funding to cover incremental maintenance will not materialize. Kansas specifically is currently looking to cut more out of the state budget after last year, where a number of tax reductions passed the state legislature. A block of moderate republicans that used to provide a swing vote on some matters like this were primaried out of office last year, so what is left is pretty conservative. I really would recommend taking any last Raton Pass trips in the next year or so if you want to see it before it goes freight only. There may be some limited spend on consultants to look at the route, but that will be that.


----------



## VentureForth

I'll tell you what - when the Railrunner first started, it was going 79 on jointed track between ABQ and Bernalillo - under SEMAPHORES. 

It truly was as smooth as most welded track I've been on.

My shameless plug for my ABQ and Lamy pictures...

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/4/6/9646.1154048400.jpg

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/1/4/4/8144.1104180300.jpg


----------



## TVRM610

jis said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the "PTC mandate" is going to require ATS along most of these lines on December 15, 2015 in any case. Wwhich should release the 79 mph speed limit and allow 90 mph operation on a number of the busier mainlines; I would expect higher speeds on the Lake Shore Limited, Empire Builder, and Crescent routes, for instance. (On routes like that of the Cardinal, however, the track isn't maintained for 70mph freight.)
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are in for severe disappointment. Since PTC is not going to retime crossing gates, and CSX, NS or BNSFisn't going to do it unless paid for by someone else. LSL, Crescent and EB will continue to run at exactly the speed at which it runs now, PTC or not.
Click to expand...

. I disagree... I think those trains will see higher speeds after PTC. Not everywhere, and yes Amtrak will may have to put in some money to retime crossings and such but that doesn't mean it won't happen in some places.


----------



## Nathanael

BNSFboy said:


> I do know that it is double tracked from Waynoka, OK through Amarillo, to Belen, NM


Thanks!

Google maps is my friend (though it may be out of date). Going northeast from Waynoka, OK, single-tracking starts at bridge at 36.708431, -98.785817, and double-tracking resumes at 36.775394, -98.725077. Single-tracking resumes north of Alva, with a long river bridge which is probably really expensive to double.	Northeast of Alba there is what looks like a prepared second trackbed including bridges, but no second track (except for two sidings) for a long way. The second track kicks in at 26.912650, -98.563867 and continues all the way to slightly north or Mulvane. There's actually a couple of sections with three tracks.

(Yes, it was an absurdly self-indulgent use of time to follow the whole route on Google Maps. But Now You Know.)

I'm guessing BNSF is trying to complete the double-tracking from Mulvane to Waynoka. It makes plenty of sense for Amtrak to avoid moving until it is all done. The section from Mulvane through Newton and Newton is going to be an issue for the westbound because Amtrak will be going "against the flow of traffic" on the single-tracked line. The rest of it, well, it should cut significant time off the current schedule. More time will be saved with PTC, and if the train moves in 2016 PTC will probably be in place already.

Regarding crossing gates, the current trend when gates are replaced is to put in "constant time warning" gates, which the freight railroads want anyway, so that the warning time is the same for a 20 mph coal train and a 70 mph intermodal. (This means people in cars don't have to sit for long periods after the gate drops waiting for that coal train to show up.) Once those are in, the 90 mph timing is not an issue. These also get funded from road money for road safety. They'll get installed though it make take years.


----------



## cirdan

Nathanael said:


> I'm guessing BNSF is trying to complete the double-tracking from Mulvane to Waynoka. It makes plenty of sense for Amtrak to avoid moving until it is all done. The section from Mulvane through Newton and Newton is going to be an issue for the westbound because Amtrak will be going "against the flow of traffic" on the single-tracked line. The rest of it, well, it should cut significant time off the current schedule. More time will be saved with PTC, and if the train moves in 2016 PTC will probably be in place already..


Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm not familiar with that location. Why can't Amtrak just follow the flow of freight? Even if passenger stops are affected, I think it wouldn't be the first or only station to be served in one direction only.


----------



## gswager

In New Mexico, there are two areas which have single tracks. One is bridge that goes over Pecos River, in Ft Sumner. Other one is dirt filled flyover over UP tracks, west of Vaughn. It'll take a lot of dirt to make it wider.

Latest double tracks expansion was in Abo Canyon which it was completed last year or two.


----------



## Eric S

Serving stations in one direction only would be a rather undesireable situation. (I believe the _Canadian_ does this on a stretch in BC, and the _Texas Eagle_ did this for a period of time in AR & TX, perhaps.) For very minor stations, perhaps this would not be too big a problem. However, one of the potential stops affected would be Wichita, which in terms of population would be one of the largest _Southwest Chief_ stations (although the timing of the stops would likely reduce potential ridership).


----------



## cirdan

Eric S said:


> Serving stations in one direction only would be a rather undesireable situation. (I believe the _Canadian_ does this on a stretch in BC, and the _Texas Eagle_ did this for a period of time in AR & TX, perhaps.) For very minor stations, perhaps this would not be too big a problem. However, one of the potential stops affected would be Wichita, which in terms of population would be one of the largest _Southwest Chief_ stations (although the timing of the stops would likely reduce potential ridership).


Thanks.

Then it sounds to me as though that could potentially be a major course of delay, esepcially if the dispatcher isn't totally on top of it.


----------



## Nathanael

cirdan said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing BNSF is trying to complete the double-tracking from Mulvane to Waynoka. It makes plenty of sense for Amtrak to avoid moving until it is all done. The section from Mulvane through Newton and Newton is going to be an issue for the westbound because Amtrak will be going "against the flow of traffic" on the single-tracked line. The rest of it, well, it should cut significant time off the current schedule. More time will be saved with PTC, and if the train moves in 2016 PTC will probably be in place already..
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm not familiar with that location. Why can't Amtrak just follow the flow of freight? Even if passenger stops are affected, I think it wouldn't be the first or only station to be served in one direction only.
Click to expand...

Serving Wichita only in one direction? No, not a good idea.

Theoretically Amtrak's westbound could reverse in Wichita and follow the flow of traffic the rest of the time (Newton isn't that important if Wichita is served.) This would still make double-tracking from Wichita to Mulvane desirable, though.


----------



## Nathanael

gswager said:


> In New Mexico, there are two areas which have single tracks. One is bridge that goes over Pecos River, in Ft Sumner. Other one is dirt filled flyover over UP tracks, west of Vaughn. It'll take a lot of dirt to make it wider.


I just looked at these on Google maps. The actual UP flyover appears to be double-tracked, but there's a long section EAST of Vaughn which isn't. Anyway, much the same situation.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

I can't help but wonder how much impact the opening, in 2015 or 2016, of the newly expanded Panama Canal will have on the Transcon. When you read BNSF's website about the BNSF Midcon they say



> This role supporting import traffic will become even more dynamic when the Panama Canal expansion is completed in 2014.


but then here BNSF says expanded canal won't hurt West Coast ports. That seems hard to completely believe, as this article states:



> In a December 2010 article The New York Times echoed the general consensus that the project will lead to "the biggest shift in the freight business since the 1950s, when sea-faring ships began carrying goods in uniform metal containers."


 That is quite an impact. Thus it seems fairly easy to see the high stakes involved for BNSF. The expansion of the Transcon may well have to do with remaining competitive, as its cheif advantage is speed, vs going through the canal. At the same time it would seem that freight on the Transcon could be reduced when the canal opens, therby possibly reducing the impact the SWC would have on freight traffic.
What all this means for the SWC reroute is obviously unclear and is anybody's guess, but it is a factor which should not be overlooked.


----------



## henryj

Nathanael said:


> gswager said:
> 
> 
> 
> In New Mexico, there are two areas which have single tracks. One is bridge that goes over Pecos River, in Ft Sumner. Other one is dirt filled flyover over UP tracks, west of Vaughn. It'll take a lot of dirt to make it wider.
> 
> 
> 
> I just looked at these on Google maps. The actual UP flyover appears to be double-tracked, but there's a long section EAST of Vaughn which isn't. Anyway, much the same situation.
Click to expand...

The actual flyover is single track. I usually stop there on my trips to Colorado and stay at the Belaire Motel and listen to trains going by all night. The best railfan spot, in my opinion, is down by the UP tracks where you can watch the BNSF rolling by overhead or the UP right beside you. To access it you take Walnut St off Highway 54/60 all the way to the railroad tracks and turn left. Follow that as far as it goes and turn right over the tracks. Take the gravel road to the left which takes you down to the UP tracks. I usually just park somewhere down there trying not to trespass on UP property and sit and watch the show. Since the flyover is single track, it makes a bottle neck. BNSF runs trains in groups when it's really busy, first one way, then the other. UP is not as busy but it's a crew change point so sometimes they have multiple trains down there. It can be a great photo location depending on the time of day and the weather. Great sunsets and sunrises and some great sky and clouds.


----------



## alanh

Not that I want to see it move, but I also think it's 90% or better that it will. It's just too much money to rehab the Raton line for two trains a day. As mentioned above, it's one of the few lines that still uses semaphore signals. BNSF had planned on replacing them, but cancelled it when they decided to abandon the line instead. Railfans love them, but they're a maintenance headache. Too many moving parts, they're worn out after decades of use, and replacement parts have to be scavenged or made custom.

Passenger trains are limited to 59 in "dark" (signalless) territory. Even though there's no other traffic on the line, signals are also used to detect broken rails or misaligned switches.

So the line is really suffering from deferred maintenance. Bringing it back up to full speed will cost more than anyone involved has to spend.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

alanh said:


> Not that I want to see it move, but I also think it's 90% or better that it will. It's just too much money to rehab the Raton line for two trains a day. As mentioned above, it's one of the few lines that still uses semaphore signals. BNSF had planned on replacing them, but cancelled it when they decided to abandon the line instead. Railfans love them, but they're a maintenance headache. Too many moving parts, they're worn out after decades of use, and replacement parts have to be scavenged or made custom.
> 
> Passenger trains are limited to 59 in "dark" (signalless) territory. Even though there's no other traffic on the line, signals are also used to detect broken rails or misaligned switches.
> 
> So the line is really suffering from deferred maintenance. Bringing it back up to full speed will cost more than anyone involved has to spend.


I agree exactly. The Transcon should be much faster than the current route and the latter will just get slower and slower without maintainence. It is as if running on an abandoned line already.


----------



## henryj

I would think the track from Lamy to Trinidad would remain in place for future Denver to Albuquerque service someday. But Trinidad to La Junta and east to Newton will just be freight only. Should the coal traffice around Raton and Trinidad come back this could all change.


----------



## George Harris

henryj said:


> I would think the track from Lamy to Trinidad would remain in place for future Denver to Albuquerque service someday. But Trinidad to La Junta and east to Newton will just be freight only. Should the coal traffice around Raton and Trinidad come back this could all change.


Don't confuse talk with action. Denver to Albuquerque is talk only.

To get the run time down to something reasonable will take A LOT OF WORK and not just the relatively cheap upgrades in track condition north of Lamy up to Trinidad and on to Pueblo. The alignment does not allow for a run time competitive with driving. An then there is Pueblo to Denver. Again, an alinment not permitting high speed, but an issue requiring major work is capacity improvement. The line is near overwhelmed with coal trains. It manages to function because all are moving at the same general speed. Introduce fast trains, forget it unless you are willing to build a new track full distance.

Saying this to say that any realistic cost analysis will kill thoughts of passenger service between Denver and Albuquerque completely unless and until someone with a large checkbook thinks there is sufficient traffic for an all new passenger line.


----------



## henryj

I guess what I am saying, George, is that no one is going to pull up the rails when Amtrak moves. It will all just sit there like the UP's Tennessee Pass line, growing weeds, until someone decides to do something with it, which of course they will someday. On the joint line north of Pueblo they will just restore the double track, much of which has already been restored. There is abandoned ROW all along the route north of Trinidad. It's just a matter of money and priorities. How much do they want to spend on I25 vs passenger rail.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

henryj said:


> I would think the track from Lamy to Trinidad would remain in place for future Denver to Albuquerque service someday. But Trinidad to La Junta and east to Newton will just be freight only. Should the coal traffice around Raton and Trinidad come back this could all change.


That line Newton-Trinidad won't just be freight only, it'll get abandoned.


----------



## henryj

Swadian Hardcore said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think the track from Lamy to Trinidad would remain in place for future Denver to Albuquerque service someday. But Trinidad to La Junta and east to Newton will just be freight only. Should the coal traffice around Raton and Trinidad come back this could all change.
> 
> 
> 
> That line Newton-Trinidad won't just be freight only, it'll get abandoned.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you look at the BNSF detailed map, the most likely abandonment would be between Trinidad and La Junta. Coal trains use the Pueblo to Las Animas line every day. Between Las Animas and Dodge City would be questionable depending on how much they use it. They have an alternate route via an affiliated short line between Dodge City and Springfield they could use or they could just use trackage rights on UP to Stratford or Dalhart. Just depends on how important Colorado traffic is to them from the KC gateway. They of course have their own line between Chicago and Denver. It would also depend of whether coal production from the Trinidad/Raton area resumes and where the market is.


----------



## George Harris

henryj said:


> I guess what I am saying, George, is that no one is going to pull up the rails when Amtrak moves. It will all just sit there like the UP's Tennessee Pass line, growing weeds, until someone decides to do something with it, which of course they will someday. On the joint line north of Pueblo they will just restore the double track, much of which has already been restored. There is abandoned ROW all along the route north of Trinidad. It's just a matter of money and priorities. How much do they want to spend on I25 vs passenger rail.


I think you are probably right. Most railroad companies appear to have learned that letting a line set and grow weeds and trees on the thought that they might someday want to use it again is the better choice, unless the tax collector makes letting it set too expensive a proposition.


----------



## Gingee

This isn't anything soon is it?


----------



## gswager

Gingee said:


> This isn't anything soon is it?


It will most likely be relocated in 2016 if the line is not being rebuilt.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

henryj said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think the track from Lamy to Trinidad would remain in place for future Denver to Albuquerque service someday. But Trinidad to La Junta and east to Newton will just be freight only. Should the coal traffice around Raton and Trinidad come back this could all change.
> 
> 
> 
> That line Newton-Trinidad won't just be freight only, it'll get abandoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if you look at the BNSF detailed map, the most likely abandonment would be between Trinidad and La Junta. Coal trains use the Pueblo to Las Animas line every day. Between Las Animas and Dodge City would be questionable depending on how much they use it. They have an alternate route via an affiliated short line between Dodge City and Springfield they could use or they could just use trackage rights on UP to Stratford or Dalhart. Just depends on how important Colorado traffic is to them from the KC gateway. They of course have their own line between Chicago and Denver. It would also depend of whether coal production from the Trinidad/Raton area resumes and where the market is.
Click to expand...

Why do they want to use that route if it's owned by the UP west of Pueblo? Turning north to Denver seems like a waste and turning south would be better off on the Transcon.


----------



## Nathanael

George Harris said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what I am saying, George, is that no one is going to pull up the rails when Amtrak moves. It will all just sit there like the UP's Tennessee Pass line, growing weeds, until someone decides to do something with it, which of course they will someday. On the joint line north of Pueblo they will just restore the double track, much of which has already been restored. There is abandoned ROW all along the route north of Trinidad. It's just a matter of money and priorities. How much do they want to spend on I25 vs passenger rail.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are probably right. Most railroad companies appear to have learned that letting a line set and grow weeds and trees on the thought that they might someday want to use it again is the better choice, unless the tax collector makes letting it set too expensive a proposition.
Click to expand...

The increasing value of scrap, and the resulting scrap thefts, have slowly been changing that. It now frequently makes sense for the metal parts to be lifted; it also makes sense for the ties to be lifted for resale. The ballast certainly isn't going anywhere.


----------



## henryj

Nathanel, who knows. The KCS recently rebuilt the former T&NO 'macaroni' line between Rosenberg and Victoria here in Texas. There was nothing left of it but the dirt embankment and they rebuilt it anyway with welded rail and concrete ties.


----------



## Gingee

Maybe some of the little towns will be glad to see it go?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Gingee said:


> Maybe some of the little towns will be glad to see it go?


Why?! It's part of their history, their culture. They must love that train coming through daily.


----------



## jphjaxfl

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Gingee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some of the little towns will be glad to see it go?
> 
> 
> 
> Why?! It's part of their history, their culture. They must love that train coming through daily.
Click to expand...




Swadian Hardcore said:


> Gingee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some of the little towns will be glad to see it go?
> 
> 
> 
> Why?! It's part of their history, their culture. They must love that train coming through daily.
Click to expand...

and there may not be any other public transportation through some of those towns.


----------



## amtkstn

The towns on the route have had service for over a 100 years.


----------



## VentureForth

OK - here are the stations that will lose their train if things keep going the way they are going (2012 Pax Count in Parenthesis):

*Kansas:*

Newton (14,131) - Wichita was the primary reason people got on and off here anyway. With Wichita being on the new route, I doubt that there will be furthur need to service Newton. Served by Greyhound.

Hutchinson (5,239) - Served by Greyhound.

Dodge City (5,174) - Served by Greyhound.

Garden CIty (7,887) - Served by Greyhound.

*Colorado:*

Lamar (1,936) - Served by Greyhound Express.

La Junta (6,566) - Served by Greyhound.

Trinidad (4,770) - Major destination for transgender patients. Served by Greyhound.

*New Mexico:*

Raton (16,292) - A tremendous loss for the Boy Scouts. Served by Greyhound.

Las Vegas (5,653) - Heritage location that will be a loss.

Lamy (12,589) - Station for access to Santa Fe. Doubt if the 14 people that live in Lamy could care one way or another. The one or two businesses that would have catered to the Amtrak crowd have been long since closed. Santa Fe to be accessible by rail via Railrunner from ABQ.

There is not a constitutional right to spend $20,000,000 per year to service ($100,000,000 for initial upgrades over 10 years, plus $10,000,000 upkeep). Let's raise the price for every ticket going in or out of the aforementioned 10 stations by $250 to cover that cost, and you'll be suprised how much that already anemic demand goes away.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

VentureForth said:


> There is not a constitutional right


There is not?. Since The House holds the purse-strings to spending on the Federal level, one could easily argue that if The House wants to spend money that way, and they can get the Senate and the POTUS to go along, it is their constitutional right.

Then there is the whole highway mindset in this country, where folks feel it is their God given right to drive anywhere, at anytime, and not have to wait in traffic.


----------



## NETrainfan

VentureForth- Thanks for the list.

Has anyone here taken the local train (Railrunner) from ABQ to Santa Fe?


----------



## VentureForth

I really want to. I have been on it from Belen to Bernalillo County and back several times, then I moved to Georgia before the rest of it was built.

There are lots of pictures on Railpictures.net. Not enough, in my humble opinon, but you can get a bit of idea of the median running it does along I-25 and the grade that it climbs.


----------



## AlanB

NETrainfan said:


> Has anyone here taken the local train (Railrunner) from ABQ to Santa Fe?


I've done that ride. Rather nice and train arrives right downtown at both ends.


----------



## gswager

NETrainfan said:


> Has anyone here taken the local train (Railrunner) from ABQ to Santa Fe?


I did rode on RailRunner. Actually, Santa Fe station is not in the downtown area. It's on the edge but it's an easy walk to either downtown or the capitol, 10 - 20 minutes walk. It has public transportation right in front of station. It's a pretty scenic ride along the Rio Grande River and its bosque, pueblos, and mountain view. Even it rides on I-25 corridor.


----------



## me_little_me

NETrainfan said:


> VentureForth- Thanks for the list.
> Has anyone here taken the local train (Railrunner) from ABQ to Santa Fe?


I have. Great ride. Great view. Love the cartoon-Roadrunner-like beep-beep.

At Santa Fe, you can walk to downtown (plaza) or take a free shuttle right to it. I wish they had it when I lived in ABQ.

http://s20.postimage.org/p61ykplr1/P1000152.jpg


----------



## SubwayNut

*Correction about Greyhound Service:*

The main bus route that follows the Southwest Chief through Kanas between Newton, Kansas and La Junta, Colorado isn't actually a Greyhound Bus, but Beeline Express operated by Prestigue Bus Lines (Website) and runs between Wichita and Pueblo (connecting to Greyhound in both those cities, Greyhound also handles ticketing services, hence why the bus stops look like regular Greyhound Stations according to Greyhound's Website), a different Beeline Route runs from Wichita to Salina which I believe is the only bus that stops in Newton.

I've ridden the BeeLine Express after getting off the Southwest Chief from La Junta to Pueblo last June, connecting to Greyhound from there up to Colorado Springs. (Blog Post about the adventure). The bus service and route began in November 2010 in response to massive Greyhound Cut-backs in previous years. It is sponsored and subsidized by the Kansas and Colorado Departments of Transportation and the bus I rode on was purchased using funds from the Recovery Act. The bus had the recovery act logo on the side.

Las Vegas, NM is a driver change (one driver sleeps on a bunk in the back) and rest stop on the Autobuses Americas that are basically the only buses going up and down I-25 from Denver, south to El Paso and into Mexico. It's even listed on the timetables as "DR CHANGE LAS VEGAS, NM"

I took this bus through the night once from Colorado Springs to Albuquerque and the stop was at an odd little gas station that I still remember had tons of liquor on display (standard at a gas station in New Mexico but I think I really noticed because I had gotten used to Colorado where the only place to buy liqour-except 3.2 beer is in a liquor)

Santa Fe, NM lacks any Greyhound service (the only way to get there is on NM Railrunner, which I have ridden and think is great) this isn't really a compliant, Greyhound closed its station in 2009.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

I though I was confused about that Greyhound service! Looking at this map, http://extranet.greyhound.com/revsup/schedules/pageset.html, there's no Greyhound runs to many of those places. But Prestige Lines works too, I guess.

Autobuses Americanos isn't actual Greyhound either, even though it's got the same owners.


----------



## Sleeper

VentureForth said:


> OK - here are the stations that will lose their train if things keep going the way they are going (2012 Pax Count in Parenthesis):
> *Kansas:*
> 
> Newton (14,131) - Wichita was the primary reason people got on and off here anyway. With Wichita being on the new route, I doubt that there will be furthur need to service Newton. Served by Greyhound.
> 
> Hutchinson (5,239) - Served by Greyhound.
> 
> Dodge City (5,174) - Served by Greyhound.
> 
> Garden CIty (7,887) - Served by Greyhound.
> 
> *Colorado:*
> 
> Lamar (1,936) - Served by Greyhound Express.
> 
> La Junta (6,566) - Served by Greyhound.
> 
> Trinidad (4,770) - Major destination for transgender patients. Served by Greyhound.
> 
> *New Mexico:*
> 
> Raton (16,292) - A tremendous loss for the Boy Scouts. Served by Greyhound.
> 
> Las Vegas (5,653) - Heritage location that will be a loss.
> 
> Lamy (12,589) - Station for access to Santa Fe. Doubt if the 14 people that live in Lamy could care one way or another. The one or two businesses that would have catered to the Amtrak crowd have been long since closed. Santa Fe to be accessible by rail via Railrunner from ABQ.


Compare this to possible stations on the southern route:

KANSAS:

Wichita (366,000)

OKLA.:

Alva (4800 and a university)

Woodward (12,300)

TEXAS:

Pampa (17,300)

Amarillo (187,000)

Hereford (14,500)

N. MEX.

Clovis (32,000)

Mountainair (1,100)

And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Sleeper said:


> And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?


_*Why*_ do you ask?  Why Oh Why? In ABQ.... there is a why. No need to back it all the way back, or transfer ABQ pax to the Rail Runner...

Okay, why ask? I'll crawl back into my cave on my own accord now... h34r:


----------



## AmtrakBlue

The Davy Crockett said:


> Sleeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?
> 
> 
> 
> _*Why*_ do you ask?  Why Oh Why? In ABQ.... there is a why. No need to back it all the way back, or transfer ABQ pax to the Rail Runner...
> 
> Okay, why ask? I'll crawl back into my cave on my own accord now... h34r:
Click to expand...

You drive a Honda?


----------



## The Davy Crockett

The Davy Crockett said:


> Sleeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?
> 
> 
> 
> _*Why*_ do you ask?  Why Oh Why? In ABQ.... there is a why. No need to back it all the way back, or transfer ABQ pax to the Rail Runner...
> 
> Okay, why ask? I'll crawl back into my cave on my own accord now... h34r:
Click to expand...

You drive a Honda?

No, but close :excl: Its a to*Y*ota!


----------



## Sleeper

Sleeper said:


> And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?


Engineer, the reason I ask this is because a westbound on the new route would get to Belen, go 30 miles north to ABQ, and almost 30 miles back south again to turn west at Dalies. I was not referring to backing the train vs. running it forward.


----------



## Nathanael

George Harris said:


> What we are actually talking here in track class is that defined by the FRA. Class 3 = 60P/40F, Class 4 = 80P/60F, Class 5 = 90P/80F.By the way, these numbers also explain why BNSF is content to continue allowing 90 mph passenger service west of Albuquerque. If they want to run 70 mph freight, the track must be maintained to Class 5, so there is nothing extra in the way of track maintenance to allow the passenger trains 90 mph. Before someone gets all exicted about saying that can be done in many other places, let's not forget that there are significant signal system costs to go above 79 mph. The facilities are already in place and have been for many years on the tracks where the Southwest Chief is cu.rently allowed 90 mph, but not on many (all?) of the other lines allowing 70 mph freightsw


However, the PTC mandate will require that such signal systems be installed on most of the mainlines in the country. The Class Is are trying to weasel out of the deadline, but they are unlikely to be able to do so, since it would require an act of Congress, and Congress is gridlocked. Also, people still remember Chatsworth, and Amtrak and Metrolink are going to finish installation well ahead of the deadline, showing that the freights are just foot-dragging for the purpose of increasing profits.

The freights have been foot-dragging on this since the 1930s, and it's frankly criminal. Eventually if they keep this up it'll catch up with them; if there's another Chatsworth *after* they flout the legal deadline, expect the government to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

So go ahead and get excited -- it can be done in many other places in a few years. (Most of the route of the Cardinal doesn't qualify as a mainline so expect no improvement there, but all the other long-distance trains spend most of their time on mainlines which are subject to the PTC mandate.)


----------



## gswager

Sleeper said:


> Sleeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?
> 
> 
> 
> Engineer, the reason I ask this is because a westbound on the new route would get to Belen, go 30 miles north to ABQ, and almost 30 miles back south again to turn west at Dalies. I was not referring to backing the train vs. running it forward.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, there are tracks in a shape of triangle. Tracks split just south of ABQ- going southwest to LA or south to Belen. From east heading to Belen, you either go north to ABQ or continue west to LA. From the west (in middle of nowhere) which is called "Dalies", you either go northwest to ABQ or continue heading east to Belen.

Using Belen as a stop for SWC is nearly impossible due to BNSF largest inspection yard on Transcon. NM RailRunner deadends at Belen station, nothing further south. SWC will continue go to ABQ has it had been for years during pre-Amtrak era.


----------



## Sleeper

gswager said:


> Sleeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sleeper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Engineer, the reason I ask this is because a westbound on the new route would get to Belen, go 30 miles north to ABQ, and almost 30 miles back south again to turn west at Dalies. I was not referring to backing the train vs. running it forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect, there are tracks in a shape of triangle. Tracks split just south of ABQ- going southwest to LA or south to Belen. From east heading to Belen, you either go north to ABQ or continue west to LA. From the west (in middle of nowhere) which is called "Dalies", you either go northwest to ABQ or continue heading east to Belen.
> 
> Using Belen as a stop for SWC is nearly impossible due to BNSF largest inspection yard on Transcon. NM RailRunner deadends at Belen station, nothing further south. SWC will continue go to ABQ has it had been for years during pre-Amtrak era.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation,

Sleeper


----------



## jis

Nathanael said:


> So go ahead and get excited -- it can be done in many other places in a few years. (Most of the route of the Cardinal doesn't qualify as a mainline so expect no improvement there, but all the other long-distance trains spend most of their time on mainlines which are subject to the PTC mandate.)


All I can say is dream on. Just because PTC can theoretically allow something does not mean that the host railroads will bother to allow it without extracting a pound or two of additional flesh.
CSX has already given NYDOT a long laundry list of things that will need to happen before they will allow 90mph on the water level route west of Schenectady over and above PTC, and it ain't cheap, though of course cheaper than anything higher than 90. As a matter of fact CSX has categorically told NYDOT that there is no way no how they will allow anything above 90mph unless the higher speed track is removed by at least 50 feet from their regular speed tracks.


----------



## VentureForth

Sleeper - As gswager pointed out, Belen is just way too busy to have something like the SWC make a stop. The train will continue to serve ABQ.

The Belen yard is so busy that they couldn't even work it out to get the Railrunner to cross three mainline tracks to get to the Harvey House. There is just no real estate available for a "platform" connection to the Railrunner from the BNSF Mainline - at least nothing that exists or wants to be built by anyone for any sort of money.

The other reason is because ABQ is a major service stop - somewhere on the order of 45 minutes or so. They wash windows, fill up the diesel, street vendors show off their wares, and much fun is had by all. This would not be possible in Belen. Maybe take on fuel, but it would be nothing special. And if the passenger train is treated like all the rest of the transcon trains getting a refuel, it would be no fun for the passengers.


----------



## rusty spike

I just received an Amtrak e-mail regarding a 30% discount for May travel on the "Raton Route" between KCY and ABQ. Looks like Amtrak is triying to spike the numbers on this route to create more interest in the states involved. Any other thoughts on why they would do this? :unsure:


----------



## printman2000

rusty spike said:


> I just received an Amtrak e-mail regarding a 30% discount for May travel on the "Raton Route" between KCY and ABQ. Looks like Amtrak is triying to spike the numbers on this route to create more interest in the states involved. Any other thoughts on why they would do this? :unsure:


Would you mind posting the text from that email. That is interesting.


----------



## George Harris

Nathanael said:


> However, the PTC mandate will require that such signal systems be installed on most of the mainlines in the country. The Class Is are trying to weasel out of the deadline, but they are unlikely to be able to do so, since it would require an act of Congress, and Congress is gridlocked. Also, people still remember Chatsworth, and Amtrak and Metrolink are going to finish installation well ahead of the deadline, showing that the freights are just foot-dragging for the purpose of increasing profits.
> The freights have been foot-dragging on this since the 1930s, and it's frankly criminal. Eventually if they keep this up it'll catch up with them; if there's another Chatsworth *after* they flout the legal deadline, expect the government to come down on them like a ton of bricks.


IMHO, this whole PTC is a case of overkill. The legislation is an example of we got to do something. We are taking something that is already safer than travel on the road and adding a burden of cost for minimal benefit. Any sort of cost-benefit analysis would say that this requirement will most likely be counterproductive in that it will increase the cost of running on rails such that there will be traffic driven from rail to road.

What is criminal is doing things that drive traffic from rail to road under they guise of improving safety, and that goes all the way back to the imposition of the signal requirements put in place in the 1940's. What you call foot dragging was actually an attempt to avoid driving costs up to the point of destruction of the service.


----------



## yarrow

rusty spike said:


> I just received an Amtrak e-mail regarding a 30% discount for May travel on the "Raton Route" between KCY and ABQ. Looks like Amtrak is triying to spike the numbers on this route to create more interest in the states involved. Any other thoughts on why they would do this? :unsure:


i just got one for 30% off the eb between st paul and pdx for travel in may


----------



## Bob Dylan

George Harris said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the PTC mandate will require that such signal systems be installed on most of the mainlines in the country. The Class Is are trying to weasel out of the deadline, but they are unlikely to be able to do so, since it would require an act of Congress, and Congress is gridlocked. Also, people still remember Chatsworth, and Amtrak and Metrolink are going to finish installation well ahead of the deadline, showing that the freights are just foot-dragging for the purpose of increasing profits.
> 
> The freights have been foot-dragging on this since the 1930s, and it's frankly criminal. Eventually if they keep this up it'll catch up with them; if there's another Chatsworth *after* they flout the legal deadline, expect the government to come down on them like a ton of bricks.
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, this whole PTC is a case of overkill. The legislation is an example of we got to do something. We are taking something that is already safer than travel on the road and adding a burden of cost for minimal benefit. Any sort of cost-benefit analysis would say that this requirement will most likely be counterproductive in that it will increase the cost of running on rails such that there will be traffic driven from rail to road.
> 
> What is criminal is doing things that drive traffic from rail to road under they guise of improving safety.
Click to expand...

:hi: As usual, George the Engineer Nails it!!!


----------



## rusty spike

printman2000 said:


> rusty spike said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just received an Amtrak e-mail regarding a 30% discount for May travel on the "Raton Route" between KCY and ABQ. Looks like Amtrak is triying to spike the numbers on this route to create more interest in the states involved. Any other thoughts on why they would do this? :unsure:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind posting the text from that email. That is interesting.
Click to expand...


----------



## chakk

Most of May is a pretty quiet month for most of the LD trains in the west, so getting 70% of the fare to fill a coach seat is probably better than getting nothing at all. But I doubt that it will lead to that much of an increase in passenger traffic on the SWC that month.


----------



## jebr

Here's the link to the promo online. I never received an email.
http://www.amtrak.com/monthly-train-ticket-discount?WT.mc_t=AprAdvBookMSP_HP4_WSP&WT.mc_n=AprAdvBookpage&WT.mc_r=365


----------



## AlanB

Nathanael said:


> and Amtrak and Metrolink are going to finish installation well ahead of the deadline, showing that the freights are just foot-dragging for the purpose of increasing profits.


While I do agree that the freights are foot dragging things, Amtrak & Metrolink are hardly a fair comparison. They have many fewer miles of track that need to be outfitted than any major freight RR. And for that matter, Amtrak already had the technology operating in a few places, so it was really more a matter of expanding what they have.


----------



## CHamilton

Did I miss this in some other thread?

Governor: State scrapping deal to buy BNSF track


> Posted: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:00 pm | Updated: 9:58 pm, Sat Mar 16, 2013.
> 
> Associated Press
> 
> Gov. Susana Martinez’s administration has reached an agreement for the BNSF Railway Co. to pull the plug on a never-completed purchase of about 180 miles of track, and the company will refund $5 million fronted by the state for the line by her predecessor.
> ...
> The administration doesn’t want the track from Lamy, a small community near Santa Fe, to the Colorado border. The state estimated it would need to spend $8 million a year just for maintenance and routine improvements of the track.
> 
> Former Gov. Bill Richardson’s administration had paid BNSF about $5 million in 2008 for the rail line as part of a larger deal to obtain track to start the Rail Runner Express commuter service between Santa Fe and Belen.


----------



## Ryan

It was somewhere in here, but I can't recall where.

Looks like this goose is cooked.


----------



## yarrow

in the new issue of trains magazine, fred frailey (ok fred can be a bit alarmist) writes that the swc will be gone after it is taken off raton pass as, fred says, bnsf won't allow it on the projected route through amarillo without big upgrades and thus the swc will be gone. i hadn't heard that before. is fred on to something or did he just think it up for a slow news day?


----------



## printman2000

yarrow said:


> in the new issue of trains magazine, fred frailey (ok fred can be a bit alarmist) writes that the swc will be gone after it is taken off raton pass as, fred says, bnsf won't allow it on the projected route through amarillo without big upgrades and thus the swc will be gone. i hadn't heard that before. is fred on to something or did he just think it up for a slow news day?


I have certainly heard others say this is what they fear.

Seems I also remember AlanB stating on this board a while back that because BNSF no longer wants to maintain the current route, they have to allow them on the alternate route. I could be remembering that wrong, but hopefully AlanB can confirm or correct me.


----------



## Ryan

Ask and ye shall receive:



AlanB said:


> '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.
Click to expand...


----------



## greatcats

This reroute issue is a complex matter, I'm sure, but they way I have understood it was that a year or two ago BNSF sort of invited Amtrak to move over to the Transcon.


----------



## guest

If they eliminate the Raton pass route, that will be one long boring ride. If they use the transcon, does that mean the Topeka and Lawrence stops would be eliminated in favor of the new service to Wichita?


----------



## printman2000

guest said:


> If they eliminate the Raton pass route, that will be one long boring ride. If they use the transcon, does that mean the Topeka and Lawrence stops would be eliminated in favor of the new service to Wichita?


I dunno, I have heard some of the scenery in New Mexico is quite interesting.

No, Topeka and Lawrence would stay as stops. Newton may be dropped for a Wichita stop.


----------



## chrsjrcj

Is it safe to assume the SWC route from ABQ west is safe?


----------



## printman2000

chrsjrcj said:


> Is it safe to assume the SWC route from ABQ west is safe?


If there is a reroute, Albuquerque would still be served. The only potential stops affected would be Newton to Lamy.

If the people who fear discontinuance of the train are right, then the answer is no.


----------



## bill

Chicago - Los Angeles seems to be a pretty big market for Amtak to pull out of given its history as part of the national network since Amtrak's inception.

I wonder what other retoutes would be possible...

Chicago - LA via Tucumcari, NM (the old Golden State route)

Chicago - LA via SLC and Las Vegas (the old Desert Wind route0

Problem with these routes is that they all involve the UP, and I can't see from a competitive standpoint the UP letting BNSF getting rid of a passenger train and the UP having to take one on.

This could get interesting!


----------



## rusty spike

printman2000 said:


> guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they eliminate the Raton pass route, that will be one long boring ride. If they use the transcon, does that mean the Topeka and Lawrence stops would be eliminated in favor of the new service to Wichita?
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, I have heard some of the scenery in New Mexico is quite interesting.
> 
> No, Topeka and Lawrence would stay as stops. Newton may be dropped for a Wichita stop.
Click to expand...

It would most likely follow the route of Santa Fe's old _San Francisco Chief _with scheduled stops at Topeka, Wichita, Wellington, KS; Waynoka OK, Amarillo, TX, Clovis NM, then Belen. The old SFC bypassed ABQ offering only motor coach service to the city. However Santa Fe had other pax trains serving ABQ like the _Super Chief_.

Although not as scenic as Raton & Glorietta Passes, the Amarillo to Clovis to Belen is not all that boring. But that's just me. I'm easily entertained. 

What Amtrak & BNSF would do to accommodate ABQ, I think, is all speculation at this point.

I read Fred Frailey's commentary in Trains Mag and took it for what it is---his commentary. He's just encouraging people to get out and ride trains and might have to spin a few facts to get the readers' attention.


----------



## SarahZ

Belen can't handle the pax number and needs of the SWC (crew change, cleaning, etc). Most people agree that they'll head up to ABQ, turn the train on the wye, and then head back to the main line.


----------



## VentureForth

Yeah - I agree. There isn't a huge demand - or even logitistical conveniences to justify the expense of handling passengers at Belen. The Railrunner spur is only connected to the mainline North of Belen.

That being said -

Belen IS a major fuel and servicing yard for transcon BNSF trains. The SWC could certainly pull into the old Harvey House and get all of its crew/cleaning done there. But there just aren't enough passengers to justify it. ABQ is where the stop needs to be.

I'm gonna hate seeing the SWC rerouted. But if it must be so....


----------



## yarrow

so, do we just discount mr. frailey's assertion in trains magazine that the swc will not be rerouted but will be discontinued?


----------



## George Harris

yarrow said:


> so, do we just discount mr. frailey's assertion in trains magazine that the swc will not be rerouted but will be discontinued?


I would be inclined to do so. The freight route needs very little if any work for the rerouted SWC to match its current time.


----------



## VentureForth

My biggest concern has always been that it will be difficult allowing a 79 - 90 MPH train on an even busier section of track where Amtrak would have to leap frog BNSF. BUT, they seem to do OK with that now West of ABQ, so I suppose they can do it from Wichita all the way to LAX.


----------



## henryj

VentureForth said:


> My biggest concern has always been that it will be difficult allowing a 79 - 90 MPH train on an even busier section of track where Amtrak would have to leap frog BNSF. BUT, they seem to do OK with that now West of ABQ, so I suppose they can do it from Wichita all the way to LAX.


The only problem I see is the single track section at Vaughn, NM on the long fill over the UP tracks. I have seen as many as nine trains backed up for miles waiting their turn to negotiate that section. Will BNSF give Amtrak priority and route the SWC around that type of road block?


----------



## TVRM610

While I agree that Amtrak would still want to service the train in Albuquerque (and to serve such a large city) it is entirely possible that the Albuquerque area stop would be Belen. As has been said its entirely possible to service the train in Belen, and it would cut over an hour of time off the schedule (turning a long train on a wye takes a few minutes... Plus the 1 hour or so round trip running time Belen to Albuquerque. )

They could have a cross platform transfer with the Rail Runner if they wanted to.

I'm just saying... No one knows. If I was a betting man I'd probably bet on Albuquerque, but not with much confidence.


----------



## printman2000

TVRM610 said:


> While I agree that Amtrak would still want to service the train in Albuquerque (and to serve such a large city) it is entirely possible that the Albuquerque area stop would be Belen. As has been said its entirely possible to service the train in Belen, and it would cut over an hour of time off the schedule (turning a long train on a wye takes a few minutes... Plus the 1 hour or so round trip running time Belen to Albuquerque. )
> They could have a cross platform transfer with the Rail Runner if they wanted to.
> 
> I'm just saying... No one knows. If I was a betting man I'd probably bet on Albuquerque, but not with much confidence.


I could be remembering wrong, but it seems i remember there was a conversation about how Belen could not be used because of the track alignments around there.


----------



## SarahZ

^^^^ That.


----------



## TVRM610

I've heard that too but never from a real source. I'm not saying it is possible... But having been to Belen on the Railrunner years ago there was nothing obvious that would prevent it.


----------



## Ryan

Looking at google earth, it appears that there is no connection from the platform track at Belen to the track that heads west.

I'm also not sure where the "hour round trip" you're talking about comes from. Going west, you go through Belen, up to ABQ, turn the train and then head back for just a few miles before turning west on the normal route. You don't go all the way back to Belen.

As far as the reroute killing the train, that's probably nothing more than an attempt to sell magazine subscriptions rather than any realistic possibility.


----------



## AlanB

TVRM610 said:


> I've heard that too but never from a real source. I'm not saying it is possible... But having been to Belen on the Railrunner years ago there was nothing obvious that would prevent it.


I was just in Belan last summer on the OTOL Fest, and while I didn't bring survey equipment with me, from what I could see during our layover, there is no space to shoehorn in a place for the Chief to stop. Especially if one wants an across the platform transfer to Railrunner. They'd have to stop on the mainline blocking an interlocking to do it.

There is a topic around here that's a bit less than 1 year old where we discussed this matter once before and I described in a bit more detail some of the problems that I saw. IIRC, there may have even been a sat photo showing some of this. I'm running out the door now, but maybe someone else can find it if they have a spare minute or two.


----------



## TVRM610

Alan... I'm pretty sure you analyzed it better than me. This was years ago and all I really remember is seeing the BNSF trains go right by the Railrunner.

I also need to look at the BNSF track cause i think I'm pretty confused as to what the train would actually be doing going to Albuquerque and then getting back to the main... I thought it had to back track (pun intended) all the way to Belen.

As I said... It makes sense to serve Albuquerque, so if/when the re-route happens I would guess they would still serve it. I'm still convinced that Belen as a stop is possible though... Even if its unlikely.


----------



## PRR 60

TVRM610 said:


> Alan... I'm pretty sure you analyzed it better than me. This was years ago and all I really remember is seeing the BNSF trains go right by the Railrunner.
> I also need to look at the BNSF track cause i think I'm pretty confused as to what the train would actually be doing going to Albuquerque and then getting back to the main... I thought it had to back track (pun intended) all the way to Belen.
> 
> As I said... It makes sense to serve Albuquerque, so if/when the re-route happens I would guess they would still serve it. I'm still convinced that Belen as a stop is possible though... Even if its unlikely.


There is wye trackage just south of the Albuquerque station. They could do what that Silver Star does in Tampa - come into the city from the south, reverse directions at the wye, back into ABQ station, do the train servicing and crew change, and depart heading south. The process would be the same for both the eastbound and westbound trains.


----------



## TVRM610

PRR...

Ryan mentioned a few posts up that the train would be taking 2 different lines in and out... One coming up from Belen... And the other joining the Transcon further down the line (and not back tracking all the way to Belen). That's what I was referring to. I understand the wye process in Albuquerque.


----------



## Ryan

Here's what I think it looks like: The distance measurement is roughly from Belen to ABQ. The black arrows indicaate the route out of town to head west. Halfway to Los Lunas, you "hang a right" and cross I-25 to head west (indicated by the black MSPaint arrows).


----------



## TVRM610

I follow Ryan.

The route you have highlighted is the Railrunner route correct?


----------



## Ryan

As far as I can tell, yes.


----------



## TVRM610

Well if the Chief can get to the Railrunner tracks... then it can also serve the Railrunner station. Which was my original point. That Belen COULD work. Yes it would require an Amtrak station to be built, and a second track. But there is a large space there in Belen by the platform.

I'm fairly certain it would be about 1 hour.... 28 miles from Belen to Albuquerque plus turning on the wye and a slow(er) back up move into the station.... that's gonna take the better part of 45 minutes. Then the extra running from Albuquerque back to the Transcon (it might not be a full 28 miles out of the way... but probably at least 10 or 15) and that's another 15 minutes.

Again... I'm not arguing for one thing or another... it makes perfect sense to serve the city of Albuquerque and keep the servicing of the train where it is. But it also makes sense to shave an hour off the schedule and skip a tedious wye turn and back up move. I'm just arguing that both are possibilities.

My hope is that BNSF realizes they should keep Raton pass to help with Transcon congestion. Then it's a win win! But I know that's not how they currently see it.


----------



## PRR 60

Here is another map of the same location.





The *green line* is the BNSF Transcon main line. The *red line* is the route presently used by the SWC between the Transcon and ABQ. The *blue line* is the RailRunner line to Belen. RailRunner and the SWC share the same line into ABQ.

After the reroute, the eastbound SWC would come in on the *Transcon* from the west, then take the *red route* up to ABQ, reversing through the wye prior to the station (could be after). It would then head back *south out of ABQ* and follow the *Railrunner* to the *Transcon* at Belen, and then east. Westbound would be the reverse.


----------



## henryj

The Railrunner route is not connected to the BNSF main line. In fact, looking at Google in more detail, it looks to me as if the whole line north from Belen is no longer connected. Amtrak west may have to go all the way out to Dalies jct and back into Albuquerque to get there. Eastbound they would have to back out of Albuquerque to Dalies and then continue on the transcon. The old Santa Fe station and Harvey House in Belen is on the wrong side of the tracks. The Railrunner station is fenced off from the BNSF main and to connect it would require big bucks so right now there is no way for the SWC to stop in Belen at the Railrunner station and apparently no connection in Belen to go north to Albuquerque. Someone that lives or visits there would have to get down on the ground in Belen and see if that connection is even still there to connect to the line north. The tracks close to the Railrunner station are the refueling tracks for the BNSF.


----------



## PRR 60

henryj said:


> The Railrunner route is not connected to the BNSF main line. In fact, looking at Google in more detail, it looks to me as if the whole line north from Belen is no longer connected. Amtrak west may have to go all the way out to Dalies jct and back into Albuquerque to get there. Eastbound they would have to back out of Albuquerque to Dalies and then continue on the transcon. The old Santa Fe station and Harvey House in Belen is on the wrong side of the tracks. The Railrunner station is fenced off from the BNSF main and to connect it would require big bucks so right now there is no way for the SWC to stop in Belen at the Railrunner station and apparently no connection in Belen to go north to Albuquerque. Someone that lives or visits there would have to get down on the ground in Belen and see if that connection is even still there to connect to the line north. The tracks close to the Railrunner station are the refueling tracks for the BNSF.


The line from ABQ to Belen does have a connection to the Transcon. The RailRunner and the Belen station are on a side track that terminates just south of the station, but a second track that diverges from RailRunner just south of West Aragon Road connects to the Transcon. BNSF uses it to access ABQ.


----------



## AlanB

Agreed PRR, there is a switch off the trancon just RR west past the Belen platform that connects to the Railrunner tracks.


----------



## chrsjrcj

Looks like the Chief would serve Albuquerque the same way the Star serves Tampa.


----------



## gswager

Belen line is a stub line for RailRunner. It ends just before the dirt of road overpass. I haven't been at Belen station for several years, so I'll have to revisit to check it out.


----------



## Ryan

PRR60 and Alan are correct:







Similar to the above map (thanks, that's a lot better than mine), the green is the transcon, blue are the Railrunner tracks, and the red is the connection from the transcon to the RR tracks. If you're going to use the existing Belen station, you'll have to come off the green tracks, go north on the red track past the switch at the top of the image and then back up onto the platform.

Then if you want to get back onto the transcon from Belen, do the same thing in reverse. North out of the station, past the switch, back up heading south on the red track until you're back on the transcon, then proceed.

By the time you do that, you can be halfway to ABQ...


----------



## TVRM610

Can someone crown Ryan the king of the maps? Of course with that power... comes great responsibility.


----------



## Ryan

I dunno, PRR60's map was much easier to see what I was talking about.


----------



## henryj

Thanks PRR60. The Google maps appear to be distorted making it look like the connection isn't there. I can't imagine why BNSF would remove it..........but stranger things have happened.


----------



## VentureForth

I see a big problem trying to schedule the Wye move around the existing Railrunner schedule. Would all trains Wye in and straight out? Or straight in and Wye out?

I think this was already covered, but no need to go all the way to Belen to go West. There's a switch in the Isleta Pueblo community that keeps the train Northwest of Los Lunas on to the West.

I really miss living there. I lived in Los Lunas for two short years, but loved hanging out in Belen and watching train after train after train....


----------



## Notelvis

Thinking of 'spreading the wealth', maybe the currently out-of-service Santa Fe Southern Railroad could acquire trackage rights from Lamy to the Albuquerque wye and contract with Amtrak to provide an aging diesel switcher to tow the Southwest Chief out of the wye and into the ABQ station twice daily.


----------



## Ryan

henryj said:


> Thanks PRR60. The Google maps appear to be distorted making it look like the connection isn't there. I can't imagine why BNSF would remove it..........but stranger things have happened.


You just have to zoom in far enough, the screenshot that I posted above from google maps.


----------



## winterskigirl

Personally, I'm not gambling with time. Booked the SWC this summer


----------



## George Harris

VentureForth said:


> I see a big problem trying to schedule the Wye move around the existing Railrunner schedule. Would all trains Wye in and straight out? Or straight in and Wye out?
> I think this was already covered, but no need to go all the way to Belen to go West. There's a switch in the Isleta Pueblo community that keeps the train Northwest of Los Lunas on to the West.


Wye in or wye out? Its a detail. It may even change back and forth as time goes on. SWC versus Railrunner is likewise an operational detail that can be solved and may run through several attempts before a solution that satisfies all concerned is developed.

PRR60's map gives the big picture.

Westbound, come in through Belen, go north to Albuquerque, wye either before or after the stop, then out along the current route, that is go back south as far as Isleta, turn right toward Dailes and keep going.

Eastbound, come in on the current route through Dailes and Isleta to Albuquerque, wye either before or after the stop, then out southbound to Belen, turn left and go up the mountain.

There is no real problem at Belen. Ryan's view makes it very clear that a train coming in from the east off the Freight line and heading toward Albuquerque would be on the same side of the freight mains as the Railrunner platform. If it is desired to have a stop there, it could be achieve without interfering with freight operation. The problem at issue before with Belen was when there was discussion about extending passenger service out of Albuquerque south of Belen on the line that ran to El Paso. Now, THAT service would have to cross the major transcontinental freight flow at Belen.


----------



## AlanB

George Harris said:


> There is no real problem at Belen. Ryan's view makes it very clear that a train coming in from the east off the Freight line and heading toward Albuquerque would be on the same side of the freight mains as the Railrunner platform. If it is desired to have a stop there, it could be achieve without interfering with freight operation.


I have to disagree with you here a bit George, as shown in this birdseye view, just north of the 309 bridge is the eastern end of the Belen platform, next to the parking lot. Just under/east of the bridge is a yard lead. Furthermore, that entire area is a major interlocking to serve the yards on both the north & south of the main, plus the cutoffs for going north & south. Any Amtrak train stopping at the Belen platform is going to be blocking that yard lead and at least part of the interlocking plant. I don't see BNSF agreeing to a stop here and I'm not sure that it's worth the effort anyhow.


----------



## Ryan

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, Alan.

Google's imagery is a little more clear:






At the very bottom, you can see that the only track adjacent to the current platform ends just north of the bridge. The only way for the SWC approaching from the east to get to the Belen platform is to do the maneuver I described upthread involving a backup move to the platform.

Are you talking about a potential new platform that the SWC would stop at, perhaps just on the other side of the current platform track? I agree that would block the freight lines, but it looks like there is enough space to locate a new platform just a bit further north that would keep the train clear of any interference (although that would mean a bit of a walk from the station.


----------



## jis

Basically, the platform would have to north of the point where the connection to ABQ takes off from the main line


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> Basically, the platform would have to north of the point where the connection to ALB takes off from the main line


That's some Bugs Bunny style navigation there if you end up in Albany!


----------



## jis

Sheesh! meant to say ABQ.

Or penny style as the case may be


----------



## George Harris

AlanB said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no real problem at Belen. Ryan's view makes it very clear that a train coming in from the east off the Freight line and heading toward Albuquerque would be on the same side of the freight mains as the Railrunner platform. If it is desired to have a stop there, it could be achieve without interfering with freight operation.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you here a bit George, as shown in this birdseye view, just north of the 309 bridge is the eastern end of the Belen platform, next to the parking lot. Just under/east of the bridge is a yard lead. Furthermore, that entire area is a major interlocking to serve the yards on both the north & south of the main, plus the cutoffs for going north & south. Any Amtrak train stopping at the Belen platform is going to be blocking that yard lead and at least part of the interlocking plant. I don't see BNSF agreeing to a stop here and I'm not sure that it's worth the effort anyhow.
Click to expand...

I really do not think making a stop at Belen is really worthwhile either. Definitely not if BNSF is unwilling to have a platform adjacent to the track that is connected on the south end. If BNSF wants the train clear of the freight mains, then the platform would have to be in part north of the Railrunner platform. A stop not clear of the main might not be a fatal flaw, as a unload/load only stop should not add more than 3 minutes to the time needed to clear the switch without stopping. A stop with part of the train covering the turnout to the Railrunner track is a problem only if people perceive it to be. There are or have been quite a few examples of platforms that went through a turnout in such a manner as this one would have to. If the powers that be want the stop bad enough to build a couple of turnouts and maybe plus a crossover between main track south of these pictures all these issues would go away.


----------



## PaulM

Regarding the main line vs. passenger station conflict, what about other stations? Once while purchasing tickets at Ft. Madison, IA, I noticed that every 5 minutes a BNSF freight pulled in and stopped while they changed engineers. I don't remember how long they were stopped or whether the SWC had to pull into a siding when they stopped, but I doubt it.


----------



## TVRM610

If the train can use the line to get to/from Albuquerque, it can use the platform. As I've mentioned before... It would shave an hour off the schedule most likely.

It would of course mean extra construction.. A longer platform and actual station facilities in Albuquerque plus the facilities to service the train. Most likely a second track as well.

It makes sense to stay at Albuquerque since the facilities (and passenger base) is there. However if Amtrak's top priority was running time on this route, it would make total sense to stop at Belen. And it is entirely possible.


----------



## jis

It is somewhat silly IMHO to worry about an additional one hour running time on a train that takes couple of days for its itinerary. There is more padding than an hour in the schedule as it is anyway.


----------



## fulham

In regards to the comment made about the SW Chief mixing in w/BNSF's trains on the eastern end of the transcon, why can't the BNSF just run the SW Chief on this portion of the route as they would any other high priority intermodal train?

Set the speed limit at 70 mph so there doesn't have to be the "leap frog" issue, put a slot into the system to accomodate the train when it comes onto the transcon in KS, build in some extra padding into ABQ account the single track bottle-neck at Vaughn and run it in the same fashion as any other intermodal train (albeit a high profile one).

There would have to be some concessions made regarding any stops (Wellington, Amarillo, Clovis), but I still think the investment to make it happen using the above scenario would be pretty minimal.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

jis said:


> It is somewhat silly IMHO to worry about an additional one hour running time on a train that takes couple of days for its itinerary. There is more padding than an hour in the schedule as it is anyway.


I agree. You've put your finger on the 'keystone.' As a theoretical discussion about the physical feasibilty of stopping in Belen I find this interesting, but I don't see it as an option if the reroute happens. Look at #3 especially. What is the point of rushing? To give the poor pax on #1 company in LAX at 4:30 in the morning? :mellow:


----------



## VentureForth

fulham said:


> Set the speed limit at 70 mph so there doesn't have to be the "leap frog" issue, put a slot into the system to accomodate the train when it comes onto the transcon in KS, build in some extra padding into ABQ account the single track bottle-neck at Vaughn and run it in the same fashion as any other intermodal train (albeit a high profile one).


Woah. When a train is allowed to go 90 MPH, it will want to go 90 MPH. And the passenger will want it to go 90 MPH.

Since the SWC isn't scheduled to arrive into LAX until 8:15 AM, I don't think a 4:30 AM arrival is really a solution needing a problem. You can't leave Chicago any earlier or risk guaranteed connections there. You don't want to arrive in LAX any later to allow for morning transfers to the commuter lines and the Pacific Surfliner.


----------



## zephyr17

Doubt that they could go 90 on the Transcon east of Dalies. While I don't know for sure, I would guess that any ATS was removed long ago on that stretch, since it hasn't hosted passenger trains since the San Francisco Chief stopped on Amday, and there would have been no reason for AT&SF/BNSF to maintain it without passenger service. So the top speed would probably be 79mph regardless.


----------



## fulham

I wonder time wise how 70 mph on the Transcon Topeka - ABQ compares with the current situation via Raton Pass given the current condition of the track and the grades. My bet is, even with the heavy freight traffic, the Transcon route at 70 mph would compare favorably.


----------



## Ryan

Agreed.

And outside our little corner of railfains, I don't think anyone particularly cares what the speed of the train is.


----------



## VentureForth

I think that more than a handful of railfans appreciate a 20 MPH delta in speed. If you were to hypothetically slow 600 miles of the 900 miles between ABQ and LAX by 20 MPH, that will add 3 hours to the time table. That's real time, real money and real irritating when things go wrong and your delays start with a 3-hour handycap.

If you haven't noticed lately, the desire by the Press, Amtrak, the Government who is unwilling to fund it, and the general public is to get trains moving faster - not slower.

But the simple fact still exists. When you have more and more trains using the same two sets of rails, you're gonna have bottlenecks. As cooperative (relative to other freight line owners) BNSF has been, I'm sure they are still irritated having to side track a train for the benifit of Amtrak.

At least the way it is right now, though deteriorating rapidly, about the only thing Amtrak has to worry about between Newton and Lamy is the occasional grade crossing.

And livestock.


----------



## Ryan

It's already been explained that at most we're talking about a 9 MPH speed differential, not 20.


----------



## VentureForth

OK - 9 MPH over nearly the same 600 out of 800 miles would be about an hour and a half slower ride going 70 vs 79.

70, 79 or 90 - I'm more concerned about the efficiency of leapfrogging rather than top speed along any specific stretch. However, I'm pretty certain that the hundreds of millions asked for to move to the Transcon (vs the hundreds of millions to stay on the current route) would have to result in the full requirements to qualify for at least 79 MPH if not 90 for a good chunk of it, as it's even flatter and straighter than the current routing.


----------



## zephyr17

BNSF typically allows passenger trains 79mph where ever the freight speed restriction is 70mph. My guess is they would do it there as well. If the track class is such that freights are allowed 70, passenger trains would be allowed 79mph with no improvements.

BNSF isn't going to put in cab signals or ATS to allow faster than 79 for passenger trains. I do wonder if PTC will count as ATS when it comes online, though.


----------



## jis

Yes, PTC will count as ATS/cab signal for the purposes of the 79mph speed rule, but will not necessarily automatically increase speeds beyond 79mph. It will make it possible to do so with much less additional investment for sure.


----------



## TinCan782

I've only ridden on the western portion of the SWC and I was amazed at the amount (several per hour) of freight traffic (both directions) we passed with nary a slow down. 80-90 MPH most of the time between Barstow and Needles and on into Arizona...good dispatching kept us on the move and back and forth between mains to pass the freights without delay.


----------



## AlanB

FrensicPic said:


> I've only ridden on the western portion of the SWC and I was amazed at the amount (several per hour) of freight traffic (both directions) we passed with nary a slow down. 80-90 MPH most of the time between Barstow and Needles and on into Arizona...good dispatching kept us on the move and back and forth between mains to pass the freights without delay.


BNSF is very good at that on that line!

Years ago I was the SWC when BNSF had an intermodel derail in the Redrocks area. They had double stacks transformed into quad stacks and the derailment took out both mains. Amtrak bused us from ABQ to Gallup, swapping consists, to keep everyone moving around the derailment. We lost about 3 hours IIRC due to the busing. BNSF had freight trains stacked one behind the other because of that derailment. Our train looked like a snake trying to cross a pond, zigging back and forth around freights. By morning we had made up an hour, grabbed another hour thanks to the padding into LA, arriving only 1 hour late.

Needless to say I was quite impressed with BNSF that they kept us moving, despite having nearly 100 freight trains just parked on the mains because of the derailment.


----------



## printman2000

I have several friends who are BNSF engineers here in Amarillo. One told me the other day that when Amtrak is around, their freight train is going to get stopped (or slowed) for them.


----------



## George Harris

There is a lot of speculation concerning issues that are mainly non-problems here.

BNSF appears to still sees the value of putting on a good face to the general public. As a more or less monthly rider between Emeryville and Freson, I am impressed by the dispatching of the passenger trains. Generally if one of them stops and waits more than a couple of minutes it is for another passenger train. Sounds like this is the case for the portions of the SWC route that has heavy freight traffic. See no reason why that would be different on the major freight line east of Albuquerque as it obviously currently is west of Albuquerque.

Belen as a stop instead of Albuquerque is not really as practical as some people think. Look at the aerial view. If the intent is to have a platform in the vicinity of the Railrunner station, the train will be past where the tracks to the west and the track to Albuquerque diverge and be aimed toward Albuquerque. Backup would still be required and on an extremely busy freight main. There are far more reasons to go to Albuquerque than to bypass it.

70? 79? 90? Reasonably certain that the passenger speed would be set at 79. Whether set at 70 or 79 the SWC would still be faster than all but the hottest of freights. Why? Power to weight ratio. The SWC can accelerate faster than the freights and maintain a higher speed on grades. Other train handling issues. The SWC would be able to stop much faster than a freight. Partly in-train forces and partly tons per axle. 90 not likely to happen without megabucks from Amtrak. The real time saving between 79 and 90 is less than distance divided by 79 minus distance divided by 90. Why? accleration, braking, lower speed zones that would not change upward in speed. For some areas the savings may approach zero.

The time saving bypassing Albuquerque would not be that great and certainly not worth the additional inconvenience.


----------



## VentureForth

George Harris said:


> There is a lot of speculation concerning issues that are mainly non-problems here.


We gotta talk about SOMETHING....


----------



## cirdan

If the SWC would mess up freight paths on the transcon, I'm sure BNSF wouldn't be inviting Amtrak to come over and run on it.

If keeping Amtrak off the transcon could improve freight by that much, I'm sure BNSF would happily spend the money it takes to maintain Raton Pass so Amtrak doesn't get in their way.

Seeing BNSF is not doing that, I believe the SWC will fit in well without much ado.


----------



## TinCan782

Let me "stir the pot" with this idea...eliminate the ABQ reverse moves with no additional equipment required. Instead of both locos at the head end, run one at each end (a-la "push-pull").

At the ABQ crew change, the oncoming crew heads out "forward" in the other loco. Surfliners do that at LAUS although with a cab-car at one end.

Yea, I know, the coach seats will have to be reversed or the passengers ride backwards and the fuel truck will have to go from one end of the train to the other.


----------



## Ryan

FrensicPic said:


> Yea, I know, the coach seats will have to be reversed or the passengers ride backwards and the fuel truck will have to go from one end of the train to the other.


And that is why it'll never happen.
Amtrak does it on the Pennsy, but that's a MUCH shorter run.


----------



## DET63

jphjaxfl said:


> Keep in mind that rail lines with frequent heavy freight trains get worn out more quickly than rail lines with passenger trains and less frequent lighter freights. If Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico could fund some maintenance along with Amtrak to the existing line, it might make for a smoother passenger experience. States have funded highway maintenance for years. It would not bankrupt them to fund some rail maintenance to keep passenger train service to smaller towns that may lack alternatives.


How many votes are there in those small towns? Not many, I'll reckon.

The most likely scenario is that the states will subsidize enhanced bus service to those towns for a while, then eliminate the subsidy whenever they need to make cuts ("Does it really make sense to pay thousands of dollars a year for a bus that gets only ten riders a day?" will be a typical argument). Sure, there may be some political fallout, but when combined the small towns have about as many votes as one legislator gets in a typical election, and these votes are in fact spread among several members, the consequences will be minimal.


----------



## cirdan

FrensicPic said:


> Let me "stir the pot" with this idea...eliminate the ABQ reverse moves with no additional equipment required. Instead of both locos at the head end, run one at each end (a-la "push-pull").At the ABQ crew change, the oncoming crew heads out "forward" in the other loco. Surfliners do that at LAUS although with a cab-car at one end.
> 
> Yea, I know, the coach seats will have to be reversed or the passengers ride backwards and the fuel truck will have to go from one end of the train to the other.


The latter problem could be solved with a cabbage.


----------



## Cristobal

cirdan said:


> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me "stir the pot" with this idea...eliminate the ABQ reverse moves with no additional equipment required. Instead of both locos at the head end, run one at each end (a-la "push-pull").At the ABQ crew change, the oncoming crew heads out "forward" in the other loco. Surfliners do that at LAUS although with a cab-car at one end.
> 
> Yea, I know, the coach seats will have to be reversed or the passengers ride backwards and the fuel truck will have to go from one end of the train to the other.
> 
> 
> 
> The latter problem could be solved with a cabbage.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that I saw that idea brought up on the Train Orders forum where someone quickly pointed out that (some, many, most?) superliner cars are not equipped with the cabling necessary to pass train control from one end to the other.


----------



## DET63

Some Superliners are used in _Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin_, and _Pacific Surfliner_ service, all of which are push-pull. However, they may have been modified for that purpose.


----------



## DET63

My guess is that if the SWC is re-routed onto the Transcon, ABQ will be served by a new Amshack out in the boonies, with bus or taxi connections to the present downtown Amtrak station (a la Grand Forks, or Cheyenne in the last few years of _Pioneer_ service).


----------



## VentureForth

No way. Now, if Amtrak didn't finally occupy the Avarado Transportation Center, that could be a possibility. But after months of "Hey - that's such a BEAUTIFUL train station" remarks to Amtrak with the reply "That ain't ours. We're in the baggage shack over here," they finally moved in.

ABQ is too big, too popular, and too integrated to consider ditching.


----------



## cirdan

Cristobal said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me "stir the pot" with this idea...eliminate the ABQ reverse moves with no additional equipment required. Instead of both locos at the head end, run one at each end (a-la "push-pull").At the ABQ crew change, the oncoming crew heads out "forward" in the other loco. Surfliners do that at LAUS although with a cab-car at one end.
> 
> Yea, I know, the coach seats will have to be reversed or the passengers ride backwards and the fuel truck will have to go from one end of the train to the other.
> 
> 
> 
> The latter problem could be solved with a cabbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty sure that I saw that idea brought up on the Train Orders forum where someone quickly pointed out that (some, many, most?) superliner cars are not equipped with the cabling necessary to pass train control from one end to the other.
Click to expand...

True, but then you can't have a locomotive on either end either, unless the rear locomotive is being towed dead, but that sort of defeats the pojnt of having two locomotives. And if you're going to add cables to permit the locomotive to be controlled remotely, then that same cable could also be used by the cabbage, or is it not that simple?


----------



## Ryan

It's that simple, and there's no way that all the superliners are going to get so modded.

Since this seems to be the place for bold declarative predictions, I'll go on the record and say that the ABQ station stays just as it is, the train gets wyed like it does when it uses the transcon today and Belen only gets a stop if they pony up the money to build a platform that doesn't foul the main and doesn't involve a back up move.


----------



## PaulM

FrensicPic said:


> I've only ridden on the western portion of the SWC and I was amazed at the amount (several per hour) of freight traffic (both directions) we passed with nary a slow down. 80-90 MPH most of the time between Barstow and Needles and on into Arizona...good dispatching kept us on the move and back and forth between mains to pass the freights without delay.


I noticed the same thing on the EB through ND and MT; it was like it were double tracked. And that despite the dooms-day predictions about the effects of crude oil trains.


----------



## rusty spike

FrensicPic said:


> I've only ridden on the western portion of the SWC and I was amazed at the amount (several per hour) of freight traffic (both directions) we passed with nary a slow down. 80-90 MPH most of the time between Barstow and Needles and on into Arizona...good dispatching kept us on the move and back and forth between mains to pass the freights without delay.


And those high-speed crossovers at 90 MPH will throw you into someone's lap if you're walking through the train and not paying attention. :wacko:


----------



## rusty spike

Ryan said:


> Since this seems to be the place for bold declarative predictions, I'll go on the record and say that the ABQ station stays just as it is, the train gets wyed like it does when it uses the transcon today and Belen only gets a stop if they pony up the money to build a platform that doesn't foul the main and doesn't involve a back up move.


Agreed.

_If_ the re-route occurs and with intermodal services of Greyhound, Railrunner and local transit lines radiating from the Alvarado Transportaion Center, I don't see Amtrak vacating ABQ. Amtrak can wye the SWC in from 2-3 miles south of the Alvarado TC, service the locos and change crews from the south end of the platform and then run out to the Belen cutoff either east or west. I doubt Belen would get a station stop; pax from the Belen area can still use the RailRunner to access Amtrak.


----------



## yarrow

VentureForth said:


> ABQ is too big, too popular, and too integrated to consider ditching.


santa fe rr(and amtrak) never took passengers by train to santa fe but dropped them at lamy so who knows?


----------



## Bob Dylan

rusty spike said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since this seems to be the place for bold declarative predictions, I'll go on the record and say that the ABQ station stays just as it is, the train gets wyed like it does when it uses the transcon today and Belen only gets a stop if they pony up the money to build a platform that doesn't foul the main and doesn't involve a back up move.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> _If_ the re-route occurs and with intermodal services of Greyhound, Railrunner and local transit lines radiating from the Alvarado Transportaion Center, I don't see Amtrak vacating ABQ. Amtrak can wye the SWC in from 2-3 miles south of the Alvarado TC, service the locos and change crews from the south end of the platform and then run out to the Belen cutoff either east or west. I doubt Belen would get a station stop; pax from the Belen area can still use the RailRunner to access Amtrak.
Click to expand...

True this!


----------



## The Davy Crockett

jimhudson said:


> rusty spike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since this seems to be the place for bold declarative predictions, I'll go on the record and say that the ABQ station stays just as it is, the train gets wyed like it does when it uses the transcon today and Belen only gets a stop if they pony up the money to build a platform that doesn't foul the main and doesn't involve a back up move.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> _If_ the re-route occurs and with intermodal services of Greyhound, Railrunner and local transit lines radiating from the Alvarado Transportaion Center, I don't see Amtrak vacating ABQ. Amtrak can wye the SWC in from 2-3 miles south of the Alvarado TC, service the locos and change crews from the south end of the platform and then run out to the Belen cutoff either east or west. I doubt Belen would get a station stop; pax from the Belen area can still use the RailRunner to access Amtrak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True this!
Click to expand...

I'll 'pile on' and agree with this too...

... including the '_*If*_."

It was not very long ago everyone was writing the post-mortem for the EB on the Devil's Lake sub. Undeniably different circumstances, but BNSF originally said 'no way' in that situation too. In this case, with the widening of the Panama Canal, no one is sure exactly how things are going to shake out, other than it will have a significant impact on the movement of goods. It has been claimed that it will bring the biggest change in moving goods in America since the advent of intermodal. (See post #47 in this same thread for more detail.) The stakes are high for BNSF, and even though things do look dire for Raton Pass at this point in time, its not over until Warren Buffett sings.


----------



## TinCan782

DET63 said:


> Some Superliners are used in _Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin_, and _Pacific Surfliner_ service, all of which are push-pull. However, they may have been modified for that purpose.


Gonna be my comment too...the Pacific Surfliner uses Superliners...I figured all were already set up for that vs modifying a few.


----------



## TinCan782

cirdan said:


> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me "stir the pot" with this idea...eliminate the ABQ reverse moves with no additional equipment required. Instead of both locos at the head end, run one at each end (a-la "push-pull").At the ABQ crew change, the oncoming crew heads out "forward" in the other loco. Surfliners do that at LAUS although with a cab-car at one end.
> 
> Yea, I know, the coach seats will have to be reversed or the passengers ride backwards and the fuel truck will have to go from one end of the train to the other.
> 
> 
> 
> The latter problem could be solved with a cabbage.
Click to expand...

With two locomotives, which the SWC normally has, a cabbage is not really needed. Run a loco at each end instead of both at one end and no additional equipment is needed.


----------



## Ryan

Other than the extra number of MU cabled Superliners (at a minimum you'll need to do some transforms, sleepers, diners and (probably) lounges.


----------



## George Harris

rusty spike said:


> And those high-speed crossovers at 90 MPH will throw you into someone's lap if you're walking through the train and not paying attention. :wacko:


Would be true, except there aren't any. According to the 2007 employee timetable, the fastest turnouts and crossovers are 50 mph. There may be some installed since that are good for a higher speed, but I think those are for around 70 mph. So far as I know, except for some in the northeast corridor there are no turnouts good for about 80 mph in the US.


----------



## TinCan782

George Harris said:


> rusty spike said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those high-speed crossovers at 90 MPH will throw you into someone's lap if you're walking through the train and not paying attention. :wacko:
> 
> 
> 
> Would be true, except there aren't any. According to the 2007 employee timetable, the fastest turnouts and crossovers are 50 mph. There may be some installed since that are good for a higher speed, but I think those are for around 70 mph. So far as I know, except for some in the northeast corridor there are no turnouts good for about 80 mph in the US.
Click to expand...

Between Barstow and Needles in eastern California (and areas into Arizona and New Mexico), the SWC takes the crossovers with hardly a reduction in speed. Yes, you can feel it but, not too bad really. As Rusty Spike said, if standing and caught off balance, you might wind up in someone's lap!


----------



## VentureForth

George Harris said:


> rusty spike said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those high-speed crossovers at 90 MPH will throw you into someone's lap if you're walking through the train and not paying attention. :wacko:
> 
> 
> 
> Would be true, except there aren't any. According to the 2007 employee timetable, the fastest turnouts and crossovers are 50 mph. There may be some installed since that are good for a higher speed, but I think those are for around 70 mph. So far as I know, except for some in the northeast corridor there are no turnouts good for about 80 mph in the US.
Click to expand...

George, I trust you on this, but don't the speed limits apply only on the curved section of the switch? If you're going straight, I thought you could go full speed on most rated switches.


----------



## henryj

The slower you run this train the higher the labor costs and the more money it loses. These ideas of routing these trains all over the place and taking forever to run the distance are bogus. Every hour you add to this train costs over $750 in labor costs. Every trip this train makes costs $32,000 in labor costs alone.


----------



## George Harris

VentureForth said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rusty spike said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those high-speed crossovers at 90 MPH will throw you into someone's lap if you're walking through the train and not paying attention. :wacko:
> 
> 
> 
> Would be true, except there aren't any. According to the 2007 employee timetable, the fastest turnouts and crossovers are 50 mph. There may be some installed since that are good for a higher speed, but I think those are for around 70 mph. So far as I know, except for some in the northeast corridor there are no turnouts good for about 80 mph in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> George, I trust you on this, but don't the speed limits apply only on the curved section of the switch? If you're going straight, I thought you could go full speed on most rated switches.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. I never even think about the straight side of a turnout as having a speed limit. If properly maintained it does not need to have one.
That said, there is a reason that there tends to be a sideways jerk that you feel when going through the straight side of a turnout. It is that a train going through the curved side tends to give a sideways kick to the track at the point as it goes across the point of switch, particularly when going in the frog to switch direction. Over time this pushes the track out of line. Also remember that the FRA standards are safety standards, so this misalignment can get very noticible before it has to be fixed. BNSF seldom lets them get anywhere near that bad, but to try to keep the track near enought to perfect to the point that this becomes near imperceptible is extremely expensive. Some of the causes can be designed out but not all. When all is done that can be done you will still be left with a slight shake and some noise in the range of going over a couple of bolted joints.

There is nothing in the turnouts on the BNSF mains that requires the speed limit to be under the current 90 mph.


----------



## BrianPR3

I didn't want to start another thread so i dug this one up so can someone explain this to me like is the route actually at risk of being elimnated or is there gonna be a reroute?


----------



## gswager

I believe that the news will come out next year whether it will remain on Raton subdivision (the current route) or move to BNSF Transcon.


----------



## SarahZ

Yes, the decision has to be made in 2014, but I can't remember the actual date.


----------



## printman2000

BrianPR3 said:


> I didn't want to start another thread so i dug this one up so can someone explain this to me like is the route actually at risk of being elimnated or is there gonna be a reroute?


While most people I have heard from believe the reroute will happen, I have also heard some people who are worried that Amtrak will use this opportunity to cancel another train.

Which is it? I guess time will tell.

Personally, I lean towards the reroute. But I also cannot completely rule out the cancellation.

I believe Amtrak has stated a decision would be made in 2014 and final implementation in 2016.


----------



## SarahZ

I'm going to say there's a 90% chance they'll re-route it. I can't imagine them canceling a line that serves Chicago, Albuquerque, the Grand Canyon, a bus trip to Vegas, and Los Angeles. I know routes have been canceled before, but the SWC has pretty heavy ridership even without the Scouts heading to Raton.


----------



## printman2000

Sorcha said:


> I'm going to say there's a 90% chance they'll re-route it. I can't imagine them canceling a line that serves Chicago, Albuquerque, the Grand Canyon, a bus trip to Vegas, and Los Angeles. I know routes have been canceled before, but the SWC has pretty heavy ridership even without the Scouts heading to Raton.


All good, valid points. I am probably at the same percentage you are. I still can not totally put it past them to make the cancellation decision.


----------



## amtkstn

The major issue that will force the reroute is the the timekeeping of both trains. Most days number 4 is late into Newton the eastern end of the track that is slow ordered and number 3 is somedays late into LA. There are a few days when both are two hours late.


----------



## Eugene

So the reroute takes place-- where would put a station in Amarillo if BNSF does not allow stopping on Transcon?


----------



## BNSFboy

Eugene said:


> So the reroute takes place-- where would put a station in Amarillo if BNSF does not allow stopping on Transcon?


The old passenger siding was torn out but the space is still there and the owner of the station said he would let Amtrak use it if it where to reroute. However if this has changed they could still put another track in next to the existing main just next to the station and it would accommodate it very easily even if it is just a shed.


----------



## printman2000

BNSFboy said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the reroute takes place-- where would put a station in Amarillo if BNSF does not allow stopping on Transcon?
> 
> 
> 
> The old passenger siding was torn out but the space is still there and the owner of the station said he would let Amtrak use it if it where to reroute. However if this has changed they could still put another track in next to the existing main just next to the station and it would accommodate it very easily even if it is just a shed.
Click to expand...

It was several years ago that I spoke with the owner, unless you have also spoken with him.

So if it is not the old Santa Fe station, who knows.


----------



## PaulM

printman2000 said:


> I have also heard some people who are worried that Amtrak will use this opportunity to cancel another train.


What, when, and why was the last LD train that Amtrak cancelled? Three Rivers? 1990's? Equipment shortage?


----------



## Ryan

Sunset East after Katrina.


----------



## FriskyFL

Ryan said:


> Sunset East after Katrina.


"Suspended" indefinitely, not "cancelled". Clearly not the same. :wacko:


----------



## Cooley47

Just curious if anything has changed. I see there's 11 pages of talking, not sure if I can read through all of it. I'll be taking the Southwest Chief this December. Anything new I should expect?


----------



## jebr

The Pioneer and Desert Wind were cancelled in 1997. Three Rivers was after that, though, in 2005.


----------



## zephyr17

Nothing will have changed by this December, except perhaps additional slow orders. The short story is BNSF doesn't use the line at all between Lamy and La Junta, and it is only used for local freight for most of the length between La Junta and Newton. BNSF doesn't want to maintain the section railroad west of La Junta at all, and only wants to maintain the line east of La Junta as basically a low speed freight lead. The track is 1940's era stick rail and is at the end of its useful life. Past it really. If the line is to be kept and maintainted to passenger standards, Amtrak/states/somebody is going to have to step up and pay the maintenance.

The decision to stay (and pay) on the current line has to be made in 2014, so the facilities can be prepared to reroute to the Transcon through Amarillo by 2016, apparently when the current contracts expire.


----------



## Cooley47

Guess I picked the right time for my trip then


----------



## greatcats

On my road trip the other day back from Michigan and Chicago, we drove into La Junta, where we had reserved a motel. I went into the station to say hello to the conductor, Billy Ray Pearson, who was about to start his trip to Dodge City. ( He had been my conductor in both directions on my trip in May. ) He said BNSF is working in western Kansas to bring the track speed back up. This may well be for freight purposes. ( A long coal train pulled in westbound, which I had seen while we drove through Lamar. ) I said to him I thought they wanted to abandon Raton Pass. Not necessarily, he said - in his view BNSF is trying to work out an agreement with Amtrak over that. That last statement may be rather vague, but the first one says something. Some of the other Amtrak people I have spoken with seem rather unconcerned and the matter of the possible re-route does not seem like a big issue to them.

The eastbound #4 was only slightly late and most everything seemed rather normal, with perhaps a half dozen boarding the train. Not sure how many may have gotten off. I just arrived home, having left Santa Fe this morning. I am fine after the high speed drive from Chicago, but my friend is exhausted...and I did most of the driving! ( I'm the one who drove to Newfoundland last year. )

Our next trip will be in Octoboer to the GATHERING! Train from Flagstaff, to LA, to Portland, to Seattle, to Chicago, GATHERING,

and back to Flagstaff.


----------



## henryj

greatcats said:


> On my road trip the other day back from Michigan and Chicago, we drove into La Junta, where we had reserved a motel. I went into the station to say hello to the conductor, Billy Ray Pearson, who was about to start his trip to Dodge City. ( He had been my conductor in both directions on my trip in May. ) He said BNSF is working in western Kansas to bring the track speed back up. This may well be for freight purposes. ( A long coal train pulled in westbound, which I had seen while we drove through Lamar. ) I said to him I thought they wanted to abandon Raton Pass. Not necessarily, he said - in his view BNSF is trying to work out an agreement with Amtrak over that. That last statement may be rather vague, but the first one says something. Some of the other Amtrak people I have spoken with seem rather unconcerned and the matter of the possible re-route does not seem like a big issue to them. The eastbound #4 was only slightly late and most everything seemed rather normal, with perhaps a half dozen boarding the train. Not sure how many may have gotten off. I just arrived home, having left Santa Fe this morning. I am fine after the high speed drive from Chicago, but my friend is exhausted...and I did most of the driving! ( I'm the one who drove to Newfoundland last year. ) Our next trip will be in Octoboer to the GATHERING! Train from Flagstaff, to LA, to Portland, to Seattle, to Chicago, GATHERING, and back to Flagstaff.


This actually makes sense. BNSF doesn't really want the SWC on it's transcon......and it still considers Raton a backup route, maybe. If they could get some 'Obama' money to do some relocations to eliminate the 3% grade it would all work out. Also, there is always the possibility that they will need eastern Kansas for some coal trains and perhaps Raton too. Interesting perspective. Thanks.


----------



## George Harris

3% is not a problem for a passenger train. Where the money needs to be spent is in replacement of the worn out rail. I have not seen it but I would suspect that it looks much like the Illinois Central's Grenada District did before the City of New Orleans was moved to the Yazoo District. That is, heavily worn 112 lb rail, tie condition just barely to the track class. The rail was worn to the point that the tops of the joint bars on the gauge side were shiny from wheel flange contact. In other words, it is time for a major rail relay if the line is to continue in service at all. The ICRR decided the cost of keeping the Grenada District up to decent condition for passenger service or even medium or low speed freight service was not worth it.


----------



## amtkstn

The only part of the 3 percent grade that the Chief has is it takes three locomotives to get the short eight train over the pass. On the.new route it would only need two.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

greatcats said:


> ...He said BNSF is working in western Kansas to bring the track speed back up. This may well be for freight purposes. ( A long coal train pulled in westbound, which I had seen while we drove through Lamar. ) I said to him I thought they wanted to abandon Raton Pass. Not necessarily, he said - in his view BNSF is trying to work out an agreement with Amtrak over that. That last statement may be rather vague, but the first one says something.


This.

Just a few short years ago everyone was on the 'say goodbye to the Devil's Lake sub' bandwagon.

Just saying, as I've been saying, that there is a history (which does tend to repeat itself) of BNSF's behavior in a similar situation, and that had a happy ending - at least for those of us who do not live along the possible reroute.


----------



## Ryan

amtkstn said:


> The only part of the 3 percent grade that the Chief has is it takes three locomotives to get the short eight train over the pass. On the.new route it would only need two.


It had 2 when I took it over the pass with no issues.


----------



## Nathanael

George Harris said:


> 3% is not a problem for a passenger train. Where the money needs to be spent is in replacement of the worn out rail.


The obsolete signals are also a problem. And an expensive problem.
Personally, I know the Raton Pass route is scenic, but I would rather stop in Wichita and Amarillo.


----------



## Nathanael

Oh -- the Kansas track has a lot of potential for trains coming south from Denver, so I am not surprised to see it upgraded. The Raton Pass track itself, well, it's really only valuable for Colorado-New Mexico traffic. I haven't seen any evidence that freight traffic from Colorado to New Mexico is picking up, though someone may enlighten me. There were state plans to provide passenger service over that route, but this all ended with the change of governor in New Mexico.

I would not be surprised if the final decision was made after the results of the November 2014 general election in New Mexico.


----------



## George Harris

Nathanael said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3% is not a problem for a passenger train. Where the money needs to be spent is in replacement of the worn out rail.
> 
> 
> 
> The obsolete signals are also a problem. And an expensive problem.
> Personally, I know the Raton Pass route is scenic, but I would rather stop in Wichita and Amarillo.
Click to expand...

Very True about the signals!


----------



## George Harris

Nathanael said:


> Oh -- the Kansas track has a lot of potential for trains coming south from Denver, so I am not surprised to see it upgraded. The Raton Pass track itself, well, it's really only valuable for Colorado-New Mexico traffic. I haven't seen any evidence that freight traffic from Colorado to New Mexico is picking up, though someone may enlighten me. There were state plans to provide passenger service over that route, but this all ended with the change of governor in New Mexico.
> I would not be surprised if the final decision was made after the results of the November 2014 general election in New Mexico.


Reality may have set in. The northern part Denver to Pueblo is very congested with freight traffic. The entire route is long and crooked compared to the highway distance. Any Albuquerque to Denver passenger service would be excruciatingly slow without major expenditures on the railroad.


----------



## printman2000

Nathanael said:


> Personally, I know the Raton Pass route is scenic, but I would rather stop in Wichita and Amarillo.


Yeah, me too!


----------



## TVRM610

Raton Pass is just cool for so many reasons...

1. Highest point on the Santa Fe Railroad

2. Current Steepest grade on a mainline railroad

3. Only mainline RR using operating semaphores.

I mean it's just cool. Would be great if the line remains (even though the semaphores and maybe even the grade could leave us...).


----------



## henryj

George Harris said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh -- the Kansas track has a lot of potential for trains coming south from Denver, so I am not surprised to see it upgraded. The Raton Pass track itself, well, it's really only valuable for Colorado-New Mexico traffic. I haven't seen any evidence that freight traffic from Colorado to New Mexico is picking up, though someone may enlighten me. There were state plans to provide passenger service over that route, but this all ended with the change of governor in New Mexico.
> I would not be surprised if the final decision was made after the results of the November 2014 general election in New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> Reality may have set in. The northern part Denver to Pueblo is very congested with freight traffic. The entire route is long and crooked compared to the highway distance. Any Albuquerque to Denver passenger service would be excruciatingly slow without major expenditures on the railroad.
Click to expand...

MapQuest list the driving time at around 7 1/2hrs depending on traffic. Greyhound makes the run in 8hrs 10min. By rail it is 479 miles and based on current SWC times from Trinidad and old timetables for the front range, you are looking at 10 to 11hrs.


----------



## railiner

How about this?....the BNSF save the Raton Pass route, and save money by abandoning the old Colorado and Southern line from either Pueblo or just from Trinidad down to Amarillo? They would still have the old Santa Fe line from LaJunta via Las Animas Jct. to Amarillo.......or vice versa....I don't think they need two lines between Amarillo and Colorado...


----------



## henryj

railiner said:


> How about this?....the BNSF save the Raton Pass route, and save money by abandoning the old Colorado and Southern line from either Pueblo or just from Trinidad down to Amarillo? They would still have the old Santa Fe line from LaJunta via Las Animas Jct. to Amarillo.......or vice versa....I don't think they need two lines between Amarillo and Colorado...


They use the two lines directionally. Empty coal trains on the C&S and other northbounds and loaded coal on the ATSF and other southbounds. They don't need the Raton line for anything at all. It was the old passenger main when they ran a bunch of passenger trains. Now it is only the SWC once a day. If the states don't want the Raton line and BNSF doesn't want to preserve it as back up or future traffic then it's toast. My thoughts are that Colorado will someday want to run commuter stuff as far as Pueblo maybe. But not Raton. And NM has no use for it either.


----------



## VentureForth

Nathanael said:


> Oh -- the Kansas track has a lot of potential for trains coming south from Denver, so I am not surprised to see it upgraded. The Raton Pass track itself, well, it's really only valuable for Colorado-New Mexico traffic. I haven't seen any evidence that freight traffic from Colorado to New Mexico is picking up, though someone may enlighten me. There were state plans to provide passenger service over that route, but this all ended with the change of governor in New Mexico.
> I would not be surprised if the final decision was made after the results of the November 2014 general election in New Mexico.


The reason it all changed with the change of governor was because Richardson made some really lousy investments during his tenure. He spent a LOT of taxpayer money that just vaporized. He initially bought the line from Belen through Trinidad just so that he could have the stretch between Belen and Lamy for the Railrunner.

The citizens are a bit weary of spending money - even though the Railrunner appears to be at least a political success, if not a financial boondoggle. But to ask them to support millions for a twice a day train between ABQ and Raton is going to be asking a lot. I don't think that a new governor in 2014 is going to zig the other way too far.


----------



## Nathanael

The Lamy to Trinidad line was cheap at the price, and due to breach of contract, the incoming governor ended up having to bribe BNSF with tax breaks in order to get the "earnest money" back. Bleah.

But even with a different governor, I'm sure NM would not want to actually spend money to maintain the line just for two a day. The question is whether a different governor would be trying to reopen Denver-Albuquerque, for which the line actually is useful. Richardson was trying to talk to the Colorado government about that.


----------



## Ispolkom

The Davy Crockett said:


> greatcats said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...He said BNSF is working in western Kansas to bring the track speed back up. This may well be for freight purposes. ( A long coal train pulled in westbound, which I had seen while we drove through Lamar. ) I said to him I thought they wanted to abandon Raton Pass. Not necessarily, he said - in his view BNSF is trying to work out an agreement with Amtrak over that. That last statement may be rather vague, but the first one says something.
> 
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> Just a few short years ago everyone was on the 'say goodbye to the Devil's Lake sub' bandwagon.
> 
> Just saying, as I've been saying, that there is a history (which does tend to repeat itself) of BNSF's behavior in a similar situation, and that had a happy ending - at least for those of us who do not live along the possible reroute.
Click to expand...

You just need to discover oil in the region. That's what changed BNSF's mind on the Devils Lake sub (that and other people paying for 2/3 of the cost of fixing Churchs Ferry). Wasn't the discovery of oil in the Farmington area, and the resulting shipments of pipes and other drilling equipment a big reason that the D&RG narrow-gauge railroad hung on into the 1960s?


----------



## railiner

henryj said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this?....the BNSF save the Raton Pass route, and save money by abandoning the old Colorado and Southern line from either Pueblo or just from Trinidad down to Amarillo? They would still have the old Santa Fe line from LaJunta via Las Animas Jct. to Amarillo.......or vice versa....I don't think they need two lines between Amarillo and Colorado...
> 
> 
> 
> They use the two lines directionally. Empty coal trains on the C&S and other northbounds and loaded coal on the ATSF and other southbounds. They don't need the Raton line for anything at all. It was the old passenger main when they ran a bunch of passenger trains. Now it is only the SWC once a day. If the states don't want the Raton line and BNSF doesn't want to preserve it as back up or future traffic then it's toast. My thoughts are that Colorado will someday want to run commuter stuff as far as Pueblo maybe. But not Raton. And NM has no use for it either.
Click to expand...

It would seem to me that it would be a lot cheaper to add longer sidings, or double track where necessary, one of the lines, rather than maintain two and pay property taxes to boot.....


----------



## cirdan

railiner said:


> It would seem to me that it would be a lot cheaper to add longer sidings, or double track where necessary, one of the lines, rather than maintain two and pay property taxes to boot.....


I guess that once a line is gone, it is very unlikely to ever come back. So normally railroads don't abandon trackage unless they're pretty secure that traffic on that line is permanently dead and extremely unlikely to ever return. As long as there is some prospect of revival, however distant, railroads prefer to keep such lines nominally open even if it means slashing maintenance to the point that it isn't really useful.


----------



## zephyr17

Even Tennessee Pass is not officially abandoned. It is "embargoed", no trains run on it and haven't since the 1990s some time (don't remember the date), but officially it is not abandoned. The rails are still in place, although there is no maintenance being done on it.


----------



## jis

zephyr17 said:


> Even Tennessee Pass is not officially abandoned. It is "embargoed", no trains run on it and haven't since the 1990s some time (don't remember the date), but officially it is not abandoned. The rails are still in place, although there is no maintenance being done on it.


That I believe is also true of Homestake Pass near Butte MT, on the old route of the Amtrak North Coast Hiawatha and before that NP's North Coast Limited. Montana Railink uses the other ex NP route through Helena and Mullan Pass at present and Homestake Pass is "embargoed" AFAICT.


----------



## George Harris

Nathanael said:


> The question is whether a different governor would be trying to reopen Denver-Albuquerque, for which the line actually is useful. Richardson was trying to talk to the Colorado government about that.


It is really not that useful as-is. It would cost so much to get the passenger train down to near the road time that you might as well be thinking High Speed Railroad or nothing:

Back to what was said earlier:

By me:  Reality may have set in. The northern part Denver to Pueblo is very congested with freight traffic. The entire route is long and crooked compared to the highway distance. Any Albuquerque to Denver passenger service would be excruciatingly slow without major expenditures on the railroad.

With more detail added by HenryJ: MapQuest list the driving time at around 7 1/2hrs depending on traffic. Greyhound makes the run in 8hrs 10min. By rail it is 479 miles and based on current SWC times from Trinidad and old timetables for the front range, you are looking at 10 to 11hrs.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Ispolkom said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greatcats said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...He said BNSF is working in western Kansas to bring the track speed back up. This may well be for freight purposes. ( A long coal train pulled in westbound, which I had seen while we drove through Lamar. ) I said to him I thought they wanted to abandon Raton Pass. Not necessarily, he said - in his view BNSF is trying to work out an agreement with Amtrak over that. That last statement may be rather vague, but the first one says something.
> 
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> Just a few short years ago everyone was on the 'say goodbye to the Devil's Lake sub' bandwagon.
> 
> Just saying, as I've been saying, that there is a history (which does tend to repeat itself) of BNSF's behavior in a similar situation, and that had a happy ending - at least for those of us who do not live along the possible reroute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just need to discover oil in the region. That's what changed BNSF's mind on the Devils Lake sub (that and other people paying for 2/3 of the cost of fixing Churchs Ferry). Wasn't the discovery of oil in the Farmington area, and the resulting shipments of pipes and other drilling equipment a big reason that the D&RG narrow-gauge railroad hung on into the 1960s?
Click to expand...

I also think the flooding/trackbed problems BNSF had with the KO sub in 2011 helped move the Devil's Lake agreement along.

One point I'm trying to make, which I don't think I've really articulated (for some reason I love that word ^_^ ), is that BNSF is in a position to 'play hardball' for the best deal it can get, which is what I'm speculating they did in the case of the Devil's Lake sub.

Now was that their plan all along with the Devil's Lake sub? Who knows, but in that case, just as this one, they are the one's holding the cards and they are the only ones who know for certain what those cards/plans are. As I've said before, I do think an enlarged Panama Canal figures into the cards they are holding.


----------



## zephyr17

I don't think the Devil's Lake issue and Raton Pass are really comparable for the following reasons.

1. BNSF has active shippers on the Devil's Lake Sub on either side of Devil's Lake. Their plan if they didn't raise the line was to simply service them from either end, not abandon the subdivision entirely, but take a relatively short middle section out of service. BNSF has NO shippers between Lamy and Trinidad.

2. A deal was reached that Amtrak, the state of North Dakota, and BNSF each paid one third. It probably penciled out to service the shippers more effectively with a through line when they got a 66% discount on the improvements. The flooding on the KO sub and the oil traffic were probably added incentives.

3. BNSF is apparently handling all the maintenance to keep the speeds up, probably for their own trains. On Raton and also east of La Junta, they are asking for ongoing maintenance to be paid for to keep the speeds up, in addtion to the one-time cost to rehab the line.

Bottom line is they have shippers and traffic on the Devils Lake Sub and therefore a motiviation to keep it open if the numbers would pencil out. They have neither on Raton Pass.


----------



## Nathanael

George Harris said:


> By me:  Reality may have set in. The northern part Denver to Pueblo is very congested with freight traffic. The entire route is long and crooked compared to the highway distance. Any Albuquerque to Denver passenger service would be excruciatingly slow without major expenditures on the railroad.


Expenditures which Colorado is likely to have to make anyway if it wants passenger service to Pueblo, or even Colorado Springs.

So that's irrelevant to the question of the Raton Pass line. The only question is whether the relevant state governments care about the route. If Colorado does care, then Colorado will spend the money to get to Pueblo, at which point New Mexico can consider whether it wants to spend the money to get to Albuqeurque.

If they really don't care, someone will probably build houses on the Raton Pass line and make it very hard to get it back.


----------



## Nathanael

railiner said:


> It would seem to me that it would be a lot cheaper to add longer sidings, or double track where necessary, one of the lines, rather than maintain two and pay property taxes to boot.....


In most of the "directional pairs" cases, the freight railroads don't use the two lines *entirely* directionally. There's generally some local, on-line traffic on both.

Or sometimes there are major single-track bridges, and it's easier to keep the two existing single-track bridges than to build a double-track bridge on one of the lines.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

zephyr17 said:


> Even Tennessee Pass is not officially abandoned. It is "embargoed", no trains run on it and haven't since the 1990s some time (don't remember the date), but officially it is not abandoned. The rails are still in place, although there is no maintenance being done on it.





George Harris said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is whether a different governor would be trying to reopen Denver-Albuquerque, for which the line actually is useful. Richardson was trying to talk to the Colorado government about that.
> 
> 
> 
> It is really not that useful as-is. It would cost so much to get the passenger train down to near the road time that you might as well be thinking High Speed Railroad or nothing:
> 
> Back to what was said earlier:
> 
> By me:  Reality may have set in. The northern part Denver to Pueblo is very congested with freight traffic. The entire route is long and crooked compared to the highway distance. Any Albuquerque to Denver passenger service would be excruciatingly slow without major expenditures on the railroad.
> 
> With more detail added by HenryJ: MapQuest list the driving time at around 7 1/2hrs depending on traffic. Greyhound makes the run in 8hrs 10min. By rail it is 479 miles and based on current SWC times from Trinidad and old timetables for the front range, you are looking at 10 to 11hrs.
Click to expand...

While the rail time would be more, there's penty of similar cases with Amtrak. Look at the CS, it runs much slower than road time but still gets decent pax. And the Greyhound doesn't really count here because it's an Americanos bus and most people don't use it unless they speak Spanish. Spanish-seakers mainly use it because their drivers speak Spanish well, and often speak no English.



Nathanael said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> By me:  Reality may have set in. The northern part Denver to Pueblo is very congested with freight traffic. The entire route is long and crooked compared to the highway distance. Any Albuquerque to Denver passenger service would be excruciatingly slow without major expenditures on the railroad.
> 
> 
> 
> Expenditures which Colorado is likely to have to make anyway if it wants passenger service to Pueblo, or even Colorado Springs.
> 
> So that's irrelevant to the question of the Raton Pass line. The only question is whether the relevant state governments care about the route. If Colorado does care, then Colorado will spend the money to get to Pueblo, at which point New Mexico can consider whether it wants to spend the money to get to Albuqeurque.
> 
> If they really don't care, someone will probably build houses on the Raton Pass line and make it very hard to get it back.
Click to expand...

No, if the line really is long and crooked, Colorado would have to build a new line, essentially, to match road speeds. If so, they might as well build HSR. And I don't understand the part about the houses.


----------



## bgiaquin

Notelvis said:


> 'abcnews' said:
> 
> 
> 
> So does the S W Chief reach 90 mph between Chicago & Albuquerque?
> 
> And how much longer do you think we can ride the current route through Raton Pass?
> 
> 
> 
> At most three more years...... but quite possibly less if some disruption (ie: washout) deemed too costly to bother with occurs.
Click to expand...

The current operating "contract" expires in January 2016, so I would guess maybe up until then or sometime in 2015


----------



## bgiaquin

VentureForth said:


> 'BNSFboy' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'printman2000' said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I am wrong here, but shouldn't the freight traffic be just about the same on this segment of the transcon as it is on all the rest of the transcon?
> 
> 
> 
> It should except for a few trains coming in and out of the Red River sub,the line that goes to Lubbock and another line that pulles off of the transcon at Clovis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's just gonna be a whole lot more Transcon. Right now, there is minimal traffic between Belen and Topeka. True, once they join the transcon at Dailies Junction in Los Lunas, it's the same ol' Transcon from there West. After the reroute, it'll be busy Transcon all the way from Topeka to LA.
Click to expand...

Not Topeka to LA, Fort Madison to LA.


----------



## bgiaquin

henryj said:


> 'Swadian Hardcore' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'henryj' said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think the track from Lamy to Trinidad would remain in place for future Denver to Albuquerque service someday. But Trinidad to La Junta and east to Newton will just be freight only. Should the coal traffice around Raton and Trinidad come back this could all change.
> 
> 
> 
> That line Newton-Trinidad won't just be freight only, it'll get abandoned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if you look at the BNSF detailed map, the most likely abandonment would be between Trinidad and La Junta. Coal trains use the Pueblo to Las Animas line every day. Between Las Animas and Dodge City would be questionable depending on how much they use it. They have an alternate route via an affiliated short line between Dodge City and Springfield they could use or they could just use trackage rights on UP to Stratford or Dalhart. Just depends on how important Colorado traffic is to them from the KC gateway. They of course have their own line between Chicago and Denver. It would also depend of whether coal production from the Trinidad/Raton area resumes and where the market is.
Click to expand...

Yes the BNSF still uses the line from La Junta to Newton.


----------



## Eric S

bgiaquin said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'BNSFboy' said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'printman2000' said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I am wrong here, but shouldn't the freight traffic be just about the same on this segment of the transcon as it is on all the rest of the transcon?
> 
> 
> 
> It should except for a few trains coming in and out of the Red River sub,the line that goes to Lubbock and another line that pulles off of the transcon at Clovis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's just gonna be a whole lot more Transcon. Right now, there is minimal traffic between Belen and Topeka. True, once they join the transcon at Dailies Junction in Los Lunas, it's the same ol' Transcon from there West. After the reroute, it'll be busy Transcon all the way from Topeka to LA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Topeka to LA, Fort Madison to LA.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between east and west of Fort Madison?


----------



## zephyr17

The "Transcon" is generally considered to be Chicago(Corwith)-Los Angeles(Hobart). Ft. Madison is just a division point on the way. And Topeka isn't on the Transcon, it is on a secondary line. The Transcon goes through Ottawa, KS.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

zephyr17 said:


> The "Transcon" is generally considered to be Chicago(Corwith)-Los Angeles(Hobart). Ft. Madison is just a division point on the way. And Topeka isn't on the Transcon, it is on a secondary line. The Transcon goes through Ottawa, KS.


Ah, now I see that the Transcon actually goes south of Topeka paralleling I-35. Then it turns south and takes a dive towards Amarillo/Clovis, the proposed re-route.

I found this great interactive map about the Transcons: http://www.tradecorridors.com/explore-the-corridors/transcon/. it seems the official Trnascon goes all the way east to Atltanta and also has two parrallel lines on the CHI-KCY. There's also the Midcon, a very interesting line that could be useful for Amtrak expansion.


----------



## Eric S

zephyr17 said:


> The "Transcon" is generally considered to be Chicago(Corwith)-Los Angeles(Hobart). Ft. Madison is just a division point on the way. And Topeka isn't on the Transcon, it is on a secondary line. The Transcon goes through Ottawa, KS.


Right. That's why I was wondering why the other poster has mentioned Fort Madison (and Topeka).


----------



## Eric S

Swadian Hardcore said:


> I found this great interactive map about the Transcons: http://www.tradecorridors.com/explore-the-corridors/transcon/. it seems the official Trnascon goes all the way east to Atltanta and also has two parrallel lines on the CHI-KCY. There's also the Midcon, a very interesting line that could be useful for Amtrak expansion.


BNSF may now be touting additional lines as spurs of the Transcon. However, as Zephyr17 mentioned, the Transcon has traditionally been understood to mean just the Chicago-Los Angeles ex-ATSF mainline. When people refer to the Transcon, they are almost always referring to CHI-LAX, or some segment thereof. (The second CHI-KCY line is the ex-BN/CB&Q line.)


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Eric S said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I found this great interactive map about the Transcons: http://www.tradecorridors.com/explore-the-corridors/transcon/. it seems the official Trnascon goes all the way east to Atltanta and also has two parrallel lines on the CHI-KCY. There's also the Midcon, a very interesting line that could be useful for Amtrak expansion.
> 
> 
> 
> BNSF may now be touting additional lines as spurs of the Transcon. However, as Zephyr17 mentioned, the Transcon has traditionally been understood to mean just the Chicago-Los Angeles ex-ATSF mainline. When people refer to the Transcon, they are almost always referring to CHI-LAX, or some segment thereof. (The second CHI-KCY line is the ex-BN/CB&Q line.)
Click to expand...

Note that they refer to it as the "Transcon" instead of "Southern Transcon". So they may simply mean the transcotinental lines in general, I guess.

Wasn't the other CHI-KCY route operated with the Kansas City/American Royal Zephyrs?


----------



## railiner

Curious....do the 'Transcon' freights still go 'Santa Fe, All The Way'. as in via Joliet-Streator-Chillicothe, or do they go the way the Chief now does, via the former BN line to Galesburg?

I have ridden the old Southwest Limited one time when it detoured from Kansas City to Galesburg on the BN via Quincy....we got back on the ATSF at Galesburg for the final lap into CHI.


----------



## Nathanael

railiner said:


> Curious....do the 'Transcon' freights still go 'Santa Fe, All The Way'. as in via Joliet-Streator-Chillicothe, or do they go the way the Chief now does, via the former BN line to Galesburg?


I believe BNSF puts the fast intermodals on the BN line and the slower manifest and unit trains on the Santa Fe line, IIRC. That was what I heard years ago, anyway.


----------



## MikefromCrete

The transcon intermodal trains operate out of Corwith Yard in Chicago, the UPS facility in Willow Springs and a large intermodal facility in Elwood, IL., so they travel the old Santa Fe between Chicago and Los Angeles.

Intermodals on the old BN out of Chicago are headed for the Pacific Northwest.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

MikefromCrete said:


> The transcon intermodal trains operate out of Corwith Yard in Chicago, the UPS facility in Willow Springs and a large intermodal facility in Elwood, IL., so they travel the old Santa Fe between Chicago and Los Angeles. Intermodals on the old BN out of Chicago are headed for the Pacific Northwest.


What frieghts use the old BN all the way to KCY?


----------



## bgiaquin

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="zephyr17" data-cid="466245" data-time="1377920246"><p>

The "Transcon" is generally considered to be Chicago(Corwith)-Los Angeles(Hobart). Ft. Madison is just a division point on the way. And Topeka isn't on the Transcon, it is on a secondary line. The Transcon goes through Ottawa, KS.</p></blockquote>

FYI I know where the transcon goes to & from,but I meant the part of the transcon the SWC uses, and it joins it at Fort Madison, or at least near it

anyway.


----------



## jis

bgiaquin said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Transcon" is generally considered to be Chicago(Corwith)-Los Angeles(Hobart). Ft. Madison is just a division point on the way. And Topeka isn't on the Transcon, it is on a secondary line. The Transcon goes through Ottawa, KS.
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I know where the transcon goes to & from,but I meant the part of the transcon the SWC uses, and it joins it at Fort Madison, or at least near it anyway.
Click to expand...

What? Doesn't the SWC cross over from old ex-CB&Q to ex Santa Fe just outside of Galesburg? Fort Madison is far afar away from where it joins the ex-ATSF.


----------



## Eric S

jis said:


> bgiaquin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Transcon" is generally considered to be Chicago(Corwith)-Los Angeles(Hobart). Ft. Madison is just a division point on the way. And Topeka isn't on the Transcon, it is on a secondary line. The Transcon goes through Ottawa, KS.
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I know where the transcon goes to & from,but I meant the part of the transcon the SWC uses, and it joins it at Fort Madison, or at least near it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Doesn't the SWC cross over from old ex-CB&Q to ex Santa Fe just outside of Galesburg? Fort Madison is far afar away from where it joins the ex-ATSF.
Click to expand...

Yep, just west of Galesburg, at Cameron, IL, 50ish miles east of Fort Madison.


----------



## PRR 60

Here is the Cameron Connector between the old CB&Q/BN and ATSF built in 1996 by BNSF:

Google Map


----------



## railiner

If I recall, the old BN mainline and the ATSF mainline either crossed at grade, or had interchange tracks west of Galesburg, prior to that 1996 connector, while east of Galesburg, the BN crossed over the ATSF, on a bridge, with no interchange tracks. The ATSF station, GBA, was north of the GBB station in town. Not sure how the Quincy line interchanges with the ATSF, since it goes south from GBB......


----------



## George Harris

railiner said:


> If I recall, the old BN mainline and the ATSF mainline either crossed at grade, or had interchange tracks west of Galesburg, prior to that 1996 connector, while east of Galesburg, the BN crossed over the ATSF, on a bridge, with no interchange tracks. The ATSF station, GBA, was north of the GBB station in town. Not sure how the Quincy line interchanges with the ATSF, since it goes south from GBB......


The ex CB&Q goes over the AT&SF twice. Once just east of the center of Galesburg. The other west of Galesburg just east of Cameron. The double wye just east of Cameron was built after the AT&SF + BN merger.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

George Harris said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I recall, the old BN mainline and the ATSF mainline either crossed at grade, or had interchange tracks west of Galesburg, prior to that 1996 connector, while east of Galesburg, the BN crossed over the ATSF, on a bridge, with no interchange tracks. The ATSF station, GBA, was north of the GBB station in town. Not sure how the Quincy line interchanges with the ATSF, since it goes south from GBB......
> 
> 
> 
> The ex CB&Q goes over the AT&SF twice. Once just east of the center of Galesburg. The other west of Galesburg just east of Cameron. The double wye just east of Cameron was built after the AT&SF + BN merger.
Click to expand...

Dosen't the Burlington still go over the Sante Fe at Cameron? The connector on the map is a bit east of the crossing. It seems that after the crossing, the SWC merges onto the Santa Fe line and runs under the Burlington.


----------



## zephyr17

jis said:


> bgiaquin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Transcon" is generally considered to be Chicago(Corwith)-Los Angeles(Hobart). Ft. Madison is just a division point on the way. And Topeka isn't on the Transcon, it is on a secondary line. The Transcon goes through Ottawa, KS.
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I know where the transcon goes to & from,but I meant the part of the transcon the SWC uses, and it joins it at Fort Madison, or at least near it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Doesn't the SWC cross over from old ex-CB&Q to ex Santa Fe just outside of Galesburg? Fort Madison is far afar away from where it joins the ex-ATSF.
Click to expand...

Yep, specifically, the SWC is on the Transcon from Cameron, Il, just outside Galesburg, to just west of Argentine Yard in Kansas City, then from Emporia,KS to Newton, KS, and finally from Dalies, NM the rest of the way to LA. If the re-route happens, it will be on theTranscon from Emporia on west, except for the proposed run up to Albuquerque.


----------



## bgiaquin

Eric S said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgiaquin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Transcon" is generally considered to be Chicago(Corwith)-Los Angeles(Hobart). Ft. Madison is just a division point on the way. And Topeka isn't on the Transcon, it is on a secondary line. The Transcon goes through Ottawa, KS.
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I know where the transcon goes to & from,but I meant the part of the transcon the SWC uses, and it joins it at Fort Madison, or at least near it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Doesn't the SWC cross over from old ex-CB&Q to ex Santa Fe just outside of Galesburg? Fort Madison is far afar away from where it joins the ex-ATSF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, just west of Galesburg, at Cameron, IL, 50ish miles east of Fort Madison.
Click to expand...


okay thank you for correcting me. I do not know that area very well. Anyway, I believe BNSF can fit the SWC into the transcon. I love the current route, but in the long term, unless someone pays that 100 mil, the transcon is a better option. BTW, I am a new user to this site, but not to Amtrak. I have been riding for the past 15 years. I am glad to join your community.


----------



## Eric S

zephyr17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgiaquin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Transcon" is generally considered to be Chicago(Corwith)-Los Angeles(Hobart). Ft. Madison is just a division point on the way. And Topeka isn't on the Transcon, it is on a secondary line. The Transcon goes through Ottawa, KS.
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I know where the transcon goes to & from,but I meant the part of the transcon the SWC uses, and it joins it at Fort Madison, or at least near it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Doesn't the SWC cross over from old ex-CB&Q to ex Santa Fe just outside of Galesburg? Fort Madison is far afar away from where it joins the ex-ATSF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, specifically, the SWC is on the Transcon from Cameron, Il, just outside Galesburg, to just west of Argentine Yard in Kansas City, then from Emporia,KS to Newton, KS, and finally from Dalies, NM the rest of the way to LA. If the re-route happens, it will be on theTranscon from Emporia on west, except for the proposed run up to Albuquerque.
Click to expand...

Actually it just joins the Transcon for a small bit through and to the west of Emporia, not the entire way from Emporia to Newton. The Transon and the northern/passenger/SWC route split between Emporia and Strong City.


----------



## zephyr17

Eric S said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bgiaquin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Transcon" is generally considered to be Chicago(Corwith)-Los Angeles(Hobart). Ft. Madison is just a division point on the way. And Topeka isn't on the Transcon, it is on a secondary line. The Transcon goes through Ottawa, KS.
> 
> 
> 
> FYI I know where the transcon goes to & from,but I meant the part of the transcon the SWC uses, and it joins it at Fort Madison, or at least near it anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? Doesn't the SWC cross over from old ex-CB&Q to ex Santa Fe just outside of Galesburg? Fort Madison is far afar away from where it joins the ex-ATSF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, specifically, the SWC is on the Transcon from Cameron, Il, just outside Galesburg, to just west of Argentine Yard in Kansas City, then from Emporia,KS to Newton, KS, and finally from Dalies, NM the rest of the way to LA. If the re-route happens, it will be on theTranscon from Emporia on west, except for the proposed run up to Albuquerque.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it just joins the Transcon for a small bit through and to the west of Emporia, not the entire way from Emporia to Newton. The Transon and the northern/passenger/SWC route split between Emporia and Strong City.
Click to expand...

I thought I read somewhere BNSF runs Transcon traffic (largely) directionally between Ellinor and WN Jct, which is why I put Newton as the split, not Ellinor. Not positive about that, though.


----------



## Eric S

I haven't heard about the directional running between Ellinor and WN Jct (near Mulvane, right?). That could certainly be the case, though.

I lived in Wichita until 1997, and at that time BNSF did not utilize directional running there. There was much more traffic (in both directions) on the line through El Dorado than on the line through Newton/Wichita.


----------



## cirdan

Stupid question coming up.

I understand the Raton route is the original Santa Fe line transcon.

Why then did they later build the present transcon, and seeing that route is flatter and faster, why didn't they go that way from the beginning?


----------



## zephyr17

I know a little of it. AT&SF originally did not the rights to build the "35th Paralllel" route, SL&SF (Frisco) did. The original line was the line toward El Paso, the branch that hooked up to the SP at Deming (now a shortline between Rincon and Deming). At some point, AT&SF subsidiary Atlantic & Pacific, jointly with the Frisco (IIRC) took the rights and started building west from Albuquerque on the original line. Frisco theoretically had the rights to that route east of NM. Frisco went bankrupt at some point, and Santa Fe bought out the rest of the A&P.

Another aspect of that was that SP wanted to block entry of A&P from California, so built the original line to Needles out of Mojave. A&P and SP both wound up with a "line to nowhere" (Needles) which is the western part of today's Transcon. SP & A&P (AT&SF) wound up agreeing to exchange track, a Santa Fe line in Mexico (former SPdeM to Guymas, I think, but am not sure) to SP for the line from Mojave to Needles to the Santa Fe. Santa Fe got the better end of that deal. They acquired the California Southern for the entry in Southern California, originally San Diego from the line that is now the San Jacinto Branch that extended through Temecula Canyon (and washed out). Orange Empire Railway Museum is on the remnant of that line south of Perris, CA.

In most respects, Santa Fe "just growed". It wasn't like the GN where Hill set out for Seattle right from the word "go".


----------



## The Davy Crockett

zephyr17 said:


> It wasn't like the GN where Hill set out for Seattle right from the word "go".


This is a gross oversimplification, but actually Hill got involved in railroad ownership when he pulled some pretty outlandish 'stunts' with three other partners to gain control of the St. Paul & Pacific RR. Hill saw that the bankrupt line was worth much more than what they could acquire for - if they could finagle the deal. Under their ownership the name was changed to the St Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. and they built it to serve their land grants from the State of Minnesota in the fertile northwestern part of the state - mostly in the Red River Valley. Only later did Hill have the power, money and political clout to extend it to the west coast. While it is true he had dreamed of 'The Orient' since youth, he did not set out for Seattle from the word 'go.'

An easy reading biography of him is "James J. Hill, Empire Builder of the Northwest" By Michael P. Malone


----------



## George Harris

Swadian Hardcore said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I recall, the old BN mainline and the ATSF mainline either crossed at grade, or had interchange tracks west of Galesburg, prior to that 1996 connector, while east of Galesburg, the BN crossed over the ATSF, on a bridge, with no interchange tracks. The ATSF station, GBA, was north of the GBB station in town. Not sure how the Quincy line interchanges with the ATSF, since it goes south from GBB......
> 
> 
> 
> The ex CB&Q goes over the AT&SF twice. Once just east of the center of Galesburg. The other west of Galesburg just east of Cameron. The double wye just east of Cameron was built after the AT&SF + BN merger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dosen't the Burlington still go over the Sante Fe at Cameron? The connector on the map is a bit east of the crossing. It seems that after the crossing, the SWC merges onto the Santa Fe line and runs under the Burlington.
Click to expand...

Yes


----------



## printman2000

Looks like a meeting will be happening in Pueblo, Co to discuss ways to save the current route.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/article_dee1b4ce-b741-5686-9ae3-d54207d75980.html



> GARDEN CITY, Kan. — Community leaders from Kansas are meeting with their counterparts from Colorado and New Mexico next week to look for ways to save an Amtrak route through Kansas and Colorado.


----------



## henryj

Personally, I am torn between the two options. Being in Texas, I would love to see service through Amarillo restored with a thruway bus to Lubbock. On the other hand I hate to see the Raton Pass line abandoned. But, even if the money is found through the states and cities the train passes through, is it worth the millions that will be spent to just keep running these two trains on that track when there are so many other Amtrak needs? Things like a daily Sunset, restore service between New Orleans and Florida, thru way bus connection to Phoenix, corridor service in Texas, Chicago to Florida service restoration, Denver to the Pacific NW, St Louis/KC to Denver connections...just to name a few. Orders for new Superliners. The list goes on. My stand on this is if the money isn't forthcoming from outside Amtrak, then just reroute the train, period, and get it over with. The train is often sold out anyway and there is no promise of any new or additional equipment becoming available in the forseable future. I doubt if the reroute will result in a speedier schedule, but there is nothing wrong with the current schedule.


----------



## Bob Dylan

printman2000 said:


> Looks like a meeting will be happening in Pueblo, Co to discuss ways to save the current route.
> 
> http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/article_dee1b4ce-b741-5686-9ae3-d54207d75980.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GARDEN CITY, Kan. — Community leaders from Kansas are meeting with their counterparts from Colorado and New Mexico next week to look for ways to save an Amtrak route through Kansas and Colorado.
Click to expand...

Politicians love to hold Meetings and Talk Big, but putting Money where their Mouth is is a Whole "Nother Story!


----------



## George Harris

jimhudson said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a meeting will be happening in Pueblo, Co to discuss ways to save the current route.
> 
> http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/article_dee1b4ce-b741-5686-9ae3-d54207d75980.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GARDEN CITY, Kan. — Community leaders from Kansas are meeting with their counterparts from Colorado and New Mexico next week to look for ways to save an Amtrak route through Kansas and Colorado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Politicians love to hold Meetings and Talk Big, but putting Money where their Mouth is is a Whole "Nother Story!
Click to expand...

Calling for a study is usually for two purposes: 1. To look like you are trying to do something when you really are not. 2. To keep something from being done.

There are some companies that are good at these things, but when you see one that looks like the authors fell of the turnip truck yesterday, that is paying off a political favor.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

henryj said:


> Personally, I am torn between the two options. Being in Texas, I would love to see service through Amarillo restored with a thruway bus to Lubbock. On the other hand I hate to see the Raton Pass line abandoned. But, even if the money is found through the states and cities the train passes through, is it worth the millions that will be spent to just keep running these two trains on that track when there are so many other Amtrak needs? Things like a daily Sunset, restore service between New Orleans and Florida, thru way bus connection to Phoenix, corridor service in Texas, Chicago to Florida service restoration, Denver to the Pacific NW, St Louis/KC to Denver connections...just to name a few. Orders for new Superliners. The list goes on. My stand on this is if the money isn't forthcoming from outside Amtrak, then just reroute the train, period, and get it over with. The train is often sold out anyway and there is no promise of any new or additional equipment becoming available in the forseable future. I doubt if the reroute will result in a speedier schedule, but there is nothing wrong with the current schedule.


Agreed. If they can save time and money by rerouting through Amarillo. The route from Kansas City-Amarillo is car-only right now, so this train coul help a lot. The Raton Pass route still has generally parallel bus service.

Amtrak should just go ahead with the reroute when all station problems have been resolved. Even an Amshack would be better than nothing.


----------



## Notelvis

Swadian Hardcore said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I am torn between the two options. Being in Texas, I would love to see service through Amarillo restored with a thruway bus to Lubbock. On the other hand I hate to see the Raton Pass line abandoned. But, even if the money is found through the states and cities the train passes through, is it worth the millions that will be spent to just keep running these two trains on that track when there are so many other Amtrak needs? Things like a daily Sunset, restore service between New Orleans and Florida, thru way bus connection to Phoenix, corridor service in Texas, Chicago to Florida service restoration, Denver to the Pacific NW, St Louis/KC to Denver connections...just to name a few. Orders for new Superliners. The list goes on. My stand on this is if the money isn't forthcoming from outside Amtrak, then just reroute the train, period, and get it over with. The train is often sold out anyway and there is no promise of any new or additional equipment becoming available in the forseable future. I doubt if the reroute will result in a speedier schedule, but there is nothing wrong with the current schedule.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. If they can save time and money by rerouting through Amarillo. The route from Kansas City-Amarillo is car-only right now, so this train coul help a lot. The Raton Pass route still has generally parallel bus service.
> 
> Amtrak should just go ahead with the reroute when all station problems have been resolved. Even an Amshack would be better than nothing.
Click to expand...

Or temporary waiting rooms set up in trailers until more substantial station facilities are renovated or constructed from scratch.

Given the condition of the Raton Pass line when I last rode it in July 2012, I'm of the opinion that this reroute is much more likely than not to happen........ and that it might even happen sooner than expected. The more time passes without any maintenance performed over Raton Pass, the more costly it's going to be to bring the line back up to standard. Whether that's done or not, it would still take only one big landslide on Raton Pass and suddenly it's "Hello Amarillo!"


----------



## Nathanael

Regarding "station issues":

Under current law Amtrak would have to build a full platform with tactile edging and a wheelchair-accessible approach walkway, along with a suitable wheelchair lift (and presumably an enclosure to prevent the lift from being stolen) in order to open an Amarillo station. That should be less than a million dollars.

In order to avoid a very long and delay-prone rigamarole of paperwork with the FRA, however, Amtrak would also need to get a platform siding and build an 18" ATR platform on the siding. This might be quite a bit more expensive. I don't know how long it would take to get BNSF to do this, either.

It looks like there's room for a long straight siding south of the old station, though.

Wichita still *has* a station, which would just need a little sprucing up.


----------



## Paul CHI

I've ridden through Raton Pass a number of times, and after the first couple of times didn't find it particularly enjoyable. I hate to travel at 15mph when I'm on a train.

The Transcon goes through Abo canyon, which is pretty country also, not to mention the red rocks scenery between Albuquerque and Gallup.

NM and Colorado should convert Raton Pass to narrow gauge and run scenic tours instead.


----------



## henryj

Nathanael said:


> Regarding "station issues":Under current law Amtrak would have to build a full platform with tactile edging and a wheelchair-accessible approach walkway, along with a suitable wheelchair lift (and presumably an enclosure to prevent the lift from being stolen) in order to open an Amarillo station. That should be less than a million dollars.
> 
> In order to avoid a very long and delay-prone rigamarole of paperwork with the FRA, however, Amtrak would also need to get a platform siding and build an 18" ATR platform on the siding. This might be quite a bit more expensive. I don't know how long it would take to get BNSF to do this, either.
> 
> It looks like there's room for a long straight siding south of the old station, though.
> 
> Wichita still *has* a station, which would just need a little sprucing up.


A few million for station improvements on the re-route is nothing compared to the 100's of millions it will take to keep Raton open.


----------



## jis

Paul CHI said:


> NM and Colorado should convert Raton Pass to narrow gauge and run scenic tours instead.


They don't seem to be able to maintain the current track and you think they will be able to rip those out, and lay new tracks? Maybe they can instead convert Trinidad to Albuquerque into a heavy light rail service using Tier I compliant Stadler DLRTs with some minimal maintenance work on the track that is already in place. that might be within the realm of possibilities if at all.


----------



## VentureForth

Paul CHI said:


> NM and Colorado should convert Raton Pass to narrow gauge and run scenic tours instead.


No point in converting it to Narrow Gauge. The Silverton & Durango and the Cumberland are Narrow Gauge because that's how they started life. If the SWC gets moved to the Transcon, some moderate use by RDCs or something lightweight on existing track that gets no maintenance could probably sustain itself without major improvements - keeping to a speed of around 20 MPH or so.


----------



## George Harris

VentureForth said:


> Paul CHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> NM and Colorado should convert Raton Pass to narrow gauge and run scenic tours instead.
> 
> 
> 
> No point in converting it to Narrow Gauge. The Silverton & Durango and the Cumberland are Narrow Gauge because that's how they started life. If the SWC gets moved to the Transcon, some moderate use by RDCs or something lightweight on existing track that gets no maintenance could probably sustain itself without major improvements - keeping to a speed of around 20 MPH or so.
Click to expand...

Reality check: The current route is reaching the point that it is not servicable at all regardless of the volume of traffic and axle loads. The current track material is simply beat to death. Even with light vehicles it will still be a bone jarring low speed ride. If fixed up, it would hold up longer under light axle load low volume traffic, but other than the engines on the front of the SW Chief that is what is running on it now. Changing to all light axle loads does not suddenly improve the track condition, it just slows the rate of further deterioration. The line is simply reaching the point that it must have a rail relya and a heavy tie and surfacing job to stay in service at all for any form of operation.


----------



## Paul CHI

Oh, well... just hate to see the route be completely abandoned. It took a lot of work and money to build. But once it gets to a certain point, I can understand that it would be almost like starting over.


----------



## TVRM610

Surely Iowa Pacific is looking at this line?


----------



## zephyr17

Why would they? There are no traffic generators on it at all. The lines they own up in Colorado generate freight traffic.


----------



## TVRM610

zephyr17 said:


> Why would they? There are no traffic generators on it at all. The lines they own up in Colorado generate freight traffic.


There is no possible freight customers on the entire line?

Where does the line begin and end? (The line that is currently in jeapordy).


----------



## zephyr17

The portion of line that is in danger of complete abandonment/embargo is between Lamy and La Junta. From La Junta on east (actually Las Animas Jct, line between La Junta and Las Animas Jct. is farily heavily used), BNSF plans on retaining line, but does not need it maintained to standards reasonable for passenger trains, pretty much just as a long industrial lead.

There really isn't much to generate traffic on the line. Livestock is generally not shipped by rail any more. The main traffic generator on the line was the York Canyon coal mine. Since that closed, there isn't anything.

The lines Iowa Pacific bought in Colorado had active shippers when they took them over.


----------



## TVRM610

Does the Iowa Pacific line(aka Rio Grande Scenic) connect with the Raton Pass line at all?

Well I answered my own question... the answer is no but it's close.

http://www.iowapacific.com/pdf/SanLuisAndRioGrandRailway2008Ver3.pdf

I'd bet they have their eyes on it... doesn't mean they will buy it but stranger things have happened!


----------



## sechs

For reference:

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


----------



## printman2000

Some significant news here in Amarillo...

Amarillo Considers Purchasing Santa Fe Depot

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2013-09-20/city-considers-buying-santa-fe-depot



> “I think it’s a real positive move on the city’s part. That’s a historic property and could be really important to the development of downtown. And it’s important to the people of Amarillo as a historic building,” said Commissioner Ellen Robertson Green.
> 
> The proposed purchase includes terms allowing the current owner, Amarillo real estate investor and auction operator Bob Goree, to lease it.
> 
> “The lease is for three years, but there’s an immediate take-back clause. If we find a good use for it — it’s no secret Amtrak is looking at Amarillo — if something wonderful like that happened we could take it back,” Green said.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

printman2000 said:


> Some significant news here in Amarillo...
> 
> Amarillo Considers Purchasing Santa Fe Depot
> 
> http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2013-09-20/city-considers-buying-santa-fe-depot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “I think it’s a real positive move on the city’s part. That’s a historic property and could be really important to the development of downtown. And it’s important to the people of Amarillo as a historic building,” said Commissioner Ellen Robertson Green.
> 
> The proposed purchase includes terms allowing the current owner, Amarillo real estate investor and auction operator Bob Goree, to lease it.
> 
> “The lease is for three years, but there’s an immediate take-back clause. If we find a good use for it — it’s no secret Amtrak is looking at Amarillo — if something wonderful like that happened we could take it back,” Green said.
Click to expand...

Two thoughts come to mind:

1) The town commissioners were obviously Scouts and took the Scout motto "Be Prepared" to heart. <_<

2) How many letters did you write, and how many meetings did you attend, before they finally listened to you? :giggle:

I still think the Raton Pass routing could be be saved, but, once being a Scout myself, I am riding the SWC this fall!


----------



## SarahZ

That's a beautiful building. I like the big horse.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Craig: Sounds like a Sweet Deal for Amarillo (ya'll have NIMBYs too! :giggle: ) and When (not If) Amtrak moves to the Trans-Con it will make a Real Depot available, not just an Amshak! What kind of shape are the Tracks,Switches and Platforms in around the Station???


----------



## printman2000

jimhudson said:


> Craig: Sounds like a Sweet Deal for Amarillo (ya'll have NIMBYs too! :giggle: ) and When (not If) Amtrak moves to the Trans-Con it will make a Real Depot available, not just an Amshak! What kind of shape are the Tracks,Switches and Platforms in around the Station???


As you can see here...

https://maps.google.com/?ll=35.208467,-101.826255&spn=0.000772,0.001321&t=h&z=20

You can see what is left of the platforms has some significant distance between them and the rails. Not to mention the station is next to curved track. I am sure it is workable, but will require work (and money) to get it working again.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

jimhudson said:


> Craig: Sounds like a Sweet Deal for Amarillo (ya'll have NIMBYs too! :giggle: ) and When (not If) Amtrak moves to the Trans-Con...


How about: The SWC does get rerouted: I'll buy you both lunch in Amarillo? If not: you both buy me lunch in La Junta? 

:lol: :unsure: :unsure:


----------



## me_little_me

The Davy Crockett said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Craig: Sounds like a Sweet Deal for Amarillo (ya'll have NIMBYs too! :giggle: ) and When (not If) Amtrak moves to the Trans-Con...
> 
> 
> 
> How about: The SWC does get rerouted: I'll buy you both lunch in Amarillo? If not: you both buy me lunch in La Junta?
> 
> :lol: :unsure: :unsure:
Click to expand...

At the Big Texan? In the early '70s, we used to see the signs on the freeway for the place. Never stopped.


----------



## Notelvis

The Davy Crockett said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Craig: Sounds like a Sweet Deal for Amarillo (ya'll have NIMBYs too! :giggle: ) and When (not If) Amtrak moves to the Trans-Con...
> 
> 
> 
> How about: The SWC does get rerouted: I'll buy you both lunch in Amarillo? If not: you both buy me lunch in La Junta?
> 
> :lol: :unsure: :unsure:
Click to expand...

Interesting wager - does it have a statute of limitations?


----------



## The Davy Crockett

me_little_me said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Craig: Sounds like a Sweet Deal for Amarillo (ya'll have NIMBYs too! :giggle: ) and When (not If) Amtrak moves to the Trans-Con...
> 
> 
> 
> How about: The SWC does get rerouted: I'll buy you both lunch in Amarillo? If not: you both buy me lunch in La Junta?
> 
> :lol: :unsure: :unsure:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the Big Texan? In the early '70s, we used to see the signs on the freeway for the place. Never stopped.
Click to expand...

Is it still in business? :unsure: And what kind of joint is it?


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Notelvis said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Craig: Sounds like a Sweet Deal for Amarillo (ya'll have NIMBYs too! :giggle: ) and When (not If) Amtrak moves to the Trans-Con...
> 
> 
> 
> How about: The SWC does get rerouted: I'll buy you both lunch in Amarillo? If not: you both buy me lunch in La Junta?
> 
> :lol: :unsure: :unsure:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting wager - does it have a statute of limitations?
Click to expand...

Say... 2017... to pull a number out of my Stetson..


----------



## printman2000

It is still here. I have been in Amarillo for 8 years and still not gone. It is a steak house. They have the deal where you eat some huge steak in an hour and you get it free. They may have been one of the first places to do that kind of challenge.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

printman2000 said:


> It is still here. I have been in Amarillo for 8 years and still not gone. It is a steak house. They have the deal where you eat some huge steak in an hour and you get it free. They may have been one of the first places to do that kind of challenge.


STILL not gone? Boy that sounds promising.... not! :huh: I prefer Tex-Mex myself, but its your call!


----------



## The Davy Crockett

How about Mexico City Cafe in La Junta? Yelp


----------



## gmushial

printman2000 said:


> It is still here. I have been in Amarillo for 8 years and still not gone. It is a steak house. They have the deal where you eat some huge steak in an hour and you get it free. They may have been one of the first places to do that kind of challenge.


Sounds like the old Trail Dust challenge (just west of Denver) - a 56 oz steak - you eat it all, and it's free.... watched a couple people manage the feat years ago. Personally would rather settle for a barely cooked ribeye ;-)


----------



## printman2000

The Davy Crockett said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Craig: Sounds like a Sweet Deal for Amarillo (ya'll have NIMBYs too! :giggle: ) and When (not If) Amtrak moves to the Trans-Con...
> 
> 
> 
> How about: The SWC does get rerouted: I'll buy you both lunch in Amarillo? If not: you both buy me lunch in La Junta?
> 
> :lol: :unsure: :unsure:
Click to expand...

You forgot the third option, discontinuance. I guess, in that case, nobody wins.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

printman2000 said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Craig: Sounds like a Sweet Deal for Amarillo (ya'll have NIMBYs too! :giggle: ) and When (not If) Amtrak moves to the Trans-Con...
> 
> 
> 
> How about: The SWC does get rerouted: I'll buy you both lunch in Amarillo? If not: you both buy me lunch in La Junta?
> 
> :lol: :unsure: :unsure:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot the third option, discontinuance. I guess, in that case, nobody wins.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. We all would loose in option three. Then we all stay home and drown our sorrows in the beverage of our choice? :help:


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

It's very hard to get the SWC axed, but you gotta admit, it's doing pretty poorly these days and a discontinuance isn't totally out the window.


----------



## greatcats

In what respects do you feel the SWC is doing poorly? The likely re-route has been widely discussed, but the business is good ( even the Flagstaff agents said so ) and this train is usually reliable.


----------



## jebr

Swadian Hardcore said:


> It's very hard to get the SWC axed, but you gotta admit, it's doing pretty poorly these days and a discontinuance isn't totally out the window.


Um, what rationale is there to discontinuing it? I can't see that happening without there being major shifts in LD service. Reroute, yes. Cancellation, no.


----------



## Flyer

Amtrak claims that there is no federal funding to preserve the existing route. They have requested that $100 million be provided as a one-time capital improvement cost and $10 million a year thereafter. The one time and annual costs were to be split five ways (Amtrak, BNSF, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico) $20 million one time and $2 million per year each. All three states declined to participate last year.

Fred Frailey, noted TRAINS magazine consultant claimed about a year ago that the reroute would not be "free" and that it could require as much if not more than the preservation. While some might scoff at this consider the rearrangement of tracks on the mainline to access depot locations, depot renovations (or even new structures), signal retimings, ADA compliancy issues, relocation of servicing facilities... Oklahoma and Texas will be no more willing to pay for a Southwest Chief reroute than Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico were for preservation.

The Southwest Chief is not in the top of Amtrak's best Long Distance performers. The Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster, would like to see Amtrak justify its Long Distance services. Of course Amtrak is dealing with funny money and would like to move all federal dollars to the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak is likely attempting to set precedent by finding non-federal funding sources for its long distance trains.


----------



## Nathanael

Flyer said:


> Fred Frailey, noted TRAINS magazine consultant claimed about a year ago that the reroute would not be "free" and that it could require as much if not more than the preservation. While some might scoff at this
> 
> I do scoff at this. It's absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> consider the rearrangement of tracks on the mainline to access depot locations, depot renovations (or even new structures),
> 
> 
> 
> There are likely to be only two new stations: Wichita and Amarillo. Expect NO other stations between ABQ and Newton. Wichita is pretty much ready as far as track connections and the city is willing to pay for station renovations. Amarillo -- well, maybe there won't be a station in Amarillo either!
> Look at the station spacing on some of the other trains. Amtrak is happy to increase station spacing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> signal retimings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> , ADA compliancy issues,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No stations, no issue.
> 
> 
> 
> relocation of servicing facilities...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There aren't any servicing facilities to relocate as far as I can tell. ABQ will remain; there's nothing between there and Newton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oklahoma and Texas will be no more willing to pay for a Southwest Chief reroute than Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico were for preservation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

But Wichita will pay for Wichita station, and honestly, the reroute doesn't need much more than that! Amarillo City will probably be asked to pay if they want a station.


----------



## Nathanael

Aargh, quote fail. Please fix. :-(


----------



## VentureForth

Wouldn't it be nice for the reroute to go down all the way through Wichita to OKC then cut to the West there?


----------



## BNSFboy

Amarillo is buying the station with the foresight of amtrak moving the SWC. Plus it is also making it a main building in the downtown renovation project.


----------



## henryj

VentureForth said:


> Wouldn't it be nice for the reroute to go down all the way through Wichita to OKC then cut to the West there?


No that would be quite stupid and would significantly delay the train.


----------



## Nathanael

BNSFboy said:


> Amarillo is buying the station with the foresight of amtrak moving the SWC. Plus it is also making it a main building in the downtown renovation project.


Oooh, good! Is there a newspaper article? This is the first I've heard of Amarillo doing anything with the station.


----------



## printman2000

Read up in the topic. I posted it the other day on this thread.


----------



## Nathanael

Thank you, printman. :blush: Great news.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Ya gotta love the footage they used, but here is a report from KOAT Albuquerque...

For shock value, did someone say Belen?


----------



## printman2000

Another report...

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/23509990/could-the-santa-fe-depot-welcome-passenger-trains-again


----------



## printman2000

The Davy Crockett said:


> Ya gotta love the footage they used, but here is a report from KOAT Albuquerque...
> 
> For shock value, did someone say Belen?


It has always been said on this forum that a reroute would for sure include Albuquerque. Is this just another Amtrak tactic to try and scare New Mexico into coughing up money?


----------



## The Davy Crockett

printman2000 said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya gotta love the footage they used, but here is a report from KOAT Albuquerque...
> 
> For shock value, did someone say Belen?
> 
> 
> 
> It has always been said on this forum that a reroute would for sure include Albuquerque. Is this just another Amtrak tactic to try and scare New Mexico into coughing up money?
Click to expand...

I personally think ABQ would still be served with the reroute. I don't know if its Amtrak or the folks in ABQ who are trying to save the Raton Pass routing.who are saying this, but my hunch is the latter, but both certainly could be playing that card.

The subject has certainly caught the eye of televised media in the areas that could be impacted anyway...


----------



## MikefromCrete

printman2000 said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya gotta love the footage they used, but here is a report from KOAT Albuquerque...
> 
> For shock value, did someone say Belen?
> 
> 
> 
> It has always been said on this forum that a reroute would for sure include Albuquerque. Is this just another Amtrak tactic to try and scare New Mexico into coughing up money?
Click to expand...

We at this forum have always assumed that Albuquerque would continue to be served directly, but has Amtrak ever said that? It's just another negotiating tool.


----------



## Notelvis

We at this forum have always assumed the Albuquerque would continue to be served directly as the station and servicing infrastructure there are already in place and there is a wye for turning the train just south of town. A Southwest Chief backtracking to serve ABQ would actually have a shorter backtrack than does the Silver Star in order to directly serve Tampa.


----------



## TVRM610

"We at this forum" does not include every member. I've often said its entirely possible that IF a reroute occurs the stop COULD be Belen.

It amazes me how people can be 100% sure of something that no one knows!


----------



## railiner

Yup......again I remind everyone, just ask the poor folks at Phoenix......now being "served" at Maricopa......


----------



## SarahZ

Everything about that article ticked me off. Nothing is for sure yet, and they reported it as fact, including that quote about Belen. Way to scare a large passenger base for no good reason. :angry:


----------



## VentureForth

henryj said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice for the reroute to go down all the way through Wichita to OKC then cut to the West there?
> 
> 
> 
> No that would be quite stupid and would significantly delay the train.
Click to expand...

 Really? Why? Just looking at Google, and not knowing the time tables for the various subs, the new route would be around 20 miles further than the current routing. If my suggestion were to be implemented, you would essentially be following the I-35/I-40 corridor, where there is much greater population and perhaps the swapping of fine track along that route vs the slow and windy Raton Pass route that currently exists, it is conceivable that you could service many more people for about the same amount of time. For that reason, it would not be stupid at all nor "significantly" delay the train.

That being said, it IS truly NOT a good idea, but primarily because there is no TRACK along I-40. But to call someone's ideas "stupid" - particularly for the irrelevant reasons listed - is uncalled for.



TVRM610 said:


> "We at this forum" does not include every member. I've often said its entirely possible that IF a reroute occurs the stop COULD be Belen.
> 
> It amazes me how people can be 100% sure of something that no one knows!


Don't disagree with you. It could be Belen. But it likely will remain ABQ. As discussed in plenty of other places (and maybe even this thread), there isn't a cross-platform way to get passengers from Amtrak to the Rail Runner easily. Since all the infrastructure is in ABQ, it's likely (but not 100% fer sure) that will be the stop in central NM.


----------



## SarahZ

TVRM610 said:


> "We at this forum" does not include every member. I've often said its entirely possible that IF a reroute occurs the stop COULD be Belen.
> 
> It amazes me how people can be 100% sure of something that no one knows!


Notelvis didn't say "100% sure". He said "have always assumed".


----------



## bgiaquin

ATSF 2926 would be great for a "Farewell Raton Pass" Trip.


----------



## Nathanael

VentureForth said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice for the reroute to go down all the way through Wichita to OKC then cut to the West there?
> 
> 
> 
> No that would be quite stupid and would significantly delay the train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Why? Just looking at Google, and not knowing the time tables for the various subs, the new route would be around 20 miles further than the current routing.
Click to expand...

The only track heading west from OKC is not fit for Amtrak. It's a short-line route maintained for low speeds, mostly single-track, and it doesn't have good geometrics either (i.e. you can't speed it up).
The correct thing to do is to have the SW Chief go through Wichita and Amarillo along BNSF's mostly double-track, likely-soon-to-be-90-mph Transcon -- and to have the Heartland Flyer continue north from OKC to Wichita to connect to it. The rerouting of the SW Chief should inspire reconsideration of the studies about extending the Heartland Flyer; reversing the Heartland Flyer at Wichita eliminates some of the complications which were involved in previous plans to connect at Newton or run all the way to Kansas City.



> That being said, it IS truly NOT a good idea, but primarily because there is no TRACK along I-40.


Um, yeah.



> Don't disagree with you. It could be Belen. But it likely will remain ABQ. As discussed in plenty of other places (and maybe even this thread), there isn't a cross-platform way to get passengers from Amtrak to the Rail Runner easily. Since all the infrastructure is in ABQ, it's likely (but not 100% fer sure) that will be the stop in central NM.


Indeed. Albuquerque is a service stop (and a long one). The tracks from ABQ to Belen are owned and maintained by NM RailRunner. To maintain service to ABQ, Amtrak would simply need to refurbish the "Abajo Wye". To move service to Belen, Amtrak would have to build a platform track, and a station, and a ticket office, and baggage handling, and arrange for fuel and potable water supply and sewer cleanout -- waaaaay more expensive. Much cheaper for Amtrak to run up to ABQ and back down.
I think the people who are trying to keep the train running over Raton Pass are the ones scaremongering about losing Albuquerque. Unless BNSF or the State of New Mexico fights with Amtrak or the SW Chief gets cut entirely, ABQ will almost certainly be served.


----------



## printman2000

Looks like Amarillo is well on its way to owning the Santa Fe Depot...

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2013-09-24/residents-seek-delay-property-purchaseby-kevin-welch



> Amarillo City Commission votes to buy Santa Fe Depot over residents' objections
> Residents asked Amarillo city commissioners to table a proposal to buy the Santa Fe Depot and surrounding six acres at their Tuesday meeting, but commissioners voted unanimously to proceed with the deal.


----------



## Rob Creighton

This made the news in Lubbock yesterday because if the train does get re-routed it's suggested there will be an Am-Bus from Lubbock to Amarillo. Also expressed was reports that the Dallas - Denver proposed "Cap Rock Express" could happen too. Although that may be more wishful thinking from the Texas Association of Rail Passengers. I would really like to see both things happen. It'd be great to not always do the 5 hour drive to Dallas from Lubbock. And it'd be nice to be able to take a train to Chicago without having to go to Dallas or ABQ to get it. (An hour bus ride to Amarillo isn't bad at all!) Here's a link to the story: http://www.myfoxlubbock.com/news/local/story/Lubbock-Lubbock-Trains-west-Texas-Trains-Caproc/etVnWQMZ9kSJhMNwxVPoFQ.cspx


----------



## jis

Yes, The Caprock Express is a railfan's wet dream and is unlikely to happen anytime soon if ever. Who knows what kind of additional facilities BNSF and UP will demand between Denver and Trinidad before they'd accept a passenger train. OTOH if Denver eventually constructs a front range south commuter service through Colorado Springs then perhaps that facility could be used to at alleviate some of the problems of getting to Trinidad at least part ways, sort of like what has happened on the Wasatch Front between Salt Lake City and Ogden.


----------



## henryj

jis said:


> Yes, The Caprock Express is a railfan's wet dream and is unlikely to happen anytime soon if ever. Who knows what kind of additional facilities BNSF and UP will demand between Denver and Trinidad before they'd accept a passenger train. OTOH if Denver eventually constructs a front range south commuter service through Colorado Springs then perhaps that facility could be used to at alleviate some of the problems of getting to Trinidad at least part ways, sort of like what has happened on the Wasatch Front between Salt Lake City and Ogden.


I think it's just one man's dream. But it has way more problems than just the front range. The route through Lubbock from Ft Worth takes over 3 hours longer than the old Texas Zephyr route straight up through Amarillo(and that is using old timetables). Then the BNSF runs directionally now from Amarillo north to Pueblo and I don't have any idea what the route through Las Animas Jct. looks like. It was just a branch and freight only. The route north from Canyon Jct. through Lubbock to Amarillo was also freight only and probably not signaled. I doubt if there are any facilities left in Lubbock for passengers. Were Texas to Colorado service ever to resume, the preferred route would be the old Texas Zephyr route. It's the fastest and shortest and BNSF has done a lot of work improving it from even the old Texas Zephyr days. Lubbock can just be a thru-way bus. I think this connection is one that Amtrak needs to pursue, but with the present situation, I have no expectation that this will ever happen. Right now, just preserving the SWC is beginning to look iffy.


----------



## George Harris

This thread covers a lot of the issues concerning the reroute


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

Are there any updates on this?


----------



## Amtrak172

I can't see why Amtrak would want to reroute the Southwest Chief. What about you guys


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Amtrak172 said:


> I can't see why Amtrak would want to reroute the Southwest Chief. What about you guys


Have you read all 17 pages in this thread?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Amtrak May or May not want to. There are reasons not to including potentially changing the legal validity of the SWC as part of PRRIA's defined existing national network.

As a matter of business sense, the reroute makes an awful lot of sense. It would greatly prove the population density of the route.


----------



## greatcats

Many people, including myself, would rather see the train remain on its present route. As GML indicated, read back in the thread and you will find out a great deal in this subject. I have to agree that there are valid and compelling reasons to reroute this train.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

Financially it's a good idea to reroute. Include faster running times and potential revenue from new stops it just makes perfect sense.


----------



## Eugene S

I think the real question is "when will the SWC be re routed or end?" Watch monitor on Amtrak web site--note where the bad tracks are and watch various engineers -- "cowboy" the train over the various bad parts of track. Raises many questions. See if you can find those bad spots. One is on west side of Glorieta Pass and another is on the eastside near Pecos river. Another is North of Las Vegas near Valmora. And another is on north side of Raton Pass. Last Week There was one Engineer who took these at 80 mph. Other engineers are taking these bad places at 19 mph or less. Raises a lot of questions. ------- The Mayor of Amarillo has said in public statement that everything about reroute is awaiting news from Amtrak that it will reroute. See from the above it wont be too long. If I understand correctly track condition requiring 14 mph and below is exempted track and passengers are not to be transported over it. I predict 12 months or less on a Reroute or End.


----------



## printman2000

Eugene S said:


> I think the real question is "when will the SWC be re routed or end?" Watch monitor on Amtrak web site--note where the bad tracks are and watch various engineers -- "cowboy" the train over the various bad parts of track. Raises many questions. See if you can find those bad spots. One is on west side of Glorieta Pass and another is on the eastside near Pecos river. Another is North of Las Vegas near Valmora. And another is on north side of Raton Pass. Last Week There was one Engineer who took these at 80 mph. Other engineers are taking these bad places at 19 mph or less. Raises a lot of questions. ------- The Mayor of Amarillo has said in public statement that everything about reroute is awaiting news from Amtrak that it will reroute. See from the above it wont be too long. If I understand correctly track condition requiring 14 mph and below is exempted track and passengers are not to be transported over it. I predict 12 months or less on a Reroute or End.


I am fairly certain there are not engineers out there deciding how fast they will go. The speed limits are set and if they do not follow them, they will not be employed very long.


----------



## neroden

Amtrak has stated that they're not going to commit to the reroute until the "end of 2014". That was the deadline they gave for preserving the Raton Pass route. So I think we all just cool our heels until then.

Honestly, I think Amtrak should have given a shorter deadline -- nothing's going to change before the end of 2014. Specifically, the composition of the legislatures and the governors aren't going to change until January 2015. It looks like there's a low chance that this Colorado legislature will commit money for Raton Pass, a lower chance that this New Mexico legislature will, and no chance at all that this Kansas legislature will.


----------



## airjnke

Studies, studies, studies.....I swear it seems like our politicians sometimes spends more on studies that it would just to do it & be done with it. We've got a beautiful train station here in ICT & many of us have been waiting years to be able to use it. I realize a station is cheap compared to the miles of bad track that will need to replaced to become passenger rated from NEW to OKC. We recently took the Heartland Flyer from OKC to FTW & it was some of the nicest rails I've been on. You might read the comments in the Kansas.com link. Too bad more people don't love rail travel like we do.

http://ksn.com/2014/04/29/future-of-southwest-chief-weighing-on-federal-grant/

http://www.kansas.com/2014/04/29/3429238/oklahoma-officials-back-wichitas.html


----------



## afigg

News on an effort to raise $24 million for maintenance for an 80 mile segment of the SW route.

Denver Post: Amtrak's Southwest Chief gets boost from local communities. Excerpts:



> These entities are partnering with officials from communities in Kansas, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Amtrak to submit the application for a $15 million federal grant — an initial step toward securing costs for an estimated $200 million of maintenance on the train's current route.
> 
> Additional matching funds outside Colorado include: BNSF, $2 million; Amtrak, $4 million; and Kansas, $3 million.
> 
> Combined with the federal grant, the commitment would create a total of $24 million to go toward track maintenance.
> .......
> 
> The federal grant would fund about 80 miles of repairs.
> 
> A measure making its way through the Colorado legislature would create a commission to work closely with neighboring states, Amtrak and BNSF to map out additional funding to keep the train in the state. A mix of southern Colorado residents and rail and tourist industries would sit on the commission


The timing of the announcement of the grant application and the amount strongly suggests that they applied for a FY2014 TIGER grant. Applications were due by April 28, 2014. 20% of the TIGER grant funds are required to go to rural areas which improves the odds of the application getting selected. Competing against fewer applications for the rural area set aside portion of the $600 million.

If the grant application is selected and $24 million is raised to start on track repairs, I think that would force Amtrak to postpone their 2014 deadline while the political efforts continue to line up the $200 million total. If the TIGER grant program continues, could be a vehicle to raise $30 to $50 million over multiple grant awards towards funding the track repairs.


----------



## jis

Additionally both Colorado and New Mexico could possibly dig up some money from CMAQ if they wanted to, and even convert some highway funds. It really is a set of decisions for them to make. It is not as if there are not multiple possible sources of what amounts to be a drop in the bucket when spread out over the years.


----------



## Eugene S

Most of the bad track is in New Mexico which means that is New Mexico's baby. The state of New Mexico is doing a financial study which is to be ready in September. The state of New Mexico is not losing Amtrak service . Which route is most advantageous for the state is what they have to decide.


----------



## printman2000

Eugene S said:


> Most of the bad track is in New Mexico which means that is New Mexico's baby.


Not sure that is correct. There is a lot of bad track in Kansas and Colorado. Don't think that "most" of it in New Mexico. I would take "most" as being at least 51% and I just cannot believe that is true.


----------



## Eugene S

It is true, Glorieta Pass is double tracked on both sides and needs to be because of passing. Since BNSF owns the track, rail replacements will have to be to their model and their model calls for 136 lb cwr rail and concrete ties If you still dispute this I encourage you to measure it on google earth and print your findings here. It is easy to forget the original intent of BNSF which is to abandon and cut line between La Junta and Trinidad. One could make a case that this entire ordeal is a ploy to get states to fund rail.


----------



## printman2000

I am just saying, I do not think the total mileage of needed replacement rail is more in New Mexico than it is in Colorado/Kansas. Using the mileage in Amtrak's timetable shows that from Raton to Lamy is only 176 miles. Going from Raton to Newton is 460 miles.


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> Applications were due by April 28, 2014. 20% of the TIGER grant funds are required to go to rural areas which improves the odds of the application getting selected. Competing against fewer applications for the rural area set aside portion of the $600 million.


You haven't been counting the rural applications, have you? The entire Vermonter rail project qualifies, as do many *road* projects.
I would be seriously disappointed if Amtrak were stupid enough to extend its deadline for the Raton Pass route. Amtrak stated that it needs 2 years planning to do the reroute, and Amtrak's contract with BNSF ends in January 2016. If Amtrak keeps putting off the reroute due to empty promises and ideas about future money, the SW Chief could be cancelled entirely.

There's going to be n-o-t-h-i-n-g until the November elections, but frankly, even if very supportive legislatures are elected, it's probably going to be empty promises for months or years. And at that point the SW Chief as a whole really starts to be at risk.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

One could wonder if the whole point of the charade is an excuse to discontinue the Southwest Chief.


----------



## afigg

neroden said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Applications were due by April 28, 2014. 20% of the TIGER grant funds are required to go to rural areas which improves the odds of the application getting selected. Competing against fewer applications for the rural area set aside portion of the $600 million.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't been counting the rural applications, have you? The entire Vermonter rail project qualifies, as do many *road* projects.
> I would be seriously disappointed if Amtrak were stupid enough to extend its deadline for the Raton Pass route. Amtrak stated that it needs 2 years planning to do the reroute, and Amtrak's contract with BNSF ends in January 2016. If Amtrak keeps putting off the reroute due to empty promises and ideas about future money, the SW Chief could be cancelled entirely.
> 
> There's going to be n-o-t-h-i-n-g until the November elections, but frankly, even if very supportive legislatures are elected, it's probably going to be empty promises for months or years. And at that point the SW Chief as a whole really starts to be at risk.
Click to expand...

No. I have not been counting the rural area TIGER applications, but the competition certainly appear to be less than for the more urban/suburban applications for streetcar, BRT, bike, road, etc projects. Many of the rural area applications are for run of the mill road and highway projects which are easy to reject as those projects can get funding from the much larger road and highway pots of money.

There may be serious risks to the proposed move to the transcon route that Amtrak is aware of and would rather not take. The potential cost and political support risks in the possible move may be a lot more in terms of placing the entire SWC at risk than we realize. If Amtrak can get $200 million lined up in bits and pieces, that may be the safer route to insure that the SWC keeps running. If this grant application is selected with the matching funds, with $40 million over 10 years each already promised by Amtrak and BNSF, Amtrak will be about half way to the $200 million needed over the next 10 years to stay on the Raton pass route.


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> There may be serious risks to the proposed move to the transcon route that Amtrak is aware of and would rather not take.


Maybe. Since these risks have never been published and I can't come up with any, I don't believe it for a minute.
It's a far better route. Both Amarillo and Wichita have made credible commitments to spending lots of money on stations. KS and OK are backing the Heartland Flyer extension, which shares the most problematic section of track in terms of needed upgrades (through Wichita).

NMDOT has two alternatives listed in its state rail plan. $31.38 million in capital costs to retain the current route; $3.4 million in capital costs to rehabilitate the Albuquerque Wye. The same document says that BNSF will need expenditures of $6.8 million/year to maintain the Raton Pass route track within NM. Which do you think NMDOT will pick?



> The potential cost and political support risks in the possible move may be a lot more in terms of placing the entire SWC at risk than we realize.


Sure. And the NSA may have secretly foiled terrorist plots which they never told us about. It seems completely implausible.
Regarding political support, I decided to do my research.

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/79

KS-1 and CO-4, despite having Amtrak service which is threatened, are represented in Congress by Amtrak opponents anyway. CO-4 may be contested, but KS-1 is secure. NM-3 is represented by an Amtrak supporter, but I don't think he'll be furious and vindictive if there's a reroute -- he also represents Clovis.

The US Senators involved won't care; Colorado is benefited much more by the CZ, NM will continue to have service either way, and Kansas will in some sense get improved service.

Actually, OK-3 is represented by a Republican who has voted for Amtrak in the past! Probably he would appreciate the reroute!

Regarding potential cost, if the potential cost of rerouting is secretly very high, the only reason I can think of would be if BNSF really really doesn't want Amtrak on this part of the Transcon... in which case BNSF will go ahead and pay, all by itself, the full cost to keep Amtrak on the Raton Pass route, and this entire situation was a big bluff. Seems unlikely.



> If Amtrak can get $200 million lined up in bits and pieces, that may be the safer route to insure that the SWC keeps running. If this grant application is selected with the matching funds, with $40 million over 10 years each already promised by Amtrak and BNSF, Amtrak will be about half way to the $200 million needed over the next 10 years to stay on the Raton pass route.


Be careful about double-counting. Amtrak and BNSF's "matching funds" for this are probably out of Amtrak and BNSF's prior commitments.

The other $104.75 million probably isn't going to show up. I suppose it's possible, but politically it seems completely absurd. I can't see NM spending a penny if Martinez wins, given that NM *refused to buy the line* for a mere $5 million. Even if Martinez loses, it seems unlikely that NM will cover the $3.5 million/year for 10 years. Kansas has probably put in all it's going to -- $3 million, again not enough for one year of its "share".

This means Colorado would have to supply substantially more than an equal share. I suppose this is possible -- it is the richest of the three states -- but it still seems highly unlikely even if the proposed commission is set up, which it hasn't been yet. Colorado is already asking for a reroute to Pueblo in exchange.

Frankly, if Amtrak stays on the Raton Pass route, I'm worried that the money won't *really* be there long term, the track will deteriorate, and we'll be dealing with the same damn problem in 5 years.

If we saw a real, serious commitment to provide reliable, substantial funding for Raton Pass -- if, for instance, Colorado commits a reliable revenue stream of $10 million/year indefinitely -- that would be great. But if keeping the Raton Pass route is done via the usual cobbled-together starvation-budget to maintain minimal dregs-level service -- which seems like the current best-case-scenario for keeping Raton Pass -- then much better to relocate the train to the bigger cities.


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> If the TIGER grant program continues, could be a vehicle to raise $30 to $50 million over multiple grant awards towards funding the track repairs.


It sounds nice, but this is just not going to happen, unless someone at DOT takes a particular love to Raton Pass.
There are just too many other *superior* projects competing for TIGER funding. Even just Amtrak projects, and even just *rural* Amtrak projects. Vermont's restoration of the Western Corridor may be able to get this much money over multiple rounds, because it's *far more useful*. Even Amtrak projects in the *same part of the country* will be competing for this money -- the Heartland Flyer extension is capable of getting rural funding and will be aggressively bidding for TIGER funds.


----------



## Chas

Bill to fund Southwest Chief goes to Colorado's governor for his signature.


----------



## henryj

Chas said:


> Bill to fund Southwest Chief goes to Colorado's governor for his signature.


I would be surprised if this ever happens, but I certainly hope they don't route it through Pueblo. That would add at least a couple of hours to the schedule and the train would become embroiled in all the coal trains navigating the front range. It would never run on time again. Re-route the train via the transcon and forget Raton.


----------



## Bus Nut

Why is Colorado doing this? What a mess. Amtrak shouldn't have laid back and let these states squabble it out. They should have just said BNSF is closing the line and we're going to Amarillo. Now that is a destination (with Witchita) with a coherent business case. If CO feels so strongly about Pueblo, let them fund a bus. This is madness.


----------



## greatcats

I tend to agree with Bus Nut. Running a lengthy detour up lines known to have heavy freight traffic sounds like a really bad idea. Sounds like these legislators are a bunch of do gooders who don't have a clue. If they can manage to keep the train on its present route, then run a bus from Pueblo to La Junta or one of those places. I am not bitterly opposed to re-routing the train through Texas. The important things is that # 3 and #4 are not at risk for being terminated because of stupidity and foot dragging.


----------



## railiner

Green Maned Lion said:


> One could wonder if the whole point of the charade is an excuse to discontinue the Southwest Chief.


I wonder.....

If they did, they could bring back a Desert Wind connection to the CZ.....or extend the Heartland Flyer to Newton and Chicago on the Chief's route....


----------



## jis

Dream on 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Dream on
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Only time will tell.........


----------



## 7deuceman

True enough, the addition of Amtrak service to Pueblo will put a few extra hours on the Southwest Chief schedule. However, besides being the gateway to southern Colorado tourism, a new Pueblo Amtrak service will benefit the residents immediately to the north of the city.

The greater Colorado Springs area has a population of over 600,000 people, essentially living 35-45 minutes from the proposed Amtrak service. Certainly Amtrak at Pueblo would be served by bus feeder services to and from points north to Denver, creating a seamless connection. Also, many Coloradans are no strangers to driving 35-45 minutes to where they need to go. So if Amtrak provides an adequate parking facility at Pueblo, it will create a hassle-free connection for those who prefer to drive to and from the station and the Colorado Springs area.

This is actually a really big deal - having the opportunity to introduce Amtrak service to 600,000 citizens who have not had train service in the area - and riders who have not been able to access the Colorado Springs area from other parts of the Amtrak system. This could be very lucrative for the Southwest Chief revenue.


----------



## Anderson

I'll agree that service to Pueblo would be a good thing. I'm not sure whether the service would be a better move than the possibility of direct service to Amarillo and Wichita, but that is at least debatable. I know it will add some running time, but I rather suspect that will be offset at least in part by the access to bigger markets.


----------



## VentureForth

If they run it up to Pueblo, then it can be routed around the Pueblo Test Track at 200 MPH.


----------



## greatcats

That gave me a good early morning laugh! Breakfast in the diner at 200 mph.


----------



## Notelvis

VentureForth said:


> If they run it up to Pueblo, then it can be routed around the Pueblo Test Track at 200 MPH.


They could really make up some of that lost time at 200mph......... if the test track went anywhere the Southwest Chief was going.

The cynic in me is increasingly beginning to believe that nothing will be resolved until the next big washout on the Raton Pass line somewhere in northern New Mexico.

I can easily imagine a scenario where the existing route goes out of service suddenly and unexpectedly. The 'Southwest Chief' is annulled between Albuquerque and Kansas City for a few days before beginning to detour via the transcon.

In New Mexico the politicians debate whether the cost of repairing the railroad..... something which Amtrak can't afford and BNSF won't afford...... for one passenger train is worth it. The debate drags on for quite some time......

Meanwhile, the SWC continues to detour.

The debate drags on....... most people concede that the money to repair the line is either not there or is not a worthwhile investment.

Passenger stations in the form of mobile waiting rooms and hastily paved platforms begin to spring up along the Transcon and, suddenly, the detour is no longer the detour..... it is the new route.

When does this happen? Whenever we see the next major washout or landslide on the existing route. Next week. Next month. Sometime.


----------



## greatcats

Your scenario sounds about right. The bureaucrats will hash it out and stall and order umpteen environmental impact studies. Then nature will resolve the problem in one fell swoop.


----------



## CHamilton

To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such, and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states). So it seems like the re-route is definitely not a done deal, but it's too soon to tell.


----------



## Eric S

CHamilton said:


> To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such, and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states). So it seems like the re-route is definitely not a done deal, but it's too soon to tell.


I find that to be a bit worrisome, frankly. If the cost of moving the SWC is higher than the cost of it staying where it is, and so far the numbers tossed around for how much it would cost to stay on its current route have seemed much higher than the states/communities/railroads in question have been willing to cover, that could spell trouble for the SWC's existence at some point in the next few years.

Did you hear any sort of updates on the estimated costs of each option? Or just that generally it would be more to reroute it to the Transcon?


----------



## zephyr17

Notelvis said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they run it up to Pueblo, then it can be routed around the Pueblo Test Track at 200 MPH.
> 
> 
> 
> They could really make up some of that lost time at 200mph......... if the test track went anywhere the Southwest Chief was going.
Click to expand...

Probably not, the 200mph test track is a big, closed loop. Of course, you may be able to turn back time with it like the first Superman movie.


----------



## CHamilton

There were some numbers, but unfortunately I didn't write them down. I'll see if I can update you when I get a chance.


----------



## printman2000

CHamilton said:


> To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such, and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states). So it seems like the re-route is definitely not a done deal, but it's too soon to tell.


What signals would be needed? Doesn't Amtrak use the same signals freights use?

There would be some cost to build platforms and improve stations, but I have assumed they would require local communities to pay for that.

Anyway, even if that is true, in the long run, it would be cheaper on the transcon as you would not have the ongoing maintenance that would be required on the current route.


----------



## neroden

CHamilton said:


> To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such,


This is nonsense. Who's lying to you?* BNSF has to have a fully signalized Transcon for its freight

* Because this is fast freight, it has to be signalized for 60 mph +

* The Transcon is legally obligated to have a full PTC system by the end of 2015; although this may be delivered a bit late, with associated federal fines applied to BNSF, there is no way Amtrak will be charged for any of it;

So there is no way in hell that the cost (to Amtrak/states) of moving the SWC to the Transcon is higher than staying where it is -- unless BNSF has simply decided to pay to keep Amtrak off this part of the Transcon.

I would like to know who's spreading this obvious disinformation. Is it BNSF? Amtrak? Who?

Perhaps what is meant is that BNSF is pulling the usual Class I blackmail tactics, throwing out insane and unreasonable monetary demands because they think they can. I really hope this isn't the case.



> and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states).


Sounds nice. But, unless there's a billionaire train-lover in one of these cities who I don't know about, they simply don't have the money, so it won't happen. This is the problem with trying to preserve a route which runs through a bunch of small, poor cities.


----------



## neroden

CHamilton said:


> There were some numbers, but unfortunately I didn't write them down. I'll see if I can update you when I get a chance.


I would very much appreciate seeing the detailed numbers which you were given. Because if they claimed it was more expensive to run on the already-maintained Transcon than maintain the Raton Pass route (including an entirely new signalling system), there's something fundamentally dishonest in the numbers you were shown, and I'll like the opportunity to figure out where the scam is.

OK... thinking about it, and trying to bend over backwards to dislike the Transcon reroute, I can think of the following major possible sources of "bad numbers" for a Transcon reroute.

(1) Station construction at Amarillo. This is unlikely to be exceptionally expensive, and it's Amarillo's problem anyway, so it shouldn't be relevant.

(2) Station construction at Wichita. This needs to be done anyway for the long-planned Heartland Flyer extension. It should be done anyway. Even if this raises the "cost", the train should still move to the Transcon, because of the added benefits. If this cost is included, then the *benefits* should be included.

(3) Station construction anywhere else (Clovis, etc.). If necessary, don't stop.

(4) Trackwork in the vicinity of Wichita, where BNSF only runs trains one direction and there's UP to contend with too. This needs to be done anyway for the long-planned Heartland Flyer extension. It should be done anyway. Even if this raises the "cost", the train should still move to the Transcon, because of the added benefits. If this cost is included, then the *benefits* should be included.

(5) Anticipated drop in revenue due to replacing a bunch of little stations with two big stations. Revenue modeling is hard. I strongly believe that hitting two big cities is better. This is, however, a matter on which opinions can differ, and there are no objective numbers until you actually do the move.

(6) It is possible that BNSF would want to run the SW Chief at "cruising speed" with its fast freights (60 mph, perhaps even as slow as 50 mph?) rather than at 79 mph. This could slow the route down. It is possible that Amtrak anticipates that this would lead to higher costs and lower revenues. This is potentially legitimate. *However*, given that Amtrak has happily run the SWC at 40 mph on long stretches the existing track due to track conditions, I really find this argument unlikely; effectively, the costs and lost revenue from slowing the train down are already being applied to the current route.


----------



## trainman74

zephyr17 said:


> Probably not, the 200mph test track is a big, closed loop. Of course, you may be able to turn back time with it like the first Superman movie.


Nah, just keep running the Southwest Chief around and around, faster and faster, until centrifugal force makes it fly off the loop -- hopefully in the direction it's supposed to be going.


----------



## henryj

CHamilton said:


> To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such, and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states). So it seems like the re-route is definitely not a done deal, but it's too soon to tell.


This is totally bogus and if someone at NARP told you this they are sadly misinformed or perhaps it's just wishful thinking on their part.


----------



## George Harris

henryj said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such, and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states). So it seems like the re-route is definitely not a done deal, but it's too soon to tell.
> 
> 
> 
> This is totally bogus and if someone at NARP told you this they are sadly misinformed or perhaps it's just wishful thinking on their part.
Click to expand...

It continually amazes me the amount of pure nonsence that gets spouted with absolute assurance by people that know just enough to be dangerous..

The BNSF freight route is mostly double tracked and CTC signaled throughout with a speed limit of 70 mph for the premium freights.

There may be an issue with circuit lengths for grade crossing signals, and then maybe not. There should be no issue with the signals governing the trains. Compared to freights, even top freights, passenger trains are sports cars with much faster acceleration and braking rates. There is no need for track improvements to permit higher speeds for the passenger train. Track meeting the FRA standards required for 70 mph freight operation will permit passenger operations up to 90 mph. It is only the problem of traffic flow and signal requirements that would keep the speed lower.

I get the general feeling that the BNSF passenger line is approaching the condition that the ICRR passenger line between Memphis and Jackson MS had reached by the time the City of New Orleans was moved to their freight route through Yazoo City. That is, it had gone as long as it could on string and duct tape and had to have major money spent to keep it going as a high speed or even medium speed piece of railroad. I would suspect that by now BNSF is facing

1. The need for a near complete relay of rail.

2. Replacement of much of the signal system. (Isn't some of this still in Semaphores? These things are museum pieces and can be unreliable in below freezing weather.)

That is just for starts. It is not counting such things as major tie renewals, ditching, drainage, ballasting work, etc.


----------



## CHamilton

I may well have misunderstood parts of the discussion. I have not been following the SWC issue closely, what with the EB mess in my part of the world. I will follow up and get more information.


----------



## CHamilton

Not a lot of details on their website, but much of what I heard was from ColoRail. The purpose of the presentation was to talk about how they put together local support, not about the technical details being discussed here. Their website is at http://www.colorail.org/


----------



## printman2000

CHamilton said:


> I may well have misunderstood parts of the discussion. I have not been following the SWC issue closely, what with the EB mess in my part of the world. I will follow up and get more information.


Not the first time I have heard what you did. I just do not think it is true. At least not in the long run.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis

printman2000 said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may well have misunderstood parts of the discussion. I have not been following the SWC issue closely, what with the EB mess in my part of the world. I will follow up and get more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the first time I have heard what you did. I just do not think it is true. At least not in the long run.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have heard this too. But each time I asked for details, the attitude was "Trust us, We're NARP. We know". That is what annoys me about NARP and many other rail advocates a lot, their inability to produce logical documentation for half the things they seem to claim to be revealed truth.


----------



## Eugene S

Here is one piece of information that is valid and can be visual verified. Amarillo has 3 potential places for Amtrak to use. 1. owned by BNSF---The old Burlington station area. BNSF uses for its Business Train. Has nice Brick platform. Could be used today By Amtrak. 2. The Old Santa Fe station--- when track was reworked with cwr rails and concrete ties the T-O-R was raised about 30-36 inches above the brick platform plus the curve was widened which means less platform space. 3. is just west of old Burlington station between Polk and Tyler streets. Just right place for a new station, could have platform near 2000 ft. Also further west room for a turning loop if needed. Can be viewed on Google earth. This is nothing for a place that is about to build a multi million dollar Ball Park downtown and two Hotels.


----------



## railiner

railiner said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could wonder if the whole point of the charade is an excuse to discontinue the Southwest Chief.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder.....
> 
> If they did, they could bring back a Desert Wind connection to the CZ.....or extend the Heartland Flyer to Newton and Chicago on the Chief's route....
Click to expand...




jis said:


> Dream on
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Hey....if you liked that 'dream', here's another......

restore the Tennessee Pass route, and run the Chief via the Royal Gorge route to connect with the CZ......


----------



## neroden

Eugene said:


> Here is one piece of information that is valid and can be visual verified. Amarillo has 3 potential places for Amtrak to use.


The Santa Fe station has been purchased by the City of Amarillo. There is vast room south of the Santa Fe station, thanks to the complete removal of a former railyard, where a platform of any desired size could be put. A passenger siding is also possible.


----------



## printman2000

Eugene said:


> Here is one piece of information that is valid and can be visual verified. Amarillo has 3 potential places for Amtrak to use. 1. owned by BNSF---The old Burlington station area. BNSF uses for its Business Train. Has nice Brick platform. Could be used today By Amtrak. 2. The Old Santa Fe station--- when track was reworked with cwr rails and concrete ties the T-O-R was raised about 30-36 inches above the brick platform plus the curve was widened which means less platform space. 3. is just west of old Burlington station between Polk and Tyler streets. Just right place for a new station, could have platform near 2000 ft. Also further west room for a turning loop if needed. Can be viewed on Google earth. This is nothing for a place that is about to build a multi million dollar Ball Park downtown and two Hotels.


The problem with your option 1 & 3 is that they are not on the transcon and would require backup moves. Seriously doubt any party involved would be happy with that.

I think the Santa Fe Depot would be the most likely.

There is a small building just south of the main depot. Not sure what it was originally used for. Perhaps baggage or parcels that were shipped on passenger trains. It is clearly part of the Depot, built in the exact same style. It could even become a quick Amtrak depot building that would cost a lot less money and time to get up and running.


----------



## zephyr17

Also, from what I understand, a new platform will have to be built in any case. The only time use of an old platform is grandfathered in is if the platform has been in continuous passenger use. So the fact that the old platform is not usuable at the old AT&SF station may not have much of an actual impact, since it will have to be rebuilt in any case.


----------



## Karl1459

Eugene said:


> Here is one piece of information that is valid and can be visual verified. Amarillo has 3 potential places for Amtrak to use. 1. owned by BNSF---The old Burlington station area. BNSF uses for its Business Train. Has nice Brick platform. Could be used today By Amtrak. 2. The Old Santa Fe station--- when track was reworked with cwr rails and concrete ties the T-O-R was raised about 30-36 inches above the brick platform plus the curve was widened which means less platform space. 3. is just west of old Burlington station between Polk and Tyler streets. Just right place for a new station, could have platform near 2000 ft. Also further west room for a turning loop if needed. Can be viewed on Google earth. This is nothing for a place that is about to build a multi million dollar Ball Park downtown and two Hotels.


1. Should that be Rock Island, not Burlington?


----------



## rusty spike

Karl1459 said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one piece of information that is valid and can be visual verified. Amarillo has 3 potential places for Amtrak to use. 1. owned by BNSF---The old Burlington station area. BNSF uses for its Business Train. Has nice Brick platform. Could be used today By Amtrak. 2. The Old Santa Fe station--- when track was reworked with cwr rails and concrete ties the T-O-R was raised about 30-36 inches above the brick platform plus the curve was widened which means less platform space. 3. is just west of old Burlington station between Polk and Tyler streets. Just right place for a new station, could have platform near 2000 ft. Also further west room for a turning loop if needed. Can be viewed on Google earth. This is nothing for a place that is about to build a multi million dollar Ball Park downtown and two Hotels.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Should that be Rock Island, not Burlington?
Click to expand...

No, the Burlington station is still standing. Looking at Google Satellite view it is located under the Pierce Ave. viaduct.

The Rock Island station (demolished years ago) sat near Taylor Ave, on the Rock Island tracks which ran through Amarillo adjacent to but north of the Burlington's old Colorado & Southern route.


----------



## Karl1459

rusty spike said:


> Karl1459 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one piece of information that is valid and can be visual verified. Amarillo has 3 potential places for Amtrak to use. 1. owned by BNSF---The old Burlington station area. BNSF uses for its Business Train. Has nice Brick platform. Could be used today By Amtrak. 2. The Old Santa Fe station--- when track was reworked with cwr rails and concrete ties the T-O-R was raised about 30-36 inches above the brick platform plus the curve was widened which means less platform space. 3. is just west of old Burlington station between Polk and Tyler streets. Just right place for a new station, could have platform near 2000 ft. Also further west room for a turning loop if needed. Can be viewed on Google earth. This is nothing for a place that is about to build a multi million dollar Ball Park downtown and two Hotels.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Should that be Rock Island, not Burlington?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Burlington station is still standing. Looking at Google Satellite view it is located under the Pierce Ave. viaduct.
> 
> The Rock Island station (demolished years ago) sat near Taylor Ave, on the Rock Island tracks which ran through Amarillo adjacent to but north of the Burlington's old Colorado & Southern route.
Click to expand...

My bad... forgot C&S was Burlington.


----------



## CHamilton

> Colorado Governor Hickenlooper announced that, after successfully moving through the state’s General Assembly, he will sign the Southwest Chief legislation into law at a ceremony in Pueblo on May 14.
> 
> “House Bill 1161, sponsored by Representative Leroy Garcia (D-Pueblo) and Senator Larry Crowder (R-Alamosa), creates a commission and a fund to save Amtrak’s Southwest Chief, and add a stop in Pueblo,” said the Governor’s office in a public statement. “The bill was supported in a bi-partisan fashion through both chambers of the General Assembly.”


Via NARP.


----------



## sechs

Pueblo's not well out of the way, or anything....


----------



## neroden

Ugh. What a horrible idea. I hope the Colorado proposal fails.

Switching to the Amarillo route == adding larger cities while going faster. Detouring via Pueblo == going even slower, to serve a metro area smaller than Amarillo and smaller than Wichita.

I really hope Amtrak doesn't mess up the LA-Chicago service like this.


----------



## VentureForth

printman2000 said:


> Eugene said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one piece of information that is valid and can be visual verified. Amarillo has 3 potential places for Amtrak to use. 1. owned by BNSF---The old Burlington station area. BNSF uses for its Business Train. Has nice Brick platform. Could be used today By Amtrak. 2. The Old Santa Fe station--- when track was reworked with cwr rails and concrete ties the T-O-R was raised about 30-36 inches above the brick platform plus the curve was widened which means less platform space. 3. is just west of old Burlington station between Polk and Tyler streets. Just right place for a new station, could have platform near 2000 ft. Also further west room for a turning loop if needed. Can be viewed on Google earth. This is nothing for a place that is about to build a multi million dollar Ball Park downtown and two Hotels.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your option 1 & 3 is that they are not on the transcon and would require backup moves. Seriously doubt any party involved would be happy with that.
Click to expand...

The problem with your problem on option 1 & 3 is that the Transcon solution would require a backup move in ABQ and no one seemed to have issues with that.


----------



## printman2000

VentureForth said:


> The problem with your problem on option 1 & 3 is that the Transcon solution would require a backup move in ABQ and no one seemed to have issues with that.


True. However, I do not think they will be interested in having another. Especially when there are options directly on the transcon. Albuquerque, there is no choice.


----------



## Ryan

Agreed. There's a huge difference between "Back up move because we have to" and "second backup move for no good reason".


----------



## neroden

"Back up move along preexisting track to get to preexisting station in large city" vs. "backup move on track which would have to be built, in order to move the station a couple of blocks, away from the station owned by the city".


----------



## Eugene S

Just how would you do it?


----------



## Bedford

Colorado Governor will travel to Pueblo tomorrow to sign Colorado's bill. BNSF officials to be present. Rallies held in La Junta, Trinidad, Raton and Las Vegas last Sat have made the news.


----------



## printman2000

Has Amtrak spoken into the possibility of Pueblo added as a stop? I am sure they are pleased to see support for maintaining the current route, but I cannot imagine the idea of Pueblo is making them very happy.


----------



## Bedford

The bill says no Pueblo consideration for 5 years


----------



## jis

printman2000 said:


> Has Amtrak spoken into the possibility of Pueblo added as a stop? I am sure they are pleased to see support for maintaining the current route, but I cannot imagine the idea of Pueblo is making them very happy.


The Pueblo detour makes the reliable operation of the SWC almost non viable unless an additional consist is found. The detour would add 2.5 to 3 hours given the track and traffic conditions on the proposed route. Which will reduce the turnaround time for the consist in LAX to well below 5 hours if trains are running on time. That is pretty borderline for maintaining service reliably on a transcon route. The alternative is to make connection times at the Chicago end more precarious, or do a bit of both perhaps.


----------



## greatcats

Bedford posted that Pueblo would be put off for 5 years, so perhaps they can think of an efficient way to handle this. If they are able to arrange this with the other states, which seems iffy, unless Colorado is saying they will bear the brunt of the expenses involved ( ? ) then I would think the logical thing to do would be run a bus directly from Pueblo to La Junta to serve the SWC in both directions. Something doesn't seem right with this idea.


----------



## Paulus

How about, if a state wants intercity rail, it pays for it, instead of having everyone else pick up the tab?


----------



## Ryan

Do we all get to stop paying for things that we don't want? I can think of a massive share of my tax dollars I have no interest in paying.


----------



## Bedford

If the SWC were ever to go through Pueblo all the upgrades to track and additional infrastructure would have to be paid for totally by Colorado and nobody else and the operation would have to be blessed not only by BNSF but also by Amtrak; so talking about what Amtrak would be forced to do or give up is a bogus issue. It is far more likely that the Pueblo steel mill will get jobs and the contract for any new rail laid (if any in fact is ever laid). If a regular passenger train ever arrives in Pueblo again it will be coming from Denver and not La Junta and that is a very, very longshot.


----------



## Eugene S

For Pueblo to have rail passenger service it most likely will come first from Texas. When Texans can go to Glenwood Springs Area without having to go thru Denver maybe people people of Colorado will demand a a clean up of the rail mess that exist between Pueblo and Denver. You know bike trails don't produce income.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Bike trails have NEVER been relaid.


----------



## Eugene S

There is a first time.


----------



## Amtrak172

I read somewhere that there is fighting for the SW chief route. Is this true? Why would the Southwest Chief be endangered?


----------



## Ryan

Search is your friend:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/53558-southwest-chief-re-route/


----------



## TinCan782

Just gonna post the same discussion!


----------



## Amtrak172

I know Amtrak will find a way. For some places that the Southwest Chief passes through, it is the only mode of transportation.


----------



## VentureForth

Green Maned Lion said:


> Bike trails have NEVER been relaid.


Not true. The Denton A Train Commuter train reclaimed a chunk of rails to trails back to rails.


----------



## XHRTSP

Amtrak172 said:


> I know Amtrak will find a way. For some places that the Southwest Chief passes through, it is the only mode of transportation.


I can't say I share your brand of optimism here. Not after spending the last four years living in the shadow of the former Sunset East route. That way of thinking never got them their train service back.


----------



## Amtrak172

They'll find away to fix things with this.


----------



## SarahZ

Amtrak172 said:


> They'll find away to fix things with this.


With what money?


----------



## jis

Amtrak172 said:


> I know Amtrak will find a way. For some places that the Southwest Chief passes through, it is the only mode of transportation.


Really? Tell that to the folks who live along the routes of Sunset East, the Pioneer, the Desert Wind and the North Coast Hiawatha.  They will look at you like you have grown three heads and 4 arms.


----------



## zephyr17

Amtrak172 said:


> I read somewhere that there is fighting for the SW chief route. Is this true? Why would the Southwest Chief be endangered?


Short answer, BNSF only uses some of the current route very lightly (La Junta, well, Las Animas Jct to be completely accurate, and Newton) and some not at all (La Junta - Lamy) and will no longer maintain it after the current contract ends unless someone else starts footing the bill, or at least a big part of the bill. That whole route's track structure is life-expired and needs major work to maintain it to passenger standards, and BNSF doesn't need it at all, or just as a glorified industrial lead.


----------



## Amtrak172

Ok, there is no such thing as the Sunset East. The Pioneer is now the Empire Builder. I was talking about some of the dead towns that ONLY the Southwest Chief runs threw.


----------



## SarahZ

Amtrak172 said:


> *Ok, there is no such thing as the Sunset East. *The Pioneer is now the Empire Builder. I was talking about some of the dead towns that ONLY the Southwest Chief runs threw.


The Sunset East was the portion of the Sunset Limited that ran between New Orleans and Miami (and then cut back to Orlando). The Sunset Limited stops at New Orleans now, so the portion between NOL and ORL is often referred to as "the Sunset East".

Also, the EB is not the former Pioneer. The Pioneer ran from Seattle to Portland and then down through Boise, SLC, parts of Wyoming, and onto Denver. I see a lot of small towns that aren't served anymore:

http://pioneertrain.org/route-of-the-pioneer/


----------



## Ryan

Sure there is. Once upon a time the Sunset Limited ran all the way to Florida.

The Pioneer is not the Empire Builder, which is not the NCH.

You mean dead towns like Butte, Bozeman, Billings, Boise, Cheyenne? Pensacola? Flomaton? Mobile? Any of these cities ring a bell?


----------



## jis

How is the Pioneer the Empire Builder? What about the few towns that only Sunset East ran through?


----------



## zephyr17

Amtrak172 said:


> Ok, there is no such thing as the Sunset East. The Pioneer is now the Empire Builder. I was talking about some of the dead towns that ONLY the Southwest Chief runs threw.


The Pioneer is and was never the Empire Builder. They were two separate trains that service wildly different areas except for their end points.

You clearly know little of what you are talking about.


----------



## Slasharoo

Welcome to the Fire, er, I mean Forum, Amtrak172. Keep your head down...


----------



## Amtrak172

SarahZ said:


> Amtrak172 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ok, there is no such thing as the Sunset East. *The Pioneer is now the Empire Builder. I was talking about some of the dead towns that ONLY the Southwest Chief runs threw.
> 
> 
> 
> The Sunset East was the portion of the Sunset Limited that ran between New Orleans and Miami (and then cut back to Orlando). The Sunset Limited stops at New Orleans now, so the portion between NOL and ORL is often referred to as "the Sunset East".
> 
> Also, the EB is not the former Pioneer. The Pioneer ran from Seattle to Portland and then down through Boise, SLC, parts of Wyoming, and onto Denver. I see a lot of small towns that aren't served anymore:
> 
> http://pioneertrain.org/route-of-the-pioneer/
Click to expand...

ye



I know. Sunset limited never went to Miami, only to Orlando. The pioneer is now Amtrak cascades.


----------



## R30A

The Sunset has terminated at Miami and Orlando(And Sanford, and of course New Orleans!)

The Pioneer was its own train. As was the Desert Wind. And the North Coast Limited/Hiawatha. (And the Floridian...)


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Amtrak172 said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak172 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ok, there is no such thing as the Sunset East. *The Pioneer is now the Empire Builder. I was talking about some of the dead towns that ONLY the Southwest Chief runs threw.
> 
> 
> 
> The Sunset East was the portion of the Sunset Limited that ran between New Orleans and Miami (and then cut back to Orlando). The Sunset Limited stops at New Orleans now, so the portion between NOL and ORL is often referred to as "the Sunset East".
> 
> Also, the EB is not the former Pioneer. The Pioneer ran from Seattle to Portland and then down through Boise, SLC, parts of Wyoming, and onto Denver. I see a lot of small towns that aren't served anymore:
> 
> http://pioneertrain.org/route-of-the-pioneer/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ye
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Sunset limited never went to Miami, only to Orlando. The pioneer is now Amtrak cascades.
Click to expand...

The Cascades go to Denver. Cool. I'll have to add that to my bucket list.


----------



## Ryan

Really? The Cascades go all the way to Boise?

Also, this timetable disagrees with you about Miami.




A clue. Get one.


----------



## Amtrak172

RyanS said:


> Sure there is. Once upon a time the Sunset Limited ran all the way to Florida.
> 
> The Pioneer is not the Empire Builder, which is not the NCH.
> 
> You mean dead towns like Butte, Bozeman, Billings, Boise, Cheyenne? Pensacola? Flomaton? Mobile? Any of these cities ring a bell?


I know. I misunderstood what I was told.


----------



## Ryan

I'll be a little nicer.

It's obvious you have a lot of excitement about Amtrak. That's great. Amtrak needs as many enthusiastic supporters as it can get.

It's painfully obvious that you've got a LOT to learn. Read everything about you can about Amtrak. Resist the urge to post dumb, easily disprove stuff. Listen and learn from the really smart people here.

With knowledge and enthusiasm you can do great things.

With enthusiasm and a crushing lack of knowledge, you're just going to make Amtrak supporters look like idiots.


----------



## Ryan

Amtrak172 said:


> I know. I misunderstood what I was told. The I was once on the pioneer. I used to work that route, sort of.


I can't even begin to parse what you're trying to say here. You used to work the Pioneer, but didn't know where it goes? Or you did, but were told about the route of the Empire Builder and have never looked at what stations it served?

I'm completely befuddled here.


----------



## Amtrak172

RyanS said:


> I'll be a little nicer.
> 
> It's obvious you have a lot of excitement about Amtrak. That's great. Amtrak needs as many enthusiastic supporters as it can get.
> 
> It's painfully obvious that you've got a LOT to learn. Read everything about you can about Amtrak. Resist the urge to post dumb, easily disprove stuff. Listen and learn from the really smart people here.
> 
> With knowledge and enthusiasm you can do great things.
> 
> With enthusiasm and a crushing lack of knowledge, you're just going to make Amtrak supporters look like idiots.



I know a lot more about Amtrak than you think. I'm a modern day kinda guy, that's why I like phase IVb.

Amtrak172


----------



## Ryan

Amtrak172 said:


> I know a lot more about Amtrak than you think.


I look forward to you sharing your vast knowledge with us. You're not doing a great job of demonstrating it thus far.


----------



## Amtrak172

RyanS said:


> Amtrak172 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. I misunderstood what I was told. The I was once on the pioneer. I used to work that route, sort of.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even begin to parse what you're trying to say here. You used to work the Pioneer, but didn't know where it goes? Or you did, but were told about the route of the Empire Builder and have never looked at what stations it served?
> I'm completely befuddled here.
Click to expand...

Ok, it's time for you to pick on someone else. Leave me the f... alone. I'm not sure why you need to do this?

Amtrak172


----------



## VentureForth

Towns that are only serviced by Amtrak will find another way, if it comes to that.

Amtrak could 100% disappear tomorrow and people will find a way to get to and from where they need to be. Pick a town, any town. Alliance, NE used to be a stop on BN up until the 60's. Their population continued to grow through the 80s and is still in existence without Amtrak, Greyhound OR essential air service.

Note: RyanS is painfully truthful. He really has no tact or filter. But he's generally right about stuff regarding Amtrak. His delivery could certainly improve, but he knows that and doesn't change it. This site is certainly not run by him, but he's going to be here and post longer than most of us. Apparently, he's a swell guy in person.


----------



## Ryan

R30A said:


> The Sunset has terminated at Miami and Orlando(And Sanford, and of course New Orleans!)


San Antonio as well, for a few weeks right after Katrina.


----------



## Ryan

Amtrak172 said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak172 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. I misunderstood what I was told. The I was once on the pioneer. I used to work that route, sort of.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't even begin to parse what you're trying to say here. You used to work the Pioneer, but didn't know where it goes? Or you did, but were told about the route of the Empire Builder and have never looked at what stations it served?
> I'm completely befuddled here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, it's time for you to pick on someone else. Leave me the f... alone. I'm not sure why you need to do this? This is supposed to be a friendly discussion right? Or is it run by a couple of pricks like you?
Click to expand...

I asked a genuine question. I was completely unable to make out what you were trying to say there. Try explaining it better?


----------



## SarahZ

RyanS said:


> Amtrak172 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, it's time for you to pick on someone else. Leave me the f... alone. I'm not sure why you need to do this? This is supposed to be a friendly discussion right? Or is it run by a couple of pricks like you?
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a genuine question. I was completely unable to make out what you were trying to say there. Try explaining it better?
Click to expand...

You just missed a golden opportunity to use your new "escalated" pic, Ryan.


----------



## Amtrak172

RyanS said:


> Really? The Cascades go all the way to Boise?
> 
> Also, this timetable disagrees with you about Miami.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SL_Miami.jpg


----------



## zephyr17

Amtrak172 said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be a little nicer.
> 
> It's obvious you have a lot of excitement about Amtrak. That's great. Amtrak needs as many enthusiastic supporters as it can get.
> 
> It's painfully obvious that you've got a LOT to learn. Read everything about you can about Amtrak. Resist the urge to post dumb, easily disprove stuff. Listen and learn from the really smart people here.
> 
> With knowledge and enthusiasm you can do great things.
> 
> With enthusiasm and a crushing lack of knowledge, you're just going to make Amtrak supporters look like idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot more about Amtrak than you think. I'm a modern day kinda guy, that's why I like phase IVb.
> 
> Amtrak172
Click to expand...

It doesn't show.


----------



## Ryan

SarahZ said:


> You just missed a golden opportunity to use your new "escalated" pic, Ryan.


I CAN'T BELIEVE I FORGOT THAT!!!!

(fixed)

((I wish they had made it with this gif instead))


----------



## SarahZ

RyanS said:


> escalated_quickly.jpg


This is the best thing ever.


----------



## VentureForth

Amtrak172 said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The Cascades go all the way to Boise?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, this timetable disagrees with you about Miami.
> 
> 
> 
> SL_Miami.jpg
Click to expand...

Hi Amtrak172,

I don't understand what about the timetable you posted is in disagreement with what RyanS posted. They both show Train 2, the Sunset Limited going all the way to Miami.


----------



## Ryan

I said the timetable disagreed with his assertion on the last page that the Sunset never went to Miami.

He tried to say something in reply, botched the quote and added no content. Several of his posts have consisted of nothing more than a quote of someone else's post.


----------



## VentureForth

I see. I thought that the link was supposed to be a contradiction to your timetable, but it is the same one.


----------



## Ryan

Yeah, when picture attachments are quoted, the picture turns into a link, so you don't have the same picture repeated a bunch of times down the page. It's kind of cool.

Also, this just in. Since the Texas Eagle runs to LA (3x a week, at least), we can just cancel the SWC since they both run CHI-LA. They're just like the exact same train.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Say what? The Cascades run from Southern Oregon to Vancouer,BC and are a State Supported Route! The Pioneer, as was said, was a Long Distance Train between Chicago, Portland and Seattle!

Time to do some research young man, lots of us actually are old enough to have ridden these Trains!


----------



## zephyr17

VentureForth said:


> Amtrak172 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The Cascades go all the way to Boise?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, this timetable disagrees with you about Miami.
> 
> 
> 
> SL_Miami.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Amtrak172,
> 
> I don't understand what about the timetable you posted is in disagreement with what RyanS posted. They both show Train 2, the Sunset Limited going all the way to Miami.
Click to expand...

When they first extended the Sunset in 1990s (not sure of the exact date), it did run all the way through to Miami and they changed the OBS crew in New Orleans. That didn't last terribly long and it was cut back to Orlando in a relatively short length of time, and ran the same OBS crew LA-Orlando.

I rode it in the late 90s all the way from LA to Orlando.


----------



## rrdude

Saw this, the numbers don't add up to me, but the grant states that, "..........Amtrak, BNSF, ............ agreed................."

http://www.krdo.com/news/federal-grant-will-help-keep-southwest-chief-running/27955618

Sorry, for the incorrect url


----------



## greatcats

I had to fiddle with the link to get it to show up, as it was giving me another thread. Here it is, pasted, and if this is true I would take this as very good news. I too scratch my head over the numbers.

*LINK*

A southeastern Colorado Amtrak line with an uncertain future received a big boost Tuesday with the announcement of a federal grant.

Eleven Colorado communities along with the state of Kansas, Amtrak and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) applied for the TIGER transportation grant with the goal of saving the Southwest Chief line.

The US Department of Transportation awarded $12.5 million to save the existing line, which surpasses the $9.3 million Colorado communities and Kansas offered up as a match.

The Southwest Chief line runs from Chicago to Los Angeles. It cuts through the heart of Kansas and the southeastern corner of Colorado.


----------



## printman2000

Here is the link that will hopefully work...

http://www.krdo.com/news/federal-grant-will-help-keep-southwest-chief-running/27955618

What I find odd is how come this is the first we are hearing of it? Some Pueblo tv station is reporting this first? Or could they have it wrong? I dunno.


----------



## andersone

This isn't an argument, it's contradiction

(apologies to the pythons again)


----------



## neroden

rrdude said:


> Saw this, the numbers don't add up to me, but the grant states that, "..........Amtrak, BNSF, ............ agreed................."
> 
> http://www.krdo.com/news/federal-grant-will-help-keep-southwest-chief-running/27955618


The numbers don't add up at all. Sounds to me like BNSF agreed to maintain the line out of its own budget, for whatever reason.


----------



## Chelle

I don't understand why they would want to add Pueblo. I don't see how that improves anything.

If I remember right, the old Caprock Chief idea would have included Pueblo along a route that went from Forth Worth to Denver. I loved that idea but it never caught on. Just the same, Pueblo makes sense in that context. It just doesn't make sense along the Southwest Chief, to me anyway.


----------



## jis

Pueblo won't happen. For now talking it up is a way to disgorge some money out of Pueblo County I suppose. They will have to come up with much more than over the $200 million required over 20 years to keep the train running for 20 years on its current route. To run it via Pueblo they will have to find the funds for an additional consist or two as a starter. Those guys are either dreaming or smoking something if they think they can just add 3 hours to the running time of the SWC and just route it via a huge jog to Pueblo.


----------



## Railroad Bill

neroden said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saw this, the numbers don't add up to me, but the grant states that, "..........Amtrak, BNSF, ............ agreed................."
> 
> http://www.krdo.com/news/federal-grant-will-help-keep-southwest-chief-running/27955618
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don't add up at all. Sounds to me like BNSF agreed to maintain the line out of its own budget, for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

Perhaps BNSF wants to keep Amtrak off their Transcom line and is willing to pay up to keep Amtrak out of their hair??


----------



## Paul CHI

jis said:


> \Those guys are either dreaming or smoking something if they think they can just add 3 hours to the running time of the SWC and just route it via a huge jog to Pueblo.


Well, remember that Colorado has legal hash now.


----------



## the DUCK

I have said it before and I'll say it again. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link---in like manner a rail route is only as good and usable as its worst part. The worst and most un useable part of the Southwest Chief route is thru New Mexico. Do you agree? The current speed according to "Track a Train" on west side of Glorita pass is 19 mph. You can NOT blame the Governor of New Mexico for the contents of the Constitution of New Mexico because the contents being referred to was part of constitution when New Mexico became a state. The NM Constitution says no part of the government ( state. county,city, etc) may donate monies to a private railroad. As long as Santa FE has been in New Mexico some one still around at BNSF had to know this when BNSF threw Amrtak the Bone.-- no meat on it. From Lamy to north state Line there are about 200 to 250 miles of railroad track--this includes all double tracking and sidings as well as Main line. In 2009 the cost of just rails and ties was 1 million per mile The dollars Amtrak is requesting of the states is what Amtrak share of Total rehab. In the end The states would have the their initial part (100million+10 Million for10 years) plus Amtrak part (4 million yearly for 10 years/ Each state on hook for total of 240 Million dollars, That is why New Mexico said lets study this. Their Study is to be finished by OCT. 1 2014. There is a meeting of Transportation Committees to be held on Oct.2,2014. WE await those findings.


----------



## afigg

printman2000 said:


> What I find odd is how come this is the first we are hearing of it? Some Pueblo tv station is reporting this first? Or could they have it wrong? I dunno.


The normal pattern for announcing TIGER grant awards is for Senators, Members of the House, local and state politicians to announce or tell the local press and media first about getting the award. I did a quick search and Senator Warner of VA has a press release touting 2 TIGER grants for VA, Maine got 1 for a bridge, and so on. Then US DOT will likely post the complete list of FY2014 TIGER grant awards on Thursday, giving Congress and state politicos 2 days to take credit for their local news cycles.

So this appears to be a legit announcement. So the re-route may indeed be off the table, but I would wait for more reliable reporting on the details from the railroad industry press or a press release than over interpret a mainstream press article wording, which all too often are sloppily written these days.


----------



## the DUCK

Are we forgetting something? The Bill that Colorado passed supporting the track upgrade contains a clause in it that requires both New Mexico and Kansas agree to contribute monies to the cause before theirs can be released. Now how is that going to effect the track upgrade effort?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Railroad Bill said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saw this, the numbers don't add up to me, but the grant states that, "..........Amtrak, BNSF, ............ agreed................."
> 
> http://www.krdo.com/news/federal-grant-will-help-keep-southwest-chief-running/27955618
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don't add up at all. Sounds to me like BNSF agreed to maintain the line out of its own budget, for whatever reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps BNSF wants to keep Amtrak off their Transcom line and is willing to pay up to keep Amtrak out of their hair??
Click to expand...

Or maybe BNSF envisioned this result all along. Otherwise why would they suddenly change their tune for a fraction of the money?


----------



## printman2000

$12.5 million is a far cry from the $100 million that is needed. I do not see how a $12.5 million Tiger grant saves the line. Not to mention the $10 million a year to maintain.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

printman2000 said:


> $12.5 million is a far cry from the $100 million that is needed. I do not see how a $12.5 million Tiger grant saves the line. Not to mention the $10 million a year to maintain.


It probably gets some politicians past the November elections.

Then worry about the next year next year.

I'd have sent $12.5 million TIGER money to other more worthy

projects, but this puny amount won't break the program.


----------



## afigg

printman2000 said:


> $12.5 million is a far cry from the $100 million that is needed. I do not see how a $12.5 million Tiger grant saves the line. Not to mention the $10 million a year to maintain.


The match from Colorado and Kansas states and communities is $9.3 million. So the total from the various government sources is $21.3 million. For a project such as this, that is going to be funded in pieces anyway, that is a reasonably good start.


----------



## Karl1459

I have to wonder if there is a parallel to the Devils Lake line rebuild. If BNSF were to get enough of a significant increase of freight traffic to stress the transcon having an alternate (first class) line available might come in handy. Running some empty coal trains might make sense with a shorter route Alberquerque-Pueblo via Raton even with steeper grades vs the longer routes via Amarillio with the line upgraded and less fragile.

Especially if someone else pays for it.


----------



## TVRM610

Karl1459 said:


> I have to wonder if there is a parallel to the Devils Lake line rebuild. If BNSF were to get enough of a significant increase of freight traffic to stress the transcon having an alternate (first class) line available might come in handy. Running some empty coal trains might make sense with a shorter route Alberquerque-Pueblo via Raton even with steeper grades vs the longer routes via Amarillio with the line upgraded and less fragile.
> 
> Especially if someone else pays for it.


Yes Karl... this is what I think too. BNSF gets a secondary line in case anything happens to the Transcon (huge increase in traffic, incident, etc.)... Amtrak keeps their line and stays out of the Transcon traffic, and BNSF basically gets the upgrade costs paid for, but will have to continue maintenance. Seems pretty logical and clever to me!


----------



## the DUCK

Hutchinson to La Junta to become a an Oil tank Route then down to Davenport. OK via Wichita. KS. This is where Bnsf is building a Oil Terminal to pump into under ground pipeline. Makes good business sense, esp on someone else dollar. This is my guess. This new Terminal was announced during time BNSF we trying to acquire the line from OKC to Tulsa. My thoughts is if this grant is used to fix line for Southwest Chief and Chief is rerouted then BNSF should have to reimburse every penny of the grant.


----------



## neroden

printman2000 said:


> $12.5 million is a far cry from the $100 million that is needed. I do not see how a $12.5 million Tiger grant saves the line. Not to mention the $10 million a year to maintain.


Well, exactly. If this $12.5 million really comes with an agreement from BNSF to maintain the line to passenger standards for 20 years, then BNSF just agreed to pay the other $178.2 to $187.5 million (depending on whether the $9.3 million "from Colorado communities" is real). That's what sounds so odd about this.
If BNSF is willing to pay $180 million to keep the SW Chief on the Raton Pass route (perhaps because their changed business plans now call for the use of Raton Pass), then fine! But I would have expected to see that as the lede.

If, on the other hand, Amtrak is *stupid* enough to commit to staying on the line for 20 years *without* getting a commitment from others (such as BNSF) to provide the money, than Amtrak just dug a giant hole in their own budget for no reason (given that the reroute would be better for revenue and ridership). So I hope that isn't the case.

I hope the situation is the former, not the latter.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

The Davy Crockett said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Craig: Sounds like a Sweet Deal for Amarillo (ya'll have NIMBYs too! :giggle: ) and When (not If) Amtrak moves to the Trans-Con...
> 
> 
> 
> How about: The SWC does get rerouted: I'll buy you both lunch in Amarillo? If not: you both buy me lunch in La Junta?
> 
> :lol: :unsure: :unsure:
Click to expand...

I'm getting hungry for some Mexican food in La Junta! :hi:


----------



## The Davy Crockett

The Davy Crockett said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is still here. I have been in Amarillo for 8 years and still not gone. It is a steak house. They have the deal where you eat some huge steak in an hour and you get it free. They may have been one of the first places to do that kind of challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> STILL not gone? Boy that sounds promising.... not! :huh: I prefer Tex-Mex myself, but its your call!
Click to expand...

The Mexico City Cafe in La Junta!


----------



## printman2000

http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4504

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## printman2000

So here is what I understand from this article... http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26499265/12-5-million-federal-funds-slated-southwest-chief

In the grant request, Amtrak promised to run the train on this route for 20 years if they received the Tiger grant.

What i do not understand is how Amtrak could make that promise if all $100 million was not found somewhere to pay for the repairs. How could they make that promise if only a small fraction of the money was provided in a Tiger grant? I would have though that Amtrak's guarantee would have had some stipulations in there about finding the other 85% of the money before they had to uphold their promise.


----------



## jis

Also they got only $12.5 million of the $15 million they asked for.


----------



## neroden

printman2000 said:


> So here is what I understand from this article... http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26499265/12-5-million-federal-funds-slated-southwest-chief
> 
> In the grant request, Amtrak promised to run the train on this route for 20 years if they received the Tiger grant.
> 
> What i do not understand is how Amtrak could make that promise if all $100 million was not found somewhere to pay for the repairs. How could they make that promise if only a small fraction of the money was provided in a Tiger grant? I would have though that Amtrak's guarantee would have had some stipulations in there about finding the other 85% of the money before they had to uphold their promise.


Exactly. That would be, bluntly, extremely stupid on Amtrak's part.

However, if BNSF promised to maintain the route for 20 years -- at BNSF's own expense -- then that would account for most of the costs.

If not, Boardman committed a gross error which will cost as much as some of the Warrington-era debt deals. So I hope the answer is "BNSF is paying for nearly all of it".


----------



## printman2000

Here is another article...

http://sangrechronicle.com/raton_comet/article_755eae3a-3901-11e4-8439-001a4bcf887a.html

Where it says...



> A map of tracks owned by BNSF Railway, formerly the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, which owns the tracks the Southwest Chief follows, shows the train could turn south from Las Animas, Colo., to Amarillo, Texas, bypassing parts of Northern New Mexico on its current route, including the Lamy station southeast of Santa Fe.


Say what?

Apparently this money only saves the train through Kansas and Eastern Colorado. None of this is making any sense to me.


----------



## airjnke

Local news tonight:

http://ksn.com/2014/09/10/tiger-grant-saves-rural-train-service/


----------



## neroden

printman2000 said:


> Here is another article...
> 
> http://sangrechronicle.com/raton_comet/article_755eae3a-3901-11e4-8439-001a4bcf887a.html
> 
> Where it says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A map of tracks owned by BNSF Railway, formerly the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, which owns the tracks the Southwest Chief follows, shows the train could turn south from Las Animas, Colo., to Amarillo, Texas, bypassing parts of Northern New Mexico on its current route, including the Lamy station southeast of Santa Fe.
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?
> 
> Apparently this money only saves the train through Kansas and Eastern Colorado. None of this is making any sense to me.
Click to expand...

The plot thickens!

Actually, that would make a lot of sense to me. Maybe Amtrak only committed to using the section of track from Newton to Lamar for the next 20 years? That's what the Sangre Chronicle article says.

Here's why it would make sense.

(1) The section of track through Kansas continues to be used for freight, including local freight; the incremental cost of keeping it up to passenger standards is relatively low. By contrast, Raton Pass itself is unused by freight, has problematically high grades, and needs a complete resignalling.

(2) BNSF's double-tracking of the Transcon runs out somewhere north of Amarillo, and the area through Wichita is particularly problematic in terms of traffic, with directional running and criss-crossing UP traffic. By contrast, the Transcon west of Amarillo has what, two single-track sections, one of which is being replaced as we speak (Vaughn) -- that just leaves Ft. Sumner.

(3) There is actual population in the Kansas towns (Hutchinson, Dodge City, Garden City), and the towns have ponied up money to try to keep the train running. By contrast, the New Mexico & Colorado section is pretty much ghost towns, with just the Boy Scout traffic, and they've come up with no money.

It is unsurprising that BNSF would commit to maintaining the Kansas track (which BNSF actually uses). The amount in the TIGER grant is probably actually enough to get this track back to 79 mph. With the option to turn south at Las Animas, I can see why Amtrak might commit to this segment even if the money never comes through for Raton Pass itself.

Newton-Las Animas-Amarillo-Clovis-Albuquerque would be a slower route, but it would be tolerable, and it would retain the population centers along the existing route while adding Amarillo. (No, the Boy Scouts are not a population center.) The politics and the economics may point to this.

Because I don't believe the money is going to be found for Raton, unless BNSF decides to put the money up.


----------



## printman2000

Another article from our local paper...

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2014-09-10/grants-could-keep-southwest-chief-amarillo



> “It’s an important step forward, but it’s not all that’s needed,” Amtrak spokesman Mark Magliari said. “But this segment is the one most immediately to be downgraded.”





> “We have a contact point at Amtrak, but at the moment we don’t have an active dialog because it depends on what happens in Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico,” said Amarillo City Manager Jarrett Atkinson. “We will watch and be ready to act at the appropriate time when it becomes apparent that it will change routes.”


----------



## VentureForth

Just out of curiosity, and I'm sure no one here can probably answer this, but I wonder how Scout ridership to Philmount via Raton has been affected by the children's rate max age change from 17 to 12? The cost has doubled for the majority of the scouts... Wonder if that's been reflected in revenue, or if ridership has dropped...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

VentureForth said:


> Just out of curiosity, and I'm sure no one here can probably answer this, but I wonder how Scout ridership to Philmount via Raton has been affected by the children's rate max age change from 17 to 12? The cost has doubled for the majority of the scouts... Wonder if that's been reflected in revenue, or if ridership has dropped...


How did you determine that the majority of scouts are older than twelve? In any case I'd imagine that most scout troupes are handled through group sales rather than general reservations.


----------



## Paulus

Devil's Advocate said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, and I'm sure no one here can probably answer this, but I wonder how Scout ridership to Philmount via Raton has been affected by the children's rate max age change from 17 to 12? The cost has doubled for the majority of the scouts... Wonder if that's been reflected in revenue, or if ridership has dropped...
> 
> 
> 
> How did you determine that the majority of scouts are older than twelve? In any case I'd imagine that most scout troupes are handled through group sales rather than general reservations.
Click to expand...

Because the minimum joining age is 11?

Can't believe that this got money and SMART's Larkspur extension didn't.


----------



## VentureForth

First of all, the context of my message is regarding Scouts that camp at Philmont. Boy Scouts have to be 11 or 6th grade to join, unless transferring from a Webelos cub scout den when they cross over in 5th grade. Most trips to Philmont (though perhaps recently changed) required a minimum age of 16. This is still the general guideline for most scout councils, as this is considered "High Adventure". Finally, I included the caveat "most" because someone is always bending or breaking guidelines and rules, and I hate to be an absolutist.

I was a cub scout Cub Master (Cub Master of the Year in my Council's district) for 3 years and was active in my son's boy scout troop as well.

I also lived in New Mexico for 2 years, though I have never been to Philmont myself.

Would you like references and contacts?


----------



## Ryan

I went to Philmont at 14, which I think has always been the age for the High Adventure camps.

It was also my first time on Amtrak, and it certainly sparked my love of train travel, so there is some benefit to Amtrak beyond the immediate fare for that one trip.

Edit: Yep. 14, or 13 and completed with the 8th grande (which means I could have gone a year earlier, since I have an October birthday).



> Youth Participants
> 
> A youth must be 14 years of age OR 13 years of age and completed the 8th grade by date of participation. To avoid disappointment, please do not request or expect exceptions! Requirements for Philmont participation cannot be relaxed.


http://www.scouting.org/Philmont/Camping/WhoCanCome/CrewRequirements.aspx


----------



## VentureForth

I guess we just had different rules in our council. At any rate, the Amtrak fare has doubled for participants.


----------



## Bedford

I was on the Chief in early June and the Scouts in the lounge had a "Save the Chief" petition they were asking us to sign.


----------



## neroden

Bah. The places along the route have had years to come up with something and the best they can do is to get a federal grant which doesn't even pay for the entire Kansas route and which really should have gone to something more valuable. I wish Amtrak would stop screwing around and start talking to Amarillo, which seems really eager.

Magliari's comments are confusing, but it seems like he may be saying that they can put off the decision to move if they repair the Kansas track. Which would be ridiculous. Semaphores across Raton Pass, they won't last, does Amtrak really want more dark territory running?


----------



## The Davy Crockett

A couple of observations:

1) The TIGER grant buys time for the political climate in New Mexico to change.

2) It seems pretty clear that Amtrak wants to keep the SWC where it is, especially if it stays going through Kansas. I don't think Amtrak wants the train to wander and weave through the entire Southwest to try and hit every town with a good sized population.

3) Of course the politicians and local press in Amarillo will put a pro-Amarillo spin on this development. The politicians in Amarillo would not be looking out for their town if they did not, and the local media would just p*ss off their readers if they did not follow suit.

4) Amarillo can't expect much support on the state level for a routing through Texas.

5) I can wolf down large amounts of Mexican food.


----------



## neroden

The Davy Crockett said:


> A couple of observations:
> 
> 1) The TIGER grant buys time for the political climate in New Mexico to change.


It won't, not in the next few years. Stop screwing around, Amtrak.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/governor/nm/new_mexico_governor_martinez_vs_king-3271.html


----------



## The Davy Crockett

neroden said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of observations:
> 
> 1) The TIGER grant buys time for the political climate in New Mexico to change.
> 
> 
> 
> It won't, not in the next few years. Stop screwing around, Amtrak.
Click to expand...

While nothing is certain this far out from election day, I agree that there it is not likely to be a change in governors in NM this Fall.

The question is how will the TIGER grant change things in terms of timing of the possible reroute. You seem anxious to see the reroute. However, those who are not, which sure seems to include Amtrak, could possibly, as you put it, 'screw around' waiting for a change in climate. If BNSF wants to keep the SWC off the Transcon, they too could 'screw around,' much like they did with the Devil's Lake sub with the EB, to get the best deal for them. Then the politicians, BNSF, Amtrak, etc., etc. will all claim victory and agree to an agreement.

We can speculate till the 'vacas' come home, but only time will tell.


----------



## rrdude

RyanS said:


> I went to Philmont at 14, which I think has always been the age for the High Adventure camps.
> 
> It was also my first time on Amtrak, and it certainly sparked my love of train travel, so there is some benefit to Amtrak beyond the immediate fare for that one trip.
> 
> Edit: Yep. 14, or 13 and completed with the 8th grande (which means I could have gone a year earlier, since I have an October birthday).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youth Participants
> 
> A youth must be 14 years of age OR 13 years of age and completed the 8th grade by date of participation. To avoid disappointment, please do not request or expect exceptions! Requirements for Philmont participation cannot be relaxed.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.scouting.org/Philmont/Camping/WhoCanCome/CrewRequirements.aspx
Click to expand...

Philmont, and other BSA High Adventure Treks, require age of 14, OR, 13 and have finished the 8th grade.


----------



## neroden

The Davy Crockett said:


> The question is how will the TIGER grant change things in terms of timing of the possible reroute. You seem anxious to see the reroute. However, those who are not, which sure seems to include Amtrak, could possibly, as you put it, 'screw around' waiting for a change in climate.


No business sense there. As the train goes slower and slower through low-population areas which don't even vote for Amtrak (yes, I went through the area one Congressional district at a time -- there are more votes on the Transcon route), this would be screwing their own business. Which railroads have done before, but I don't like watching it being done, because it's really bad long-term; it leads to the elimination of routes.



> If BNSF wants to keep the SWC off the Transcon, they too could 'screw around,' much like they did with the Devil's Lake sub with the EB, to get the best deal for them.


Well, OK, that would show business sense on the part of *BNSF*.
The Devil's Lake situation started out the same, but ended quite differently: the towns and the state jumped to support the route *immediately*, with a *lot* of money.


----------



## the DUCK

Things we DO Know 1. The state of new Mexico and its governing bodies by its constitution can NOT give any monies to private railroads. 2.The bill that Colorado passed has clause that they can disperse monies for rail upgrade only if New Mexico and Kansas pass a similar bill. Question--- How is Colorado effected by New Mexico? 3. Amtrak deadline for monies is Dec.31,2014. Can Colorado change its bill in time? There are two routes north out of Amarillo --- one goes to Trinidad and other goes to Lajunta. Either one could be used by Southwest Chief. Could it be---that BNSF is trying to separate its fast moving traffic from its slower moving traffic? If so, good idea.


----------



## sechs

printman2000 said:


> Here is another article...
> 
> http://sangrechronicle.com/raton_comet/article_755eae3a-3901-11e4-8439-001a4bcf887a.html
> 
> Where it says...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A map of tracks owned by BNSF Railway, formerly the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, which owns the tracks the Southwest Chief follows, shows the train could turn south from Las Animas, Colo., to Amarillo, Texas, bypassing parts of Northern New Mexico on its current route, including the Lamy station southeast of Santa Fe.
> 
> 
> 
> Say what?
> 
> Apparently this money only saves the train through Kansas and Eastern Colorado. None of this is making any sense to me.
Click to expand...

They obviously haven't been on the ground.

Unless there's been track changes, it's not possible to enter the Boise City Sub (towards Amarillo) from the east at Las Animas Junction. You have to go through the wye at La Junta and back-track.

It's also not possible to enter the Twin Peaks Sub (also towards Amarillo) from the east without going through the wye to the Spanish Peaks Sub, before Trinidad (i.e., an extensive reverse).


----------



## sechs

TVRM610 said:


> Karl1459 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to wonder if there is a parallel to the Devils Lake line rebuild. If BNSF were to get enough of a significant increase of freight traffic to stress the transcon having an alternate (first class) line available might come in handy. Running some empty coal trains might make sense with a shorter route Alberquerque-Pueblo via Raton even with steeper grades vs the longer routes via Amarillio with the line upgraded and less fragile.
> 
> Especially if someone else pays for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Karl... this is what I think too. BNSF gets a secondary line in case anything happens to the Transcon (huge increase in traffic, incident, etc.)... Amtrak keeps their line and stays out of the Transcon traffic, and BNSF basically gets the upgrade costs paid for, but will have to continue maintenance. Seems pretty logical and clever to me!
Click to expand...

Free or cheap maintenance is always good, but I'm not so sure that there's a big difference between running Amtrak on the backwaters of the the La Junta Sub and the well-staffed and matintained Southern Transcon.

Except for Amtrak, there's basically only agricultural traffic on the La Junta Sub, which is nothing most of the year. BNSF still has to pay to maintain and dispatch the line for passenger service year-round.

They don't need the La Junta Sub as a secondary line, and they certainly don't need the Raton Sub. BNSF still has the Northern Transcon, the route through Nebraska, and trackage rights on UP to west of Denver.


----------



## neroden

sechs said:


> Unless there's been track changes, it's not possible to enter the Boise City Sub (towards Amarillo) from the east at Las Animas Junction. You have to go through the wye at La Junta and back-track.


Eh, building a third leg on a wye at Las Animas in the middle of rural Colorado is cheaper than rehabilitating & resignalling the entire Raton Pass line.


----------



## sechs

neroden said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there's been track changes, it's not possible to enter the Boise City Sub (towards Amarillo) from the east at Las Animas Junction. You have to go through the wye at La Junta and back-track.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, building a third leg on a wye at Las Animas in the middle of rural Colorado is cheaper than rehabilitating & resignalling the entire Raton Pass line.
Click to expand...

Not free, nonetheless. Especially considering that little work is actually necessary to maintain the Raton Sub for passenger traffic.

It will just go slower and slower each year.


----------



## neroden

sechs said:


> Not free, nonetheless. Especially considering that little work is actually necessary to maintain the Raton Sub for passenger traffic.
> 
> It will just go slower and slower each year.


Which is not acceptable, for fairly obvious reasons!


----------



## the DUCK

To The Davy Crockett ---you might want to get your wallet fattened up because it sure does look like the Southwest Chief will be rerouted through Amarillo. If the Chief leaves current route at: 1. Newton, it will come through Amarillo 2 Las Animas, it will come through Amarillo 3. Trinidad, it will come through Amarillo Besides New Mexico will offer more year round ridership with the reroute. Yes, the "Big Texan" is still in Business and they still have the "Free Meal"---requirements posted on their website. A lot of bloggers would probably like to join you three-- Dutch of course. Let us Know,


----------



## SubwayNut

I just found another link on this story from KRCC, the NPR station in Southeast Colorado: http://krcc.org/post/southwest-chief-application-receives-tiger-grant


----------



## neutralist

There are about 4 million boy scout members including staff. Each one come up with $25 would save the Raton sub. It is a formidable force, now all we need is some rallying..... unless you are pro-reroute of course.


----------



## the DUCK

What we are talking about is just giving Warren Buffett another 100 Million dollars. How does that sit with you? A bus ride is a lot less expensive. A lot to do with the scouts depends where they are coming from (that ride the train)., BNSF has on purpose let the Lamy to La Junta section go to pot because they don't intend to use that section ever again . They can put sidings ,or triple track the Transcon for less than rebuilding the Raton Sub. `


----------



## The Davy Crockett

I think we might have a "guest duck troll" in the house. hboy:

Certainly a quack. :lol:


----------



## jis

The $100 million is mainly for running a train we want run. I don't see how that suddenly becomes giving $100 million to Buffet for nothing. Similarly I also just gave United Airlines for getting myself from point A to point B that I wanted to get to. Does that also count as a donation to United?

New York State just entered into a lease agreement with CSX to gain dispatching control and take over maintenance responsibility, in conjunction with Amtrak of the CSX main line between Poughkeepsie and Hoffamns. Is this just giving money to CSX? If the deal with BNSF for the Raton route is properly structured I and I am sure many others have no problem with contributing money to run the train we want run.

OTOH, there are many ways of structuring the deal wrongly too, which should be avoided. Frankly New Mexico is not being particularly useful in putting a deal together unlike New York State was with CSX.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> OTOH, there are many ways of structuring the deal wrongly too, which should be avoided. Frankly New Mexico is not being particularly useful in putting a deal together unlike New York State was with CSX.


Indeed.
If Governor Martinez had not *backed out* on the agreement to buy the entire Raton Pass line from Lamy to Trinidad for $5 million dollars, the situation would be much simpler; it would be a state-owned line and any investment would clearly go to the benefit of the public.


----------



## the DUCK

The governor did what any prudent leader would have done. In essence BNSF killed the deal. It is posted on the internet. You just don't want to know. If you do you will find it. Now to the present--- The study bill New Mexico passed, did it die or is it alive? It is bill #117. Was to have been ready by 1st of October. I am reading that it died in Finance committee Would some one else please read and report what you find. Granted the reroute would give more ridership.


----------



## neroden

I did my research, and you're talking nonsense. Nonsense deliberately spread by Gov. Martinez, most likely. Martinez killed the completely-settled, signatures-in-ink-on-paper deal.

NM bill died, not that it matters because it wasn't going to fund anything anyway. NM government has made it very clear they won't spend a penny on the existing route.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

I recall reading when a Martinez ally, a county tax-assessor collector,

testified that if the State of New Mexico bought the rail line, then

his county would not be able to collect any taxes the property.

Sort of hoping the re-route thru Amarillo will allow BNSF to tear up

the rails and completely abandon the Raton route, and of course,

pay no taxes itself. When the narrow strip reverts to neighboring 

owners, let's see how much taxes that _ass_essor can collect on land 

most suitable for growing tumbleweeds. Is it wrong that I'm smiling?


----------



## jis

New York tried that for a decade and thus delayed the double tracking of the Albany - Schenectady section. No one collected any extra taxes until finally NY State recanted. The only sufferers were rail passengers for this idiocy.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

jis said:


> New York tried that for a decade and thus delayed the double tracking of the Albany - Schenectady section. No one collected any extra taxes until finally NY State recanted. The only sufferers were rail passengers for this idiocy.


I don't follow. You're comparing the un-bought Raton route with a stretch where New York State owned tracks Albany-Schenectady? I thought Amtrak has owned that segment post-Conrail? So what was NY State doing? Who paid taxes on it then, or now? Anyway, the tracks were never abandoned and the trains still run there.

The New Mexico idiocy I described was the tax-_ass_essor's phony-baloney claim that if the State bought the tracks the county would lose out, because he couldn't collect taxes. Whereas if the railroad simply abandoned the route and no trains would run at all, he could do what about it, tax-wise or otherwise? Meanwhile the rail passengers would suffer for his idiocy.


----------



## the DUCK

And it is all phony- baloney for those who refuse to investigate. It was a real estate transaction that fell thru because the seller would not allow onsite inspection. The Dept. of Transportation requested Gov. not complete the transaction.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

the DUCK said:


> And it is all phony- baloney for those who refuse to investigate. It was a real estate transaction that fell thru because the seller would not allow onsite inspection. The Dept. of Transportation requested Gov. not complete the transaction.


Any Dept. of Transportation will "request" whatever the Gov. tells it to.

During her campaign Martinez had already indicated she opposed the plan.

So no surprise that people needing to keep their jobs told her what

she wanted to hear

That's the way the world works.


----------



## jis

WoodyinNYC said:


> I don't follow. You're comparing the un-bought Raton route with a stretch where New York State owned tracks Albany-Schenectady? I thought Amtrak has owned that segment post-Conrail? So what was NY State doing? Who paid taxes on it then, or now? Anyway, the tracks were never abandoned and the trains still run there.


You don't follow mainly because your perception of facts about the Empire Corridor ownership are entirely wrong. North of Poughkeepsie it was and is still owned by CSX. What has changed last years is that NY State has leased it for a limited number of years with the right to dispatch and maintain, and CSX still retains full trackage rights.
New York State has never owned that piece of track and still does not. Naturally CSX (and before that Conrail) was paying taxes, and if it had allowed the addition of a track its taxes would have gone up and so it disallowed such, until NY State changed its tax laws, much to the chagrin of the local communities, which were milking CSX and hoping to milk them some more.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

jis said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't follow. You're comparing the un-bought Raton route with a stretch where New York State owned tracks Albany-Schenectady? I thought Amtrak has owned that segment post-Conrail? So what was NY State doing? Who paid taxes on it then, or now? Anyway, the tracks were never abandoned and the trains still run there.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't follow mainly because your perception of facts about the Empire Corridor ownership are entirely wrong. North of Poughkeepsie it was and is still owned by CSX. What has changed last years is that NY State has leased it for a limited number of years with the right to dispatch and maintain, and CSX still retains full trackage rights.
> New York State has never owned that piece of track and still does not. Naturally CSX (and before that Conrail) was paying taxes, and if it had allowed the addition of a track its taxes would have gone up and so it disallowed such, until NY State changed its tax laws, much to the chagrin of the local communities, which were milking CSX and hoping to milk them some more.
Click to expand...

I was never talking about north of Poughkeepsie. So it's unkind

of you to say that MY facts are "entirely wrong". Because I was 

quoting you: "New York … thus delayed the double tracking of 

the *Albany-Schenectady* section." (Emphasis added.) Which

segment I still say is Amtrak-owned now. 

(I don't know if Amtrak pays taxes on this 17-mile stretch or on 

Penn Station or on the Northeast Corridor R_O_W or not. Is it 

a tax-exempt federal agency or a tax-liable corporation for 

local property tax purposes?

Anyway, you still seem to have missed my point, which you

would probably agree with if you understood it.

BNSF currently pays taxes on the Raton route. The half-witted

tax assessor said that selling it to the state would mean his county

would lose tax payments. Yeah, true.

But if BNSF abandons the route, as seems to be the threat,

the tax assessor won't collect much of anything from BNSF.

So it seems the tax man in N.M hoped to continue milking BNSF, 

not realizing that the *both* alternatives, state purchase or route

abandonment, would mean no milk at all. (His position only made 

some sense if he thought BSNF was lying about wanting to get 

rid of the route.) 

If the tax man's little squirt of pee contributed to the potential 

abandonment instead of the state purchase alternative, he did 

passengers no favor. Making him very much like your local 

tax assessors in upstate NY.


----------



## Ryan

I'm wildly confused at the point you're trying to make. Jishnu was talking about CSX owned track. The fact that down the line somewhere is some Amtrak owned track doesn't seem to be relevant.

Maybe spend less time arguing about how right you are and more time trying to make your point clearly and you'll have better success.


----------



## George Harris

I do not see how anyone could say that BNSF was screwing New Mexico at the price they were willing to sell the Raton line. The amount was probably less than the net scrap value of the material in the track.


----------



## the DUCK

Nobody is saying BNSF was trying to "screw " New Mexico. Haven't you bought or sold real estate. There is a period of time between purchase agreement and closing for the buyer to inspect and do testing of the property in question. To prohibit that inspection and test opportunity is one way to kill the transaction by the seller. In New Mexico real estate law, if a transaction is not closed the buyer may ask for their earnest Money back. So that allows the question," what does BNSF want with the Raton Sub"?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

RyanS said:


> I'm wildly confused at the point you're trying to make. Jishnu was talking about CSX owned track. The fact that down the line somewhere is some Amtrak owned track doesn't seem to be relevant.
> 
> Maybe spend less time arguing about how right you are and more time trying to make your point clearly and you'll have better success.


You are confused indeed. See his Comment #503. It's about "Albany-Schenectady". That is Amtrak-owned, not CSX.

I never mentioned CSX tracks when I was trying to sort out his point.

Then he jumped to talking about above Poughkeepsie, not Amtrak-owned. Sorry that he seems to have confused you, and I guess himself, with that switcheroo.


----------



## jis

WoodyinNYC said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't follow. You're comparing the un-bought Raton route with a stretch where New York State owned tracks Albany-Schenectady? I thought Amtrak has owned that segment post-Conrail? So what was NY State doing? Who paid taxes on it then, or now? Anyway, the tracks were never abandoned and the trains still run there.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't follow mainly because your perception of facts about the Empire Corridor ownership are entirely wrong. North of Poughkeepsie it was and is still owned by CSX. What has changed last years is that NY State has leased it for a limited number of years with the right to dispatch and maintain, and CSX still retains full trackage rights.
> New York State has never owned that piece of track and still does not. Naturally CSX (and before that Conrail) was paying taxes, and if it had allowed the addition of a track its taxes would have gone up and so it disallowed such, until NY State changed its tax laws, much to the chagrin of the local communities, which were milking CSX and hoping to milk them some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was never talking about north of Poughkeepsie. So it's unkindof you to say that MY facts are "entirely wrong". Because I was
> 
> quoting you: "New York … thus delayed the double tracking of
> 
> the *Albany-Schenectady* section." (Emphasis added.) Which
> 
> segment I still say is Amtrak-owned now.
Click to expand...

You can say it all you want, but that is not going to make it true. you can have an opinion but you cannot just make up facts.
As it turns out Albany to Schenectady is indeed north of Poughkeepsie and is in the section Poughkeepsie - Hoffmans (for reference as you read the references below). Hoffmans is the point west of Schenectady where the line from Albany joins the CSX main from Selkirk (Suggest open up a map and locate those locations on it to get your bearings straight). So yes, indeed you were entirely wrong. 

Go and look at the list of properties owned by Amtrak listed by Amtrak on their web page .

Amtrak has never owned much of anything except the Rensselaer shops and perhaps some station trackage in the Albany area though it has had various agreements in place with CSX to maintain and dispatch the trackage associated with the station and the Boston connection from ALB to the connection with CSX. Amtrak has had various agreements giving Amtrak responsibility for maintenance and dispatching of the Albany - Schenectady section. But the property was and still is owned by CSX, and CSX and before that Conrail, PC and NYC have been responsible for paying taxes on it, whether you like it or not. Trust me I have been involved in pushing for the changes that are about to be put in place with the second main construction there for the last 15 years with the ESPA folks. It was initially thwarted for many years due to this tax issue.

Incidentally on the same Amtrak page they say:



> In December 2012, Amtrak and CSX Transportation reached an agreement for Amtrak to operate and maintain approximately 94 miles of the Empire Corridor in New York between Poughkeepsie, New York, and Hoffmans (near Schenectady).


This includes the section Albany - Schenectady that you erroneously claim is owned by Amtrak. This is the lease agreement that I mentioned in the earlier post, which set you off on a long incoherent rant.

This Amtrak Press Release spells it all out quite clearly including projects that were facilitated by this lease agreement:

Also refer to the Wikipedia article on the Empire Corridor and the Amtrak article on Wikipedia for reference, though I did not want to quote those since parts of them are probably edited by me. Not cool to quote yourself to prove a point 

So the bottom line is that the Raton situation is actually very similar to what we had at the Poughkeepsie - Hoffmans section of the Empire Corridor before the lease came into effect, as I was saying before. New York State handled it well and professionally. New Mexico State apparently does not care enough to handle it in a way that would result in what we want, and perhaps are inclined to scapegoat Amtrak and BNSF in a battle of rumors and innuendos as it appears.



WoodyinNYC said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wildly confused at the point you're trying to make. Jishnu was talking about CSX owned track. The fact that down the line somewhere is some Amtrak owned track doesn't seem to be relevant.
> 
> Maybe spend less time arguing about how right you are and more time trying to make your point clearly and you'll have better success.
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused indeed. See his Comment #503. It's about "Albany-Schenectady". That is Amtrak-owned, not CSX.
> I never mentioned CSX tracks when I was trying to sort out his point.
> 
> Then he jumped to talking about above Poughkeepsie, not Amtrak-owned. Sorry that he seems to have confused you, and I guess himself, with that switcheroo.
Click to expand...

You really need to learn a little bit more about the geography and the relevant facts before trying to sort out anything, and trying to act oh so unconfused  :help: :hi: 



RyanS said:


> I'm wildly confused at the point you're trying to make. Jishnu was talking about CSX owned track. The fact that down the line somewhere is some Amtrak owned track doesn't seem to be relevant.


There is no Amtrak owned track where it is being claimed there is. That is where the error in claimed facts lies. The property is still CSX owned.


----------



## neroden

the DUCK said:


> Nobody is saying BNSF was trying to "screw " New Mexico. Haven't you bought or sold real estate. There is a period of time between purchase agreement and closing for the buyer to inspect and do testing of the property in question. To prohibit that inspection and test opportunity is one way to kill the transaction by the seller. In New Mexico real estate law, if a transaction is not closed the buyer may ask for their earnest Money back. So that allows the question," what does BNSF want with the Raton Sub"?


You don't really understand what happened. The state, after having backed out of the agreement, was NOT going to get their earnest money back. Eventually Martinez had to cut a deal where the state gave BNSF a bunch of tax breaks in exchange for getting the money back.

The sale had standard and well-understood terms for selling a railroad line, as far as I can tell, and everything else is just FUD spread by Martinez's office. There is no evidence that BNSF behaved in any unusual manner apart from leaked slanders. The first two transactions (Belen-Albuquerque and Albuquerque-Lamy) had the same terms and sailed through.

The purchase price for Lamy-Trinidad ($5 million!) is probably less than the value of the land; you could probably get that much just by selling an easement for a fiber-optic corridor.

...as for sale vs. lease, NY effectively controls Schenectady-Poughkeepsie. It looks, from what's been released, like it's a "lease similar to sale". For comparison purposes, consider that Metro-North does not own the fee simple estate in the Harlem Line, Hudson Line, or Grand Central Station; they are all leases. Leases for extremely large numbers of years which are not revocable. Leases which would be considered sales under the rule against perpetuities (which seems to be no longer in force in NY). Such leases are merely a funny way of creating what are economically bonds or installment payments; they don't have the landlord-eviction rights present in typical leases.


----------



## jis

Yeah. The lease is irrevocable, but is limited to AFAIR 45 years (which IMHO is kinda short) or something like that, after which the property reverts back to full control of CSX. I don't know what clauses are there to cover residuals.Of course much else can happen between now and then to change that too.


----------



## neroden

After all, 45 years ago was 1969. Among other things, most states still had malapportioned legislatures at that time. "One person one vote" wasn't established in the US until 1962, and wasn't really implemented fully until after the 1970 census. In railroading, the Rail Passenger Service Act didn't arrive until 1970... Penn Central hadn't even declared bankruptcy yet in 1969.

I don't know what things will be like in 45 years. I think it's pretty much assured that CSX will not get the line back. CSX is likely to not even exist. Its successor (if any) probably won't get the line back either; when the leases on the Metro-North lines were set to expire recently, American Premier Underwriters didn't get the Metro-North lines back, the lease was instead quietly extended for a bit short of a thousand years.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> WoodyinNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't follow. You're comparing the un-bought Raton route with a stretch where New York State owned tracks Albany-Schenectady? I thought Amtrak has owned that segment post-Conrail? So what was NY State doing? Who paid taxes on it then, or now? Anyway, the tracks were never abandoned and the trains still run there.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't follow mainly because your perception of facts about the Empire Corridor ownership are entirely wrong. North of Poughkeepsie it was and is still owned by CSX. What has changed last years is that NY State has leased it for a limited number of years with the right to dispatch and maintain, and CSX still retains full trackage rights.
> New York State has never owned that piece of track and still does not. Naturally CSX (and before that Conrail) was paying taxes, and if it had allowed the addition of a track its taxes would have gone up and so it disallowed such, until NY State changed its tax laws, much to the chagrin of the local communities, which were milking CSX and hoping to milk them some more.
Click to expand...

It's a nuance, but the the lease from CSX is with Amtrak, not New York State. The lease duration is 25 years with an option for an additional 23 years.

Amtrak Release 12/4/12


----------



## neroden

I guess there's probably another agreement somewhere where NYS pays Amtrak the amounts due to CSX on the lease.


----------



## PRR 60

neroden said:


> I guess there's probably another agreement somewhere where NYS pays Amtrak the amounts due to CSX on the lease.


The only monetary arrangement I am aware of is that CXS pays Amtrak $1.5 million annually for trackage rights, plus a per car fee. CSX may have found that unloading the maintenance responsibility for a lightly used line was all they needed from Amtrak.


----------



## jis

I wonder if CSX gets some relief from paying taxes on the property too. Haven't looked at the whole thing carefully enough to know.

Yeah, now that you mention it, it is indeed a total of 48 with the extension. that is where I vaguely remembered the 45 or so from.

It is possible that the lease amount is grossed into the computation of New York State's total contribution for the Empire Corridor, i.e. the lease cost is counted together with the Section 209 fees. This is just a speculation with no real information supporting it this way or that though.


----------



## the Duck

This thread is for Southwest Chief---Take your other railroads elsewhere.


----------



## neroden

PRR 60 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess there's probably another agreement somewhere where NYS pays Amtrak the amounts due to CSX on the lease.
> 
> 
> 
> The only monetary arrangement I am aware of is that CXS pays Amtrak $1.5 million annually for trackage rights, plus a per car fee. CSX may have found that unloading the maintenance responsibility for a lightly used line was all they needed from Amtrak.
Click to expand...

Maybe the lease is for a nominal amount of money (dollar a year?). If it isn't for *any* compensation, then legally it's not a lease, it's a gift, which has certain obvious consequences (i.e. Amtrak would own the line now!)


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Go quack yourself elsewhere, Duck.


----------



## jis

the Duck said:


> This thread is for Southwest Chief---Take your other railroads elsewhere.


Ah! A guest wannabe moderator is amongst us!  


neroden said:


> Maybe the lease is for a nominal amount of money (dollar a year?). If it isn't for *any* compensation, then legally it's not a lease, it's a gift, which has certain obvious consequences (i.e. Amtrak would own the line now!)


From what I have been told, the lease is for more than a nominal amount, but does not involve some enormous amounts either. I was told that it is more than reasonable.
And then tongue in the cheek it was commented "We wish we could get the rest of the corridor to Buffalo under similar terms". But at least for now that is not to be.


----------



## neroden

Well (ha!) remember the terms for the New Mexico purchase.

Belen to Bernalillo: $50 million

Bernalillo to Lamy: $20 million

Lamy to Trinidad: $5 million

(also, the maintenance yard for RailRunner: $1 million just for the land).

Notice that the prices are pretty nearly in the opposite order to the mileage on the segments. The segments with more freight traffic cost more.

Frankly, I'd bet the line to Buffalo is available for lease on similar *terms* to the line from Schenectady to Poughkeepsie... but for a tremendous amount more *money*. I don't think the state is willing to come up with the money... yet. Maybe eventually...

Anyway, back to Albuquerque, when checking the numbers at this article:

http://www.wheelsmuseum.org/120605.html

I just discovered that the state of NM incidentally got a number of branch lines, and "one of those spurs runs toward the Albuquerque International Sunport". This says to me that, most likely, the "Abajo wye" is now property of the state of NM, since that's where the branch heading towards the Sunport branches off.


----------



## the DUCK

So The State of New Mexico is not able (because of their Constitution) to give monies for track upgrade either directly or indirectly: how does that leave Colorado? Does it not leave them "out in the Cold"? If I understand the Colorado Bill -- they were not going to fund a dime from La junta to Trinidad unless there was written guarantee the Chief would go to Pueblo within 5 years. With the dead New Mexico study bill and freaky Colorado bill it sounds as if the reroute is guaranteed for Amarillo short of abandonment. That the case, what about this-- a tourist line from Amarillo to Tucumcari to Springer then north to Pueblo and South from Springer to Santa Fe/ Albq.. The Amarillo to Tucumcari would utilize the Old Rock Island row and Tucumcari to Springer would utilize the old Dawson Railway row. North and South of Springer use the present BNSF row. Track would be Class 8 . Cost --Billion dollars. Check this out on Google--it will surprise you.


----------



## George Harris

the DUCK said:


> So The State of New Mexico is not able (because of their Constitution) to give monies for track upgrade either directly or indirectly: how does that leave Colorado? Does it not leave them "out in the Cold"? If I understand the Colorado Bill -- they were not going to fund a dime from La junta to Trinidad unless there was written guarantee the Chief would go to Pueblo within 5 years. With the dead New Mexico study bill and freaky Colorado bill it sounds as if the reroute is guaranteed for Amarillo short of abandonment. That the case, what about this-- a tourist line from Amarillo to Tucumcari to Springer then north to Pueblo and South from Springer to Santa Fe/ Albq.. The Amarillo to Tucumcari would utilize the Old Rock Island row and Tucumcari to Springer would utilize the old Dawson Railway row. North and South of Springer use the present BNSF row. Track would be Class 8 . Cost --Billion dollars. Check this out on Google--it will surprise you.


Huh? Duck, you might want to lay off the wacky tobaccy.


----------



## VentureForth

George, I wanted to reply with some sort of half intelligent thought out response, but yours is much, much better.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

What can I say? He's a quack.


----------



## the DUCK

Just for yours information --- There are 4 different ski area west of Springer,NM and these also have summer time activities plus the ski basin at Santa Fe and at Glorita there is a youth camp with housing for several thousand each week in the Summer. Now it just so happens that a large number of people from Amarillo, Lubbock, and Clovis area own a 2nd house in one of these places which means travel. It is also a known fact that people who live on the coast enjoy visiting the Mountains and that the Mountain people enjoy visiting the Coast---and they do it every day. Railroading is like any other business----find a need and Serve it. More could be said, But you need to Quack too.


----------



## neutralist

George Harris said:


> the DUCK said:
> 
> 
> 
> So The State of New Mexico is not able (because of their Constitution) to give monies for track upgrade either directly or indirectly: how does that leave Colorado? Does it not leave them "out in the Cold"? If I understand the Colorado Bill -- they were not going to fund a dime from La junta to Trinidad unless there was written guarantee the Chief would go to Pueblo within 5 years. With the dead New Mexico study bill and freaky Colorado bill it sounds as if the reroute is guaranteed for Amarillo short of abandonment. That the case, what about this-- a tourist line from Amarillo to Tucumcari to Springer then north to Pueblo and South from Springer to Santa Fe/ Albq.. The Amarillo to Tucumcari would utilize the Old Rock Island row and Tucumcari to Springer would utilize the old Dawson Railway row. North and South of Springer use the present BNSF row. Track would be Class 8 . Cost --Billion dollars. Check this out on Google--it will surprise you.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Duck, you might want to lay off the wacky tobaccy.
Click to expand...

If the mods have the duck IP address, I can bet he is from one of those state that have legalized marijuana. Potheads are not welcome on any airlines so Amtrak is their only option to go "Rocky Mountain High".


----------



## the DUCK

Well. thank you, folks! Must be a good idea after all. With name calling and poking fun as the only objections must be pretty darn good concept. To further enhance the concept, we can add Tennessee Pass route and wind up at Glenwood Springs. You think this not work--- lay it out WHY. You just show jealousy when name call and make fun. Somebody is going to use the Raton Pass route and just think you might could have a part in it


----------



## gmushial

the DUCK said:


> Well. thank you, folks! Must be a good idea after all. With name calling and poking fun as the only objections must be pretty darn good concept. To further enhance the concept, we can add Tennessee Pass route and wind up at Glenwood Springs. You think this not work--- lay it out WHY. You just show jealousy when name call and make fun. Somebody is going to use the Raton Pass route and just think you might could have a part in it


Hey Quacker - obviously you have an interest in trains and routes... but communications is the art whereby the sender gets the receiver(s) to hear and understand the intended message... maybe I'm the only one having trouble parsing your posts... just maybe a little more effort in trying to make your posts more understandable, and I strongly suspect you'll fit right in here and be absolutely welcome. 

BTW welcome aboard.

greg


----------



## VentureForth

If you join our forum, you can send messages directly to other users. Trainaddict may be one you would enjoy getting to know. I think you share some similar ideologies.

I'm sorry to knock your ideas, but "thousands" is only an acceptable market if they actually all use the train. For train travel to justify its existence and cost, you need markets of millions of people.

We can all wish for fancy new routes - the Desert Wind, the Pioneer, the Floridian, Auto Train West, etc. But the fact of the matter is that many of these DID exist and they don't any more for a pretty good reason - cost.


----------



## SarahZ

neutralist said:


> If the mods have the duck IP address, I can bet he is from one of those state that have legalized marijuana. *Potheads are not welcome on any airlines so Amtrak is their only option to go "Rocky Mountain High".*


Plenty of people who smoke marijuana fly on major airlines.


----------



## George Harris

the DUCK said:


> Well. thank you, folks! Must be a good idea after all. With name calling and poking fun as the only objections must be pretty darn good concept. To further enhance the concept, we can add Tennessee Pass route and wind up at Glenwood Springs. You think this not work--- lay it out WHY. You just show jealousy when name call and make fun. Somebody is going to use the Raton Pass route and just think you might could have a part in it


duck:

There is an attempt in this forum to discuss reasonable routes, route changes, and other improvements. Your first post to which I made my somewhat flippant response was a mishmash of lines presented in a less than comprehensible manner, then ending with the "cost billions" comment. That last was the final nail in the coffin burying any semblence of rationality in the post.

Now, on to the Tennessee Pass route: That line is shown in UP publications as having 148 miles as being "OOS", that is out of service and another 11 controled by a short line. It is 175 miles longer between Denver and Dotsero than the direct line through the Moffat Tunnel. When it had a passenger train it was almost entirely a sightseeing train. It was very slow and ran through a thinly populated area. It had very low ridership. The slowness was inherent to the alignment, so that will be there if the line is ever - at great expense! - put back in service. Much as some here might like to see this line as a beautiful scenic ride there is no semblence of any reality that will allow that to happen.

Here you have the "why" that prevents this route from working.


----------



## nmrxabqfan101

the DUCK said:


> So The State of New Mexico is not able (because of their Constitution) to give monies for track upgrade either directly or indirectly: how does that leave Colorado? Does it not leave them "out in the Cold"? If I understand the Colorado Bill -- they were not going to fund a dime from La junta to Trinidad unless there was written guarantee the Chief would go to Pueblo within 5 years. With the dead New Mexico study bill and freaky Colorado bill it sounds as if the reroute is guaranteed for Amarillo short of abandonment. That the case, what about this-- a tourist line from Amarillo to Tucumcari to Springer then north to Pueblo and South from Springer to Santa Fe/ Albq.. The Amarillo to Tucumcari would utilize the Old Rock Island row and Tucumcari to Springer would utilize the old Dawson Railway row. North and South of Springer use the present BNSF row. Track would be Class 8 . Cost --Billion dollars. Check this out on Google--it will surprise you.


 the state of NM is allowed to give money under certain conditions & terms.


----------



## dlagrua

The original intent of this discussion was to discuss a possible re-route of the Southwest Chief. I will refrain from getting into the argument but will simply say that I believe that major route changes are not financially viable options at this time. If rerouting was that easy (and cost effective) the EB with its abysmal OTP record would be the first to do it.


----------



## neroden

nmrxabqfan101 said:


> the state of NM is allowed to give money under certain conditions & terms.


I read through the conditions, and basically, there's no chance in hell that the state can give money to BNSF or Amtrak for the Raton Pass line.

Here's the main rule:



> Neither the state nor any county, school district or municipality, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall directly or indirectly lend or pledge its credit or make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation *or in aid of any private enterprise for the construction of any railroad*; provided:


(emphasis mine)
Here's the only potentially relevant exception:



> D. nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the state or a county or municipality from creating new job opportunities by providing land, buildings or infrastructure for facilities to support new or expanding businesses if this assistance is granted pursuant to general implementing legislation that is approved by a majority vote of those elected to each house of the legislature....


There is no way that this can be construed to apply to giving money for the Raton Pass line.

For some discussions on court opinions, see here:

http://ua.unm.edu/anti-donation.html

The constitutional clause is constructed very strictly by the courts, prohibiting even actions "in the spirit of the statute" which violate the letter of the statute.

Donating money for the construction of railroads is *specifically called out* as prohibited.

There is no way in hell that the state courts will allow the state to give money away to BNSF.

If the state buys the Raton Pass line, the state can put money into the line. If the line is owned by BNSF, the state is absolutely prohibited from spending one red cent on it.


----------



## Guest_krtraveler

This is how everyone could potentially win if the Southwest Chief is rerouted.


----------



## nmrxabqfan101

neroden said:


> nmrxabqfan101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the state of NM is allowed to give money under certain conditions & terms.
> 
> 
> 
> I read through the conditions, and basically, there's no chance in hell that the state can give money to BNSF or Amtrak for the Raton Pass line.Here's the main rule:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the state nor any county, school district or municipality, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall directly or indirectly lend or pledge its credit or make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation *or in aid of any private enterprise for the construction of any railroad*; provided:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (emphasis mine)Here's the only potentially relevant exception:
> 
> 
> 
> D. nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the state or a county or municipality from creating new job opportunities by providing land, buildings or infrastructure for facilities to support new or expanding businesses if this assistance is granted pursuant to general implementing legislation that is approved by a majority vote of those elected to each house of the legislature....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way that this can be construed to apply to giving money for the Raton Pass line.For some discussions on court opinions, see here:http://ua.unm.edu/anti-donation.htmlThe constitutional clause is constructed very strictly by the courts, prohibiting even actions "in the spirit of the statute" which violate the letter of the statute.Donating money for the construction of railroads is *specifically called out* as prohibited.There is no way in hell that the state courts will allow the state to give money away to BNSF.If the state buys the Raton Pass line, the state can put money into the line. If the line is owned by BNSF, the state is absolutely prohibited from spending one red cent on it.
Click to expand...

 The state of NM and Governor Susana Martinez ordered several studies....study 1 see if the SWC better on the southern route and could NM get or loose more and if the SWC better where she is. Before the recent elections I HAD A MEETING WITH FORMER AG GARY KING whos office is experience is to interpret any confusion of the state constitution....He said under the current act of the anti donation clause the reason it was created for situations like this. But there is a loophole the original makers left....the state can give money if it benefits the states economy and or citizens! So yes NM can participate second study 2 ordered by Susana Martinez was to analyze the constitution to see if that funding could be possible? That study was preformed by the AG office and the Legal Councel Service which on November 6 publicly stated The Same findings Former AG Gary King informed. How I know? I was also there at the meeting in Santa fe with the NMDOT committee and the state transportation committee. Also I spoke with an Amtrak official in regards to this which is good news to Amtrak's ears. Now the comittee informed Amtrak there will be NO FUNDING GRANTED if there is no commitment to maintain service through 2016. No Service in 2016 no Money is where NM stands. The official word will be determined once the 2015 legislation is done.


----------



## nmrxabqfan101

neroden said:


> nmrxabqfan101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the state of NM is allowed to give money under certain conditions & terms.
> 
> 
> 
> I read through the conditions, and basically, there's no chance in hell that the state can give money to BNSF or Amtrak for the Raton Pass line.Here's the main rule:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the state nor any county, school district or municipality, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall directly or indirectly lend or pledge its credit or make any donation to or in aid of any person, association or public or private corporation *or in aid of any private enterprise for the construction of any railroad*; provided:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (emphasis mine)Here's the only potentially relevant exception:
> 
> 
> 
> D. nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the state or a county or municipality from creating new job opportunities by providing land, buildings or infrastructure for facilities to support new or expanding businesses if this assistance is granted pursuant to general implementing legislation that is approved by a majority vote of those elected to each house of the legislature....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way that this can be construed to apply to giving money for the Raton Pass line.For some discussions on court opinions, see here:http://ua.unm.edu/anti-donation.htmlThe constitutional clause is constructed very strictly by the courts, prohibiting even actions "in the spirit of the statute" which violate the letter of the statute.Donating money for the construction of railroads is *specifically called out* as prohibited.There is no way in hell that the state courts will allow the state to give money away to BNSF.If the state buys the Raton Pass line, the state can put money into the line. If the line is owned by BNSF, the state is absolutely prohibited from spending one red cent on it.
Click to expand...

._____________

NMDOT Releases Three Studies Funded by 2014 Legislature

The November 6th meeting was key to the future of the Chief as the first two agenda items were a detailed discussion of the three studies funded by the 2014 legislature and/or commissioned by the New Mexico Department of Transportation.

Here are the highlights of the three studies:

Southwest Chief Rail Service: An Examination of State Authorities and Limitations Pursuant to the Constitution of New Mexico. Arthur J. Waskey, Contract Staff Attorney Legislative Council Service presented. This study focused in particular on the "anti-donation" clause in the Constitution that the New Mexico DOT has sited numerous times as preventing state support for the Chief.

Mr. Waskey summarized his findings right at the beginning of his presentation by saying that he found nothing in the anti-donation clause that would prevent the state from financially supporting the Chief. The clause prohibits donations to private enterprise and the cost of railroad construction. Waskey emphasized that Amtrak is a federally charted corporation, funded by the government and under Congressional control -- essentially an agency of the US government and therefore not a private enterprise. Supporting the Chief is not a donation: in this case Amtrak would have "an obligation" back to the state to provide a service. Waskey emphasized that the NMDOT would have to follow all state procurement rules in negotiating a contract, including a careful determination of costs. The contract would include defining the agreement with appropriate terms, a termination clause, a recognition of limits on state funding, and that the state be held harmless in the event the agreement is terminated. According to Waskey, the NMDOT has a "statutory duty to take all practical steps to improve rail freight and rail passenger service . . . transportation is an essential governmental function . . . the DOT is authorized to enter into an agreement."

Southwest Chief Rail Service: Engineering Cost Estimate Review and Economic Analysis. Frank Sharpless, Transit and Rail Director, Department of Transportation (DOT) presented.

Sharpless provided an overview to Amtrak and the Southwest Chief route and a summary of how the studies were researched. In New Mexico, the study estimates the annual cost for annual operational and maintenance costs at $9,375 million (Amtrak's most recent estimate is $6,727 million/year). For the economic impact, the study compared the economic impact of the current route vs. moving the Chief to the Southern Transcon. If the train is re-routed, ridership to and from New Mexico destinations is estimated to be reduced by 13,000. For employment, - 65; output (Labor and Gross Regional Product -- a measure of newly created value through production within a region) - $3.7 million; and taxes -$800,000.

These statistics -- particularly the economic impact numbers -- require further detailed study. One statistic highlighted by the study is the economic impact to Colfax, Mora, San Miguel and Santa Fe counties if the line is abandoned: $1.1 million annually from BNSF.

During the hearing, Ray Lang, Amtrak Sr. Director for State Relations, answered legislators' questions. He said that "we are approaching an existentialist moment" for the future of the train, and that lacking an agreement, "Amtrak will explore all its options." Tom Church, NMDOT Secretary, later countered, "Amtrak must make a commitment to this route before we fund it -- my opinion." Lang also emphasized that moving the Chief to the Southern Transcon will be a very expensive proposition -- much more expensive than retaining the train on the current route -- due to the need to lengthen sidings, re-time grade crossing signals, and upgrade the signaling system to handle the Chief which operates at speeds higher than freight trains. He also emphasized that Amtrak does not have the funding available to re-route the train.

While Lang said Amtrak would work with BNSF to redo the cost estimates for each of the states in light of the recent TIGER grants to Kansas and Colorado, he did not commit to a timeframe as to when this will be completed.

While the resolution of the anti-donation clause is very positive, we are rapidly approaching the 2015 New Mexico legislative session without a clear definition of Amtrak and BNSF's needs. Church's opinion that Amtrak should commit to the route before the state commits funds for operations and maintenance is very concerning. It has been confirmed in private conversations with several legislators at the hearings.

Although the DOT studies increase the possible needed funding for operations and maintenance and (perhaps) under-estimate the positive economic impact of the Chief


----------



## west point

why could NM lease the line with BNSF rights with a tonnage payment to NM? Then could NM upgrade the route in NM?


----------



## the Duck

It is based on WHO OWNES the RAILINE !!!


----------



## jis

west point said:


> why could NM lease the line with BNSF rights with a tonnage payment to NM? Then could NM upgrade the route in NM?


This is what NY State has done with CSX on the Empire Corridor between Pughkeepsie and Hoffmans west of Schenectady, just short of Amsterdam. However, apparently New York is not burdened by wacky laws like NM is.


----------



## BNSFboy

There is one thing I would like to throw out on the table for discussion. Who says the Chief has to run 79MPH over the reroute section. It can just as easily run 70MPH and still make a better time than on the current route. By the Chief running 70 along with the freight trains there will be little need for hopping trains and most of the expensive aspects of the reroute are then non-existent. Stations do not have to be built by Amtrak ether as most town will be more than happy to put in at least a ADA platform for the train to stop at although it might be a little harder by having to make a passenger siding. Also the transcon traffic congestion does very on the time of day too, during the day it is generally busy but not to the extent that the Chief can't operate, but at night it can almost be dead in a since which is most likely when the Chief will run through although that might be a matter that we will not know until the reroute.


----------



## TheTuck

Not all freights run 70 MPH. Some are limited to 50 or less, and they all need a whole lot of starting and stopping distance. A passenger train really does need a clear path for many, many miles in order to make a respectable running time. This is true over the transcon or any busy main line for that matter. On the Needles Sub, a completely double track line with a handful of sidings, #3 and #4 go up against a TON of freight traffic even in the middle of the night. The dispatchers do well to clear a path for Amtrak but its not always feasible.


----------



## neroden

> He said under the current act of the anti donation clause the reason it was created for situations like this. But there is a loophole the original makers left....the state can give money if it benefits the states economy and or citizens!


Unfortunately, nope -- the loophole is *far* more specific than that. It only allows donations under very specific circumstances:
"creating new job opportunities by providing land, buildings or infrastructure for facilities to support new or expanding businesses if this assistance is granted pursuant to general implementing legislation that is approved by a majority vote of those elected to each house of the legislature. "

This clause, designed for "economic development agencies" and similar things, DOES NOT APPLY. First of all, any Raton Pass funding would be special-purpose legislation, not general implementing legislation. Second, BNSF in the Raton region is neither a new business nor an expanding business; and neither is Amtrak!



nmrxabqfan101 said:


> Mr. Waskey summarized his findings right at the beginning of his presentation by saying that he found nothing in the anti-donation clause that would prevent the state from financially supporting the Chief. The clause prohibits donations to private enterprise and the cost of railroad construction. Waskey emphasized that Amtrak is a federally charted corporation, funded by the government and under Congressional control -- essentially an agency of the US government and therefore not a private enterprise. Supporting the Chief is not a donation: in this case Amtrak would have "an obligation" back to the state to provide a service.


If the line's owned by BNSF, it's a donation to BNSF, which IS a private enterprise. So the entire discussion is irrelevant.

His opinion is deliberately avoiding the key Constitutional point, which is that while the Raton Pass line is owned by BNSF, funding to upgrade the Raton Pass line is a donation to *BNSF*.

The court history of the anti-donation clause is one of *extremely strict construction*.

If NM *BUYS THE LINE*, the anti-donation clause problems go away immediately, of course. There's no problem in contributing operating funding to Amtrak; there's no problem in contributing capital funding to a line owned by Amtrak; there's no problem whatsoever in contributing capital funding to a line owned by the state. There's a problem in contributing capital funding to a line owned by BNSF.

This would be so much simpler if Martinez had consummated the contract to purchase the line.



> While the resolution of the anti-donation clause is very positive,


It is NOT resolved. The New Mexico government folks are talking absolute nonsense and will be smacked down HARD by the state courts. There is no loophole available for donations to BNSF for railroad construction! T

This is the *exact situation* which the anti-donation clause was written to deal with. The state has one way out: buy the line, *then* spend money.



> we are rapidly approaching the 2015 New Mexico legislative session without a clear definition of Amtrak and BNSF's needs. Church's opinion that Amtrak should commit to the route before the state commits funds for operations and maintenance is very concerning.


This is basically a statement that New Mexico (Governor's office and NMDOT) have no interest in funding the line whatsoever. Since state officials are dissembling regarding the anti-donation clause, and since NMDOT and the government have carefully avoided any discussion of purchasing the line (which would resolve the constitutional problem immediately), there's only one way to interpret this: the state has no intention of spending one red cent, but is trying to avoid saying so.

Amtrak, please don't fall for this. Maybe it's expensive to move to the Transcon, but you're not getting one red cent out of New Mexico.



> Lang also emphasized that moving the Chief to the Southern Transcon will be a very expensive proposition -- much more expensive than retaining the train on the current route


Sure, but Amtrak can perhaps get funding for moving the train to the Transcon -- from Texas, Kansas, Wichita, and Amarillo. (Very little work is needed in New Mexico, and the City of Albuquerque might pay for it.) Amtrak's getting no funding, zero, none from New Mexico, they've made it 100% clear. Even if they pass a funding bill, they've carefully arranged to pass an *unconstitutional* funding bill which will be struck down by the courts! Amtrak should want nothing to do with this!
I would like to talk to Ray Lang and get his head straightened out. Martinez and Church are playing him for a fool; their goal seems to be to spend no money whatsoever, but to string Amtrak along so long that Amtrak can't make alternate plans. This is a recipe for cancelling the SW Chief *entirely*.

----

Lang and Boardman need to put this in very blunt terms to Church and Martinez. They need to say: if NM purchases the Raton Pass line from BNSF, Amtrak will stay on the line. If NM does not purchase it, Amtrak will not.

A purchase would make it constitutional for NM to spend more money on the line, and more importantly, would be a show of good faith on the part of a state government which has shown no good faith.


----------



## oldtimer

On April 5, 2011 New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez signed recently passed state legislation exempting Union Pacific from paying locomotive fuel tax so the railroad company will develop the new facility. Is this not an illegal work around of the state constitution's antidonation clause. It effectively gives the UP an unfair advantage over other railroad fuel purchasers in the state.











0


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> This clause, designed for "economic development agencies" and similar things, DOES NOT APPLY. First of all, any Raton Pass funding would be special-purpose legislation, not general implementing legislation. Second, BNSF in the Raton region is neither a new business nor an expanding business; and neither is Amtrak!


Maybe I'm clutching at straws here, but if say, Amtrak were to suspend the SWC even for one day, then its reintroduction would count as a new or expanded service, would it not?


----------



## jis

What if the line is leased for 99 (or some such) years somewhat like NY State has done with CSX for some number of years? In case of New York in effect what has happened is that what really is for all practical purposes a purchase has been arranged with the payment spread out over a long period of time. I would be very surprised if CSX ever gets that property back, unless steel wheel on steel rail transport becomes utterly irrelevant.


----------



## Paulus

cirdan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> This clause, designed for "economic development agencies" and similar things, DOES NOT APPLY. First of all, any Raton Pass funding would be special-purpose legislation, not general implementing legislation. Second, BNSF in the Raton region is neither a new business nor an expanding business; and neither is Amtrak!
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm clutching at straws here, but if say, Amtrak were to suspend the SWC even for one day, then its reintroduction would count as a new or expanded service, would it not?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## neroden

cirdan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> This clause, designed for "economic development agencies" and similar things, DOES NOT APPLY. First of all, any Raton Pass funding would be special-purpose legislation, not general implementing legislation. Second, BNSF in the Raton region is neither a new business nor an expanding business; and neither is Amtrak!
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm clutching at straws here, but if say, Amtrak were to suspend the SWC even for one day, then its reintroduction would count as a new or expanded service, would it not?
Click to expand...

That might possibly work, but it would be a real stretch. I don't think the courts would like it much. If the SWC was cancelled for significant periods and the money was spent on reintroduction -- or a second train from Albuquerque to Denver was proposed -- or if BNSF promised that it was going to bring more freight service -- then it probably would count as an expansion.



jis said:


> What if the line is leased for 99 (or some such) years somewhat like NY State has done with CSX for some number of years? In case of New York in effect what has happened is that what really is for all practical purposes a purchase has been arranged with the payment spread out over a long period of time. I would be very surprised if CSX ever gets that property back, unless steel wheel on steel rail transport becomes utterly irrelevant.


That would probably be OK, since there's a concept of "lease which is similar to sale" under law.

With a 99+-year lease, it would be clear that any investment was entirely for the benefit of the leaseholder (since most railroad improvements depreciate over less than 100 years).

However, at the previously quoted price of $5 million to buy the entire line, I really think NM should just buy the entire line. The price is a very good one, and was described as such in previous analyses. The fact that they haven't bought it makes me very suspicious of the intentions of the Martinez/Church government.


----------



## neroden

> . Table 4.22 FY 2013 Rail Runner Operating Budget
> 
> Millions
> 
> Source: *Rio Metro RTD*
> 
> Revenues (millions)
> 
> *Local* Gross Receipts Tax $12.51


I'd like to note for the record that this is *local* funding. No state funding, Martinez ended the state funding. Which is fine; the local funding is doing the job; it's a local service; but you see my point, the state isn't funding it.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> However, at the previously quoted price of $5 million to buy the entire line, I really think NM should just buy the entire line. The price is a very good one, and was described as such in previous analyses. The fact that they haven't bought it makes me very suspicious of the intentions of the Martinez/Church government.


I agree. This may be another Indiana/Hoosier State exercise, which I have suspected for a while is just window dressing to finally be able to say "See we tried our best, but now we know it is unworkable". I suppose I am not being my usual optimistic self this morning


----------



## nmrxabqfan101

neroden said:


> . Table 4.22 FY 2013 Rail Runner Operating BudgetMillionsSource: *Rio Metro RTD*Revenues (millions)*Local* Gross Receipts Tax $12.51
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to note for the record that this is *local* funding. No state funding, Martinez ended the state funding. Which is fine; the local funding is doing the job; it's a local service; but you see my point, the state isn't funding it.
Click to expand...

 NMRx is majority funded by federal dollars.


----------



## nmrxabqfan101

neroden said:


> He said under the current act of the anti donation clause the reason it was created for situations like this. But there is a loophole the original makers left....the state can give money if it benefits the states economy and or citizens!
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, nope -- the loophole is *far* more specific than that. It only allows donations under very specific circumstances:"creating new job opportunities by providing land, buildings or infrastructure for facilities to support new or expanding businesses if this assistance is granted pursuant to general implementing legislation that is approved by a majority vote of those elected to each house of the legislature. "This clause, designed for "economic development agencies" and similar things, DOES NOT APPLY. First of all, any Raton Pass funding would be special-purpose legislation, not general implementing legislation. Second, BNSF in the Raton region is neither a new business nor an expanding business; and neither is Amtrak!
> 
> 
> nmrxabqfan101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Waskey summarized his findings right at the beginning of his presentation by saying that he found nothing in the anti-donation clause that would prevent the state from financially supporting the Chief. The clause prohibits donations to private enterprise and the cost of railroad construction. Waskey emphasized that Amtrak is a federally charted corporation, funded by the government and under Congressional control -- essentially an agency of the US government and therefore not a private enterprise. Supporting the Chief is not a donation: in this case Amtrak would have "an obligation" back to the state to provide a service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the line's owned by BNSF, it's a donation to BNSF, which IS a private enterprise. So the entire discussion is irrelevant.His opinion is deliberately avoiding the key Constitutional point, which is that while the Raton Pass line is owned by BNSF, funding to upgrade the Raton Pass line is a donation to *BNSF*.The court history of the anti-donation clause is one of *extremely strict construction*.If NM *BUYS THE LINE*, the anti-donation clause problems go away immediately, of course. There's no problem in contributing operating funding to Amtrak; there's no problem in contributing capital funding to a line owned by Amtrak; there's no problem whatsoever in contributing capital funding to a line owned by the state. There's a problem in contributing capital funding to a line owned by BNSF.This would be so much simpler if Martinez had consummated the contract to purchase the line.
> 
> 
> 
> While the resolution of the anti-donation clause is very positive,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT resolved. The New Mexico government folks are talking absolute nonsense and will be smacked down HARD by the state courts. There is no loophole available for donations to BNSF for railroad construction! TThis is the *exact situation* which the anti-donation clause was written to deal with. The state has one way out: buy the line, *then* spend money.
> 
> 
> 
> we are rapidly approaching the 2015 New Mexico legislative session without a clear definition of Amtrak and BNSF's needs. Church's opinion that Amtrak should commit to the route before the state commits funds for operations and maintenance is very concerning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is basically a statement that New Mexico (Governor's office and NMDOT) have no interest in funding the line whatsoever. Since state officials are dissembling regarding the anti-donation clause, and since NMDOT and the government have carefully avoided any discussion of purchasing the line (which would resolve the constitutional problem immediately), there's only one way to interpret this: the state has no intention of spending one red cent, but is trying to avoid saying so.Amtrak, please don't fall for this. Maybe it's expensive to move to the Transcon, but you're not getting one red cent out of New Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> Lang also emphasized that moving the Chief to the Southern Transcon will be a very expensive proposition -- much more expensive than retaining the train on the current route
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but Amtrak can perhaps get funding for moving the train to the Transcon -- from Texas, Kansas, Wichita, and Amarillo. (Very little work is needed in New Mexico, and the City of Albuquerque might pay for it.) Amtrak's getting no funding, zero, none from New Mexico, they've made it 100% clear. Even if they pass a funding bill, they've carefully arranged to pass an *unconstitutional* funding bill which will be struck down by the courts! Amtrak should want nothing to do with this!I would like to talk to Ray Lang and get his head straightened out. Martinez and Church are playing him for a fool; their goal seems to be to spend no money whatsoever, but to string Amtrak along so long that Amtrak can't make alternate plans. This is a recipe for cancelling the SW Chief *entirely*.----Lang and Boardman need to put this in very blunt terms to Church and Martinez. They need to say: if NM purchases the Raton Pass line from BNSF, Amtrak will stay on the line. If NM does not purchase it, Amtrak will not.A purchase would make it constitutional for NM to spend more money on the line, and more importantly, would be a show of good faith on the part of a state government which has shown no good faith.
Click to expand...

 look dude believe what you want to believe and I know what is. If you right then cool no big deal...if I'm right then you really need to get your facts straight.


----------



## Ryan

I'm still waiting for some links and citations to all this third party material.


----------



## VentureForth

nmrxabqfan101 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Table 4.22 FY 2013 Rail Runner Operating BudgetMillionsSource: *Rio Metro RTD*Revenues (millions)*Local* Gross Receipts Tax $12.51
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to note for the record that this is *local* funding. No state funding, Martinez ended the state funding. Which is fine; the local funding is doing the job; it's a local service; but you see my point, the state isn't funding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NMRx is majority funded by federal dollars.
Click to expand...

By your on uncited numbers, Federal dollars barly contribute a third of revenue - $7.8M vs $12.5M in local taxes on a revenue of $25M.
nmrxlmnop,

You're allegedly in great knowledge of both sides of the issue. Just tell us what you think is a) holding up negotiations, and b) what the ultimate conclusion will be and c) when.


----------



## Chey

I want to see the links too, I'm dying to see where this study says that ridership would be reduced on the Transcon route, given that the population of Amarillo alone is greater than all stops on the current line from Hutchinson to Lamy combined. Someone pointed out earlier that an Amarillo stop would also draw riders from Lubbock. I don't know what crystal ball was used for this ridership projection but it sounds like it's cracked.


----------



## neroden

nmrxabqfan101 : Frankly, I want to be wrong! I want you to be right!

But everything I am seeing out of Governor Martinez's office is throwing up the red flags for me.

It really looks like they're just pretending to be interested in funding the Raton Pass line, in order to appease the local government -- it really looks like they're planning to not spend money. I am really suspicious of Governor Martinez'z office and of Church at NMDOT.

Chey: the study showed that ridership *from New Mexico* would drop substantially, which is obviously true.

If this would be replaced with ridership from Texas (which it would), presumably nobody in New Mexico cares, they don't want Texas to reap the benefits.


----------



## the DUCK

Clovis will be a stop in New Mexico. along with Clovis is Portales and in addition to the general population there is an active Air Base, Eastern New Mexico University, and New Mexico Military Institution. The population base of this area is more than twice the population base of Raton and Las Vegas combined. An interesting side view----- Amarillo, Lubbock and Clovis form a triangle (each near 100 miles apart) and within that triangle there is near 1 million people.


----------



## zephyr17

It has a 90 mph section in Missouri between La Plata and outside KC, A lot of the route from Dalies (junction with the Transcon south of Albuquerque) and Winslow and there are other stretches between Williams Jct. and Barstow.


----------



## Daniel

So when does a decision need to be made for the route? Are we waiting on New Mexico to agree to contribute its share? I have read that the cost to reroute to the Transcon would be just as expensive as staying on the current route, so if it can't stay on the current route, does that mean the entire SWC route would be eliminated?


----------



## jis

If past patterns are followed, it is highly unlikely that the train will be eliminated. There will be horsetrading. Things will go down to the wire involving considerable brinkmanship.

Speculators on AU and other boards both positive and negative will have a field day. The likes of Don Phillips will be able to write more anti-Boardman stuff to sell more Trains Magazines. URPA and RailPAC will go ballistic many times blaming NEC a million times for all ills of the world at large, including the fate of the SWC. Charlie will post many balanced articles trying to calm everyone, and urge everyone to join NARP. Ryan will keep asking for reference to third party documents, and they will not be provided.

And ultimately in all likelihood, some unanticipated combination of things will happen and the train will continue to run, maybe via Pueblo, maybe via Amarillo, and even maybe via the current route.

Unless of course the _Republicans_ change the game and become way more active than they are at present with the singular goal of terminating all LD service. That seems relatively unlikely except for occasional grandstanding purposes, to hide some egregious funding of some rich friends behind the Amtrak smokescreen.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

^^ LIKE ^^


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> Ryan will keep asking for reference to third party documents, and they will not be provided.


Hope springs eternal!!!


----------



## rubber duck

The original date given is 12/31/14 for funding to be in place. Amtrak said they would need a year to get ready.


----------



## jis

That would be part of the standard practice of brinkmanship. It is highly unlikely that if a solution were found mid-year 2015, Amtrak and BNSF would refuse to figure out a way to make the best of it.

We from the software industry have seen deadlines come and deadlines go and then things get done anyway. Deals happen and life goes on.


----------



## VentureForth

jis said:


> We from the software industry have seen deadlines come and deadlines go and then things get done anyway. Deals happen and life goes on.


Now THAT is what I have wanted to articulate for a VERY long time. With everything from the building of the stations in Hope, SPUD, Miami ITC, and even our friends at the FEC for AAF - almost nothing never happens just because a date has occured.


----------



## neroden

Amtrak has, so far, refused to talk to the city leaders of Amarillo and Wichita (who are both, frankly, itching for train service). Amtrak said that after New Years they would start talking to Amarillo and Wichita and Clovis and so on. (This was the meaning of the "deadline".) Let's see if that actually happens. That should at best cause a lot of money to come pouring out from the cities on the Transcon, and at worst cause the cities on the Raton line to take the issue more seriously.


----------



## rubber duck

In reality, what is today is what will be 1/1/15 regarding this issue because all State Governments involved are on Christmas break. Stop and think about it-- in a reroute New Mexico is really not loosing money or service, they are just changing locations which will more than double potential ridership in the state, the Boy Scout riders of three months out of the year will be replaced with year-round riders. The only Boy Scout riders that will be a loss are those in Kansas and Colorado-- those east of Newton will not be effected, they will just have a longer bus ride. If bus ride begins at Albuquerque or Amarillo It is same distance to the Camp. Those coming from east would probably detrain in Amarillo and be in Camp by time train reaches Albuquerque. Those from west will detrain in Albuquerque. Another saving for New Mexico will be the 22 mile stretch of track from Lamy going west that they will not have to pour money into for repairs and upgrade. All focus have been on loss and gains have not been considered.


----------



## neroden

I would not expect the loss from the boy scouts and all the other little stations on the Raton route in New Mexico to be replaced by Clovis and Portales alone -- this is how a *New Mexico specific* study could say that the reroute would be a small loss in business for *New Mexico*.

The gains from Amarillo and Wichita would be huge, though. I've gone through this before. From Amtrak's point of view as a business, Amtrak should want the reroute.

The loss of Hutchinson (would have to drive to Newton) is more than balanced out by the gain in Wichita (wouldn't have to drive to Newton). Shuttles from Santa Fe to Lamy can be replaced by shuttles from Santa Fe to Albuquerque. And the gain in Amarillo alone should exceed the total loss of every station from Dodge City to Las Vegas.

Of the lost stations, the Boy Scouts and Dodge City are the only significant losses in financial terms. Everything from Garden City to Las Vegas is not only small but also losing population. And the Boy Scouts are losing membership at a fast clip, too. There's already a bus through all the Kansas cities on the line, on uncrowded highways, so, Thruway bus easy.

Effectively Amtrak would get the same, or greater, ridership off of two stations which Amtrak currently gets off of *nine* stations -- and three of these existing stations are even staffed. This is a significant savings.

The chance of getting the Southwest Chief in the near term should really interest Wichita, which has been trying to get both Kansas City and Dallas/Fort Worth service for a long time. This might be the incentive they need to renovate Wichita Union Station for train service; it is in the hands of a train-friendly developer already. This should also make the proposed Heartland Flyer extension easier, avoiding messing around at Newton for connections.

I see absolutely no downside for Amtrak in the long term to switching routes.

There's a downside for BNSF, of course. But the Transcon line is nearly entirely double-tracked (funding for the bridge in Vaughn has apparently been committed) -- that leaves, by my count, the bridge in Ft Sumter and three bridges northeast of Avard OK, and I'd expect BNSF to double-track those for its own account. With this line double-tracked and running mostly fast intermodals, Amtrak should be able to cruse between stations at 70 mph without causing much interference. BNSF might ask for some sidings between Mulvane, Wichita, and Newton, where Amtrak would run contrary to BNSF's "flow of traffic".

I would expect that BNSF would ask for each station to have a passenger siding. This is easy in Wichita, which is designed for it, and pretty easy in Amarillo too. BNSF might even want a siding on each side, which is more work but quite possible in both locations. This means the stations would be expensive -- and so the localities would certainly have to pay for them, not Amtrak. But Wichita and Amarillo are quite likely to actually *do* so.


----------



## rubber duck

Why do think Clovis stop will have negligible ridership?


----------



## neroden

rubber duck said:


> Why do think Clovis stop will have negligible ridership?


Oh, if it were built and served, it would do OK. Clovis is a bit smaller than Hutchinson, a bit larger than Dodge City; with Portales, you'd get tolerable ridership, I guess. It's a lot smaller than Amarillo. There would be people driving from Lubbock to Amarillo or Clovis, of course.

But I'm not sure Clovis would actually be willing & able to put up the money to build the sort of stop BNSF would most likely demand, at least not right away. I think the odds of Amarillo and Wichita putting up the money are quite high. My main point is that even with stops *only* in Amarillo and Wichita, the route would most likely be an improvement for Amtrak ridership.

----

Regarding Boy Scouts, I had a thought. I wonder how many of them take the Cardinal to Prince for the Boy Scout Jamboree in Mount Hope, WV? It's a MUCH shorter bus ride from the train station than the ride from Raton to Philmont.


----------



## gdj

I don't know how much they would use it, but Clovis is home to Cannon AFB.


----------



## California Special

I think there should be service to Clovis and Amarillo, but those people should not rob service to Raton and Dodge City in order to acquire it. Fight for your own train, and I will support you, but don't steal someone else's train.


----------



## printman2000

California Special said:


> I think there should be service to Clovis and Amarillo, but those people should not rob service to Raton and Dodge City in order to acquire it. Fight for your own train, and I will support you, but don't steal someone else's train.


How many times is someone going to say this??

No one is "robbing" a route. It would only be rerouted if the current route is no longer financially feasible.


----------



## Paulus

Colorado claims they've gotten their price tag down to $8.9 million


----------



## rubber duck

So they have! What does that have to with New Mexico's dilemma? If you notice these funds in question went to Kansas and Colorado. Notice New Mexico was not invited in on the event and that BNSF put in their support in asking. Don't you smell oil train? I do.


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> There's a downside for BNSF, of course. But the Transcon line is nearly entirely double-tracked (funding for the bridge in Vaughn has apparently been committed) -- that leaves, by my count, the bridge in Ft Sumter and three bridges northeast of Avard OK, and I'd expect BNSF to double-track those for its own account. With this line double-tracked and running mostly fast intermodals, Amtrak should be able to cruse between stations at 70 mph without causing much interference. BNSF might ask for some sidings between Mulvane, Wichita, and Newton, where Amtrak would run contrary to BNSF's "flow of traffic".


Maybe BNSF is planning to upgrade these sections on its own dollar. But once Amtrak has switched routes and bits of Raton Pass get dismantled so they can't siwtch back, BNSF may yet try to get Amtrak to share the costs for these improvements. I hope Amtrak is asking for written assurances putting a cap on the costs that are coming its way.


----------



## neroden

Great for Colorado, but that part of the line was always going to be maintained for freight service.

The problem is really in New Mexico, and the situation there is bad. It looks like the legislature may be swayed into "providing funding" in a manner which will later be declared illegal by the courts, which would be a god-awful mess.


----------



## twa904

The SWC runs thru New Mexico's 3rd Congressional district. Congressman Ben Lujan who represents the district should get his but busy and secure a few million $$ for this line to be maintained. To me, that is part of his job.

Oh, That's right, Congress never does it's job.


----------



## New Mexican

twa904 said:


> The SWC runs thru New Mexico's 3rd Congressional district. Congressman Ben Lujan who represents the district should get his but busy and secure a few million $$ for this line to be maintained. To me, that is part of his job.
> 
> Oh, That's right, Congress never does it's job.


He's hard at work on the matter.


----------



## CHamilton

An update from the Facebook page for the Southwest Chief Coalition.



> At my request, Bobbie Ferrell, Staff Liaison with Senator Udall in Santa Fe, requested staff in Washington to contact Joe Boardman to request (I know, too many “requests”) a letter committing Amtrak to run its train over the northern route for a period of at least 20 years, and committing that the annual maintenance share required of New Mexico not exceed $4 Million. Bobbie reports that Amtrak has told Senator Udall that they are compiling what the state needs.
> 
> 
> I met with Patricia Dominguez, Staff Liaison with Senator Heinrich in Santa Fe, and other staff members last week to update her and them on the issue. I asked her to also have Senator Heinrich contact Boardman with the same request we made through Bobbie Ferrell.
> 
> Lynn Aldrich, NM Representative to the NARP Governing Council, has reached out to Jim Mathews, President of NARP, to request he also contact Joe Boardman. We sent Mr. Mathews a draft letter to forward to Boardman which contained the same request made through Bobbie Ferrell. We have not heard back yet.
> 
> These requests were premised on sidebar conversations with various NM legislators after both interim hearings earlier this fall.
> 
> The Colorado Commission met last Friday. Amtrak released new cost estimates for CO and KS based on new data received from BNSF. Amtrak has not completed new estimated costs for New Mexico. The numbers that were released are attached. The commission heard that NM capital costs will be less but maintenance costs may be more due to Amtrak’s sole use of the line from Trinidad to Lamy. The Commission voted to negotiate with NMDOT as well at KDOT, CDOT, Amtrak and BNSF and to join in a new TIGER grant application for capital funding. They were told that Sec Tom Church is willing to join such a venture. The Federal budget bill recently signed by President Obama contains renewal TIGER Grant funding. We will be urging NM to join in the new TIGER application.


----------



## rubber duck

The legal issue still stands and how are you going to replace rail & ties ,replace bridges, and do roadbed work, plus install PTC on 40 million dollars for 200 miles of track? Have people from Colorado become so ignorant from "pot", that they can not understand English?


----------



## neroden

> At my request, Bobbie Ferrell, Staff Liaison with Senator Udall in Santa Fe, requested staff in Washington to contact Joe Boardman to request (I know, too many “requests”) a letter committing Amtrak to run its train over the northern route for a period of at least 20 years, and committing that the annual maintenance share required of New Mexico not exceed $4 Million. Bobbie reports that Amtrak has told Senator Udall that they are compiling what the state needs.


Oh god dumb dumb dumb Amtrak. Don't fall for this, it's a trap!

What's going to happen is that

(a) It will cost more than $4 million/year; Amtrak will initially pay this out of pocket, and then in the next cash crisis, will cut it and the trains will slow down even more....

(b) in a few years, NM will not provide the $4 million/year because it will be ruled unconstitutional at the state level as long as BNSF owns the line



> Amtrak has not completed new estimated costs for New Mexico. The numbers that were released are attached.


NM is not going to be happy with these costs.
You know, or NM could *buy the line* and settle all of this. With BNSF not using the line, buying it makes sense. Which is why Richardson *already bought it*, until Martinez reneged.


----------



## rubber duck

So if some in NM gov't went for federal grants and NM was awarded them,New Mexico could not spend them, so what good to go for them?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

neroden said:


> Don't fall for this, it's a trap!


----------



## chakk

Perhaps Belen will simply become the latest rendition of Maricopa?


----------



## greatcats

chakk - It has been reported here a number of times that due to the track layout around Belen, it is impractical to have Amtrak stop there. If the re-route does take place, it seems to have been the intention all along to run the train to Albuquerque and reverse it on the wye track.


----------



## Anderson

I wonder if Raton Pass could get some sort of PTC waiver so long as there's nobody else using it but the SWC...I'm sure there will end up being some other odd-and-end waivering here and there for extremely thinly-used lines (if nothing else, expect the Class Is to imitate the sheriff's escape from the mob in _Blazing Saddles_...threaten to just cut service if they have to dump a lot into a random branch for a stray couple of hazmat cars).

Edit: I do wonder...could something be set up whereby Amtrak would buy the section of track BNSF wants to dump with, say, TIGER money (thereby nominally getting NM off the hook for the "funding to a private company" mess that seems to be at issue)? Assuming that freight _could_ be routed over the line, I'd be surprised if the line didn't get pushed into use eventually, even as a backup "vent" route.


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> Edit: I do wonder...could something be set up whereby Amtrak would buy the section of track BNSF wants to dump with, say, TIGER money (thereby nominally getting NM off the hook for the "funding to a private company" mess that seems to be at issue)?


NM could even buy the track itself. The key is for the track to not be controlled by a private company when the state funds upgrades to it, that keeps it all in the clear.
Given that Amtrak leased track from CSX using funds from NY, something could be done along similar lines in NM,... if the state government was willing to actually *do* it.

Given that Martinez reneged on a signed-and-sealed purchase agreement for this exact line, I am extremely suspicious.


----------



## Ryan

greatcats said:


> chakk - It has been reported here a number of times that due to the track layout around Belen, it is impractical to have Amtrak stop there. If the re-route does take place, it seems to have been the intention all along to run the train to Albuquerque and reverse it on the wye track.


Lots of people say that, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. At present, the platform track dead ends just to the south of the station, but it appears there is plenty of space to add a connection at that end to make it a run-through track that Amtrak would be able to access.


----------



## rubber duck

A leased track to Amtrak by BNSF still leaves that track owned by BNSF. Even the free use of the track by BNSF, if owned by New Mexico would be prohibited. That Clause is very plain and blunt. The phrase directly or indirectly is quite a "monkey wrench".


----------



## les

I've heard two things recently that favor Amtrak not rerouting.

1) Cost of stations and other expenses are prohibitive "Lang also emphasized that moving the Chief to the Southern Transcon will be a very expensive proposition -- much more expensive than retaining the train on the current route -- due to the need to lengthen sidings, re-time grade crossing signals, and upgrade the signaling system to handle the Chief which operates at speeds higher than freight trains. He also emphasized that Amtrak does not have the funding available to re-route the train."

2) Maintaining the current route will be a lot less than originally thought. "Pueblo County Commissioner Sal Pace, who chairs the Southwest Chief Commission, said the formal, one-time cost to upgrade the rail through Southern Colorado is $8.9 million. “That’s significantly less than the $40 million we were dealing with less than a year ago,” Pace said Friday, following the group’s meeting in Trinidad.

He said the price tag is the result of negotiating with the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad to get the railroad to cover the costs of maintaining the line while joining with Kansas to secure a $22 million federal TIGER grant to help upgrade portions of the line from Southeastern Colorado to Topeka, Kan."

It's too bad Gov. Martinez isn't a visionary. With the line purchased and Colorado working on connecting Pueblo and eventually Colo Springs/Denver

to the line it would be a huge economic boost to the area.


----------



## Chey

Too bad nothing ever got going with the Caprock Chief. The cities it would have served - FTW, Lubbock, Amarillo, Pueblo, the Springs and Denver... it would have been a godsend to a lot of people who were (are) hoping against hope for the SWC alternate route.


----------



## neroden

les said:


> It's too bad Gov. Martinez isn't a visionary. With the line purchased and Colorado working on connecting Pueblo and eventually Colo Springs/Denver
> 
> to the line it would be a huge economic boost to the area.


Yeah, I think we were all hoping for that. :-( But no, she's not a visionary like Richardson was.


----------



## rubber duck

What you have heard is not the truth, it is high pressure sales talk and garbage. The stations needed have already been committed to by cities and owner, so that is no cost to Amtrak. The needed sidings is for station platforms. Current sidings are all able to handle current train lengths on Transcon route: where as all sidings on current "Chief" route would have to be lengthened for freight traffic to meet BNSF spec. PLUS the entire portion of New Mexico part will have to be replaced included bridges and a lot of roadbed reworked. PLUS PTC will begin soon and current "Chief" route from La Junta to 22 miles west of Lamy does not have PTC and will not have it. When PTC goes into effect passenger trains can only haul passengers on PTC protected rail. The 22 million$ grant ask for was granted at 12.5 million$ and applies from Las Animas Co eastward to Newton Ks. Maybe back to back oil trains??? Go back and read all the post to this thread, you will enjoy it.


----------



## MattW

Is PTC really as a big a deal for Raton? As I understand it, the Downeaster will not be operating over PTC-protected trackage, but will continue on its current schedule of 5 roundtrips, not separated from freight trackage. I know they have a waiver, is the problem simply that there isn't enough time to get Raton waivered now?


----------



## neroden

Raton can get a PTC waiver according to the existing rules, that's not an issue.

The issue is really that the current signalling system is falling apart and the tracks (and right-of-way and bridges) need very substantial work from La Junta to Lamy.


----------



## jis

If push comes to shove, Raton could be run using track warrants between Trinidad and Lamy until money is found to spiffy up the signals.  It is not like anything runs at blazingly high speeds there. After all there will be exactly one train each way per day, even though they meet up in that segment.


----------



## neroden

Yeah, with one train each way per day, you could set up a permanent manual block system with two blocks, based on the location of the planned meet. There's *still* the problem of keeping the track up to speed.


----------



## les

rubber duck said:


> What you have heard is not the truth, it is high pressure sales talk and garbage. The stations needed have already been committed to by cities and owner, so that is no cost to Amtrak. The needed sidings is for station platforms. Current sidings are all able to handle current train lengths on Transcon route: where as all sidings on current "Chief" route would have to be lengthened for freight traffic to meet BNSF spec. PLUS the entire portion of New Mexico part will have to be replaced included bridges and a lot of roadbed reworked. PLUS PTC will begin soon and current "Chief" route from La Junta to 22 miles west of Lamy does not have PTC and will not have it. When PTC goes into effect passenger trains can only haul passengers on PTC protected rail. The 22 million$ grant ask for was granted at 12.5 million$ and applies from Las Animas Co eastward to Newton Ks. Maybe back to back oil trains??? Go back and read all the post to this thread, you will enjoy it.


nope, don't find it very entertaining. I think they'll have a breakthrough for retainment.


----------



## les

"more than 30 freight and commuter railroads are plowing ahead with their implementation plans; originally, 41 railroads were impacted by the PTC mandate, but several short lines have obtained Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) waivers that have significantly reduced or virtually eliminated any required work. Two passenger railroads — Amtrak and Metrolink — even expect to substantially complete installation by 2012’s end."

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/c_s/article/PTC-Railroads-attempt-to-get-a-better-handle-on-positive-train-control-implementation--28778


----------



## jis

Couldn't you find something a little more recent than from 2011, specifically while talking about current status of PTC deployment?

Say for example something like this Article on AAR Report from 2014, for example?

But truth be told, PTC is more or less irrelevant in a Raton route discussion, since they won't even have change any rules to just give it a waiver.


----------



## les

jis said:


> Couldn't you find something a little more recent than from 2011, specifically while talking about current status of PTC deployment?
> 
> Say for example something like this Article on AAR Report from 2014, for example?
> 
> But truth be told, PTC is more or less irrelevant in a Raton route discussion, since they won't even have change any rules to just give it a waiver.


i was only looking at whether they were allowing waivers. Yes, yours is more encompassing.


----------



## VentureForth

neroden said:


> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad Gov. Martinez isn't a visionary. With the line purchased and Colorado working on connecting Pueblo and eventually Colo Springs/Denver
> 
> to the line it would be a huge economic boost to the area.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think we were all hoping for that. :-( But no, she's not a visionary like Richardson was.
Click to expand...

Was Richardson really a visionary? In the two years I lived there, all I saw was a whole bunch of money being spent with his GRIP logo and face posted everywhere. He's a California politician who came to New Mexico to bankrupt them and leave.


----------



## neroden

RailRunner got built because Richardson decided to make it happen; to stop the delays and actually get it done. That's definitely a vision. Maybe not a huge vision, but a vision, so yeah, a visionary. 

Similar thing happened with Ventura and the Hiawatha light rail line in Minnesota.

Nonsense talk of "bankrupt" is nonsense, the sort of thing right-wingers use to scare small children; it betrays a lack of understanding of government finance.


----------



## rubber duck

What has been said; is said and what has been done; is done. Amtrak's self imposed deadline has come and gone and we are awaiting word from BNSF and Amtrak regarding their new contract. We may not hear for 11 months but we do know an answer is coming. Some are going to be disappointed, some are going to be elated . but this rubber duck will be happy either way.


----------



## printman2000

I have heard from good authority that Amtrak is keeping the current route. Not sure how everything is getting paid for (other than the parts covered by the federal grant).


----------



## greatcats

While I am not bitterly opposed to re-routing this train, I hope your information is correct and that it stays where it is.


----------



## Ryan

Same here. I'd love to see ABQ and the other cities get train service, but not at the expense of the existing route.


----------



## printman2000

RyanS said:


> Same here. I'd love to see ABQ and the other cities get train service, but not at the expense of the existing route.


Did you mean AMA? Albuquerque already has service.


----------



## Ryan

Yep. Shouldn't post while watching TV. That place you live, you know what I meant.


----------



## rubber duck

It seams that some were thinking that New Mexico was going to be able to fund the rail upgrades through their Capital Outlay Fund. They must have been wrong because it is not listed in their Capital outlay projects as of Tuesday, Jan.27,2015.


----------



## crabby_appleton1950

rubber duck said:


> It seams that some were thinking that New Mexico was going to be able to fund the rail upgrades through their Capital Outlay Fund. They must have been wrong because it is not listed in their Capital outlay projects as of Tuesday, Jan.27,2015.


I live in Albuquerque. I've heard N.M. would need $4 million a year to fund the state's section of the Amtrak used rail. Our Governor and state House are more interested in cutting the budget than putting money into repairs of the pesent Amtrak route.

I also heard a reroute would bring the SWC through N.M. on a route just south of Albuquerque (skipping the area in the northeast part of N.M.)

, and that the train would "back up" (?) to ABQ to load passengers, or Amtrak would run a bus service to a station south of ABQ.


----------



## zephyr17

If they re-route, it would take the "Transcon" which passes south of Albuquerque through Belen then on to Clovis and Amarillo. Consensus that they most likely would run the train up to Albuquerque and back, there's a wye in Albuquerque so they'd turn the train, not run it backwards.

The re-route is problematic for a lot of reasons, and there has apparently been a lot behind the scenes to cobble something together to keep it on its current route. Both Amtrak and BNSF prefer it, and BNSF now seems resisting routing it onto the Transcon, so there is a chance the train may die all together if it can't stay where it is. The fact that the 12/31/2014 deadline to come up with a plan has come and gone without any announcement is a positive sign, though There is something going on.


----------



## rubber duck

It could be that they are stalling for time to finish the double tracking on Trans con and also to give New Mexico one last chance before legislature session ends on March 21. I really think the New Mexico anti-donation clause blindsided most people.


----------



## printman2000

I know I am just some guy on the Internet who is not giving much detail, but my source is very good. It has been decided already to stay on the current route.


----------



## Paulus

printman2000 said:


> I know I am just some guy on the Internet who is not giving much detail, but my source is very good. It has been decided already to stay on the current route.


And where's the money for that supposed to come from?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Paulus said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am just some guy on the Internet who is not giving much detail, but my source is very good. It has been decided already to stay on the current route.
> 
> 
> 
> And where's the money for that supposed to come from?
Click to expand...

Well his "name" is printman. :giggle:


----------



## printman2000

Paulus said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am just some guy on the Internet who is not giving much detail, but my source is very good. It has been decided already to stay on the current route.
> 
> 
> 
> And where's the money for that supposed to come from?
Click to expand...

Apparently the grant money is suppose to cover Kansas and Colorado. It is felt the tracks in New Mexico are not as bad and options are being considered.

That is all that was told to me about how it would be paid for.


----------



## rubber duck

Could it be that who you know doesn't know as much as you think he knows?


----------



## Ryan

In one corner, we have Printman. Established poster of nearly 10 years who seems to generally know what's going on and isn't prone to spread BS.

In the other corner we have some random guest with no credibility whatsoever, making wild claims and refusing to cite sources when pressed.

Yeah, I know who I'm going to believe.


----------



## neroden

Listening to scanner traffic on the westbound SW Chief last week, each train is reporting exact timings to the dispatcher (station arrivals, station depatures).

The train lost an hour in Kansas, and departed ABQ on time.

It seems like the plan is to fix up the Kansas and Colorado track, and let the New Mexico track continue to rot. This is a pretty dumb plan, if you ask me. But the New Mexico track is good enough to run on the current schedule (which has had hours added to it due to previous deterioration) and apparently Amtrak thinks that this deteriorated service is good enough for the forseeable future.

In a few years, the New Mexico track will be even worse, and what will Amtrak do then? There's still no money for it. Dumb, dumb plan.

(If news comes out that BNSF has decided to pay out of its own pocket to maintain the NM tracks, then I'll take my criticism back; in that case it's a decent plan.)

Also worth noting from my trip: the stations on the Raton route are worthless. There were no sleeper passengers and maybe 1-2 coach passengers per station. Forget bus service, you could handle it with limo service.


----------



## Agent

There have been several reports on Trainorders.com recently that BNSF has started replacing semaphores on the Raton Subdivision. Some new signals have already been installed and are waiting to activated and turned toward the tracks.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

RyanS said:


> In one corner, we have Printman. Established poster of nearly 10 years who seems to generally know what's going on and isn't prone to spread BS.


Agreed. It's not that surprising to me that a member of the forum would have connections here and there. Indeed it is rather clear that some members do in fact have connections. My own minor involvement with the rail industry is rather limited and has nothing to do with Amtrak. Nonetheless if I possessed some pertinent information and chose to pass it along I would hope my fellow members would give me the benefit of the doubt without expecting me to spell out where the information came from or how I received it.


----------



## CHamilton

Via SW Chief Coalition on Facebook:



> from the NM Section, Southwest Chief Coalition 1/31/15:
> 
> On February 5, 2015 the Amtrak CEO, and the Secretary of NMDOT will discuss the final terms of an agreement going forward. That agreement will include future annual maintenance support from New Mexico. It will also include the pursuit of a TIGER grant from USDOT when that program is announced. We are not able to state anything further until after the February 5th meeting.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Well, it certainly looks like a deal has been cut to keep the Chief on the Raton Route! Too bad for Witchita, Amarillo and Clovis but good for tourists and the Boy Scouts!


----------



## Frequent RRTraveller

Also worth noting from my trip: the stations on the Raton route are worthless. There were no sleeper passengers and maybe 1-2 coach passengers per station. Forget bus service, you could handle it with limo service.
--Not true. Business on the Raton line (Trinidad-Lamy) varies from 22 per train at Raton to 7 per train at Las Vegas. Lamy runs about 16 per train.


----------



## willph

Hi, folks. Long time reader, first time poster.

As someone with a casual interest in passenger rail, I've been following the story of the potential SWC reroute since there were first rumblings about it. In particular, I've greatly enjoyed/appreciated reading along with this thread, as your discussion here has been quite informative and helpful to me, so thank you all for that.

There is still one thing I'm not quite getting about the whole scenario, though: it's a more than reasonable assumption that the population centers served by a potential reroute would allow for a significantly higher ridership base than the current route, right? So I'm not quite sure I understand why Amtrak has, from the very beginning, been so staunchly committed (at least publicly) to keeping the SWC on its current route.

Is Amtrak just not bothering because they know BNSF is so loathe to share the Transcon with it? Or is the idea of staying on such a relatively low-trafficked route so appealing that they think it's preferable even in the face of eschewing a potential serious ridership boost? Or are Boardman and co. genuinely being driven by the desire to do right by the towns and riders currently being served by the SWC?

As a total amateur with no horse in this race, it's just surprising to me that Amtrak doesn't appear all that interested in the potential ridership boon offered by serving Wichita directly plus Amarillo and Clovis/Portales, as opposed to the string of little rural towns it currently serves.

I'll hang up and listen.


----------



## afigg

willph said:


> There is still one thing I'm not quite getting about the whole scenario, though: it's a more than reasonable assumption that the population centers served by a potential reroute would allow for a significantly higher ridership base than the current route, right? So I'm not quite sure I understand why Amtrak has, from the very beginning, been so staunchly committed (at least publicly) to keeping the SWC on its current route.
> 
> Is Amtrak just not bothering because they know BNSF is so loathe to share the Transcon with it? Or is the idea of staying on such a relatively low-trafficked route so appealing that they think it's preferable even in the face of eschewing a potential serious ridership boost? Or are Boardman and co. genuinely being driven by the desire to do right by the towns and riders currently being served by the SWC?
> 
> As a total amateur with no horse in this race, it's just surprising to me that Amtrak doesn't appear all that interested in the potential ridership boon offered by serving Wichita directly plus Amarillo and Clovis/Portales, as opposed to the string of little rural towns it currently serves.


The reason Amtrak is working to stay on the current route is provided in the other thread on the SWC:

"During the hearing, Ray Lang, Amtrak Sr. Director for State Relations, answered legislators' questions. He said that "we are approaching an existentialist moment" for the future of the train, and that lacking an agreement, "Amtrak will explore all its options." Tom Church, NMDOT Secretary, later countered, "Amtrak must make a commitment to this route before we fund it -- my opinion." Lang also emphasized that moving the Chief to the Southern Transcon will be a very expensive proposition -- much more expensive than retaining the train on the current route -- due to the need to lengthen sidings, re-time grade crossing signals, and upgrade the signaling system to handle the Chief which operates at speeds higher than freight trains. He also emphasized that Amtrak does not have the funding available to re-route the train."

Many on this forum who advocate for a re-route over the BNSF transcon are ignoring the above reality. Amtrak doesn't have the capital funds for a circa 700 mile re-route and it will be very, very difficult to get that level of money for a new route and stops from Kansas, OK, TX. NM and the cities/towns along the new route in a viable time frame. The gain in passenger traffic would realistically be modest for the amount of money invested. Amtrak is going for the lower risk option here because a threat of losing a train service is more likely to get the needed funds than the possibility of gaining one for towns that have not see passenger rail service in many decades.


----------



## neutralist

So looks like the boy scouts have won this time.


----------



## MikefromCrete

willph said:


> Hi, folks. Long time reader, first time poster.
> 
> As someone with a casual interest in passenger rail, I've been following the story of the potential SWC reroute since there were first rumblings about it. In particular, I've greatly enjoyed/appreciated reading along with this thread, as your discussion here has been quite informative and helpful to me, so thank you all for that.
> 
> There is still one thing I'm not quite getting about the whole scenario, though: it's a more than reasonable assumption that the population centers served by a potential reroute would allow for a significantly higher ridership base than the current route, right? So I'm not quite sure I understand why Amtrak has, from the very beginning, been so staunchly committed (at least publicly) to keeping the SWC on its current route.
> 
> Is Amtrak just not bothering because they know BNSF is so loathe to share the Transcon with it? Or is the idea of staying on such a relatively low-trafficked route so appealing that they think it's preferable even in the face of eschewing a potential serious ridership boost? Or are Boardman and co. genuinely being driven by the desire to do right by the towns and riders currently being served by the SWC?
> 
> As a total amateur with no horse in this race, it's just surprising to me that Amtrak doesn't appear all that interested in the potential ridership boon offered by serving Wichita directly plus Amarillo and Clovis/Portales, as opposed to the string of little rural towns it currently serves.
> 
> I'll hang up and listen.


As afigg said, it will more expensive to move the train to the transcon than to keep it on its present route. A lot of people assumed the BNSF would absorb any expenses involving a transfer in return for the abandonment of the present route. Turns out that's not true. While Amarillo might (and I emphasize might, since there's been no train service there since 1971 and the local culture isn't train orientated) provide some more ridership, the added problems of a backup to ABQ might hurt ridership at that important place. All in all, keeping the SWC on the current route is a better option and, guess what, all those improvements might not be as costly as originally estimated.


----------



## neroden

afigg said:


> "During the hearing, Ray Lang, Amtrak Sr. Director for State Relations, answered legislators' questions. He said that "we are approaching an existentialist moment" for the future of the train, and that lacking an agreement, "Amtrak will explore all its options." Tom Church, NMDOT Secretary, later countered, "Amtrak must make a commitment to this route before we fund it -- my opinion." Lang also emphasized that moving the Chief to the Southern Transcon will be a very expensive proposition -- much more expensive than retaining the train on the current route -- due to the need to lengthen sidings, re-time grade crossing signals, and upgrade the signaling system to handle the Chief which operates at speeds higher than freight trains. He also emphasized that Amtrak does not have the funding available to re-route the train."


Yeah, this is the key set of quotes. Of course, it shows terrible short-term thinking on the part of Amtrak. Amtrak definitely does not have the funding available to keep the train on the same route, which will be more expensive *in the long run* than relocating the train.
Tom Church, meanwhile, is either a fool, or more likely, a lying scam artist. He said "Amtrak must make a commitment to this route before we fund it". He has no intention of funding it and is constitutionally prohibited from funding it. NM will not fund the train under this administration. Period. So his statement is empty and meaningless.

I'll try to be optimistic. Martinez is termed out in 2018, so if Amtrak can muddle through on the deteriorating line until January 2019, there might be a chance of getting a governor who will buy the line at that time. Perhaps Amtrak is trying to round up money for the reroute in the intervening 4 years. Maybe Amtrak's management understands that the current situation will doom the SWC and is just making nice talk about it because why not talk friendly?

In the meantime, fans of the SWC route should prepare for its complete cancellation. This will happen if the line deteriorates too much in the next 4 years, or if funding can't be found for a reroute before then and the 2019 Governor of NM is as rail-hostile as Martinez.



MikefromCrete said:


> and, guess what, all those improvements might not be as costly as originally estimated.


The current numbers seem to be "muddle through for a couple more years" numbers, not "make this a long-term functional route" numbers.

When we come back to this topic in a few years, expect there to be an extra hour or two (or three, or four) in the SWC timetable. This will make the case for the reroute even stronger; eventually, running the SWC at the same speed as freight on the Transcon will be noticeably faster than running over Raton. I'm not sure how many years of deterioration that will take, but there's already been massive padding added to the schedule over the years. At what point of lengthened schedules does Amtrak need a sixth trainset?

Signalling's a huge issue. Raton needs a complete resignalling. The current budget definitely won't do that. Repairing the existing signal system (mostly semaphores!) is grossly uneconomical and it's being run on track warrants already. The result, I predict, is going to be the removal of the signal system and the resulting imposition of a 59 mph max speed limit on the whole section of route.


----------



## zephyr17

Most of the Raton and Glorietta Subdivisions are run by track warrant because the signal system is ABS (Automatic Block System) and not CTC (Centralized Traffic Control) and not because of the age of the system. They've always been run train order and timetable back in the day and track warrant now. Signals in ABS do not and never have given authority to occupy track, they are a warning system only. There is a stretch of CTC in Raton Pass itself where signal indications gives authority that has been in place since WW II approximately and I think there may be a CTC area around French (York Canyon coal mine) that was installed later.

Santa Fe had done signal replacement fairly recently (last 20 years) on some sections, replacing the semaphores with tri-lights. The issue with signal system is maintenance cost of the old signals, not the fact that it is ABS. There has never been traffic density to justify CTC.

Replacing the signals would not change how the line is dispatched and signal replacement requires significantly less investment than installing CTC, which isn't justified for traffic density. ABS works just fine for a line like Raton.

The FRA is very resistant to downgrading to dark territory where signal systems are already in place. CORP in Oregon, without passenger service at all, tried to and the FRA wouldn't let them, so those semaphores were replaced instead of the signal system being retired entirely. They are even more resistant where there is passenger service.

However, if the FRA did approve retiring the signal system in Raton, that isn't an unreasonable option. Long distance trains aren't all that time sensitive as long as the speed is fairly reasonable. Keeping to the published schedule is much more important than the speed of the schedule. This isn't the 1930s when railroads competed for long distance business travelers on speed. I doubt downgrading to 59 really would make that much of a difference in patronage as long as the lengthened schedule was consistently kept. Time-sensitive travelers fly.


----------



## The Chief

zephyr17 said:


> Most of the Raton and Glorietta Subdivisions are run by track warrant because the signal system is ABS (Automatic Block System) and not CTC (Centralized Traffic Control) ...
> 
> Signals in ABS do not and never have given authority to occupy track, they are a warning system only. ...
> 
> ABS works just fine for a line like Raton. ...


Great points, *zephyr17*. "Just fine for a line like Raton" -- especially if only two trains a day, one each way.

The No.3-No.4 meet would be easy peasy, with current ABS system electronics, satellite tracking, and radio comms.

Semaphores can be replaced, as needed, economically with "Tri-Light" or new Color Light "Darth Vader" style installs.


----------



## Guest

Just a comment: The Illinois Central / Canadian Nation added CTC to the previously unsignlled Yazoo District freight route. They gave it a 79 mph speed limit out of their own pocket so they could move the City of New Orleans off the traditional passenger route Grenada District. Maybe they intended to add the signals anyway. I don't know. The minimum run time over the Yazoo District is at best about 30 minutes slower than the Grenada District at its best.


----------



## KmH

PRR 60 said:


> Here is the Cameron Connector between the old CB&Q/BN and ATSF built in 1996 by BNSF:
> 
> Google Map


Looks like a SWC sitting on the northwest part of the connector in that Google Maps Satellite view.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

I'm getting hungry for my Mexican meal at the Mexico City Cafe on Raton Ave. in La Junta... http://www.yelp.com/biz/mexico-city-cafe-la-junta?osq=mexican+food+restaurants ...that is to be my winnings in a friendly bet with another member here (who lives in the Amarillo area) if the SWC is not rerouted.

From the article of 2/7/15 at the Amarillo Globe News website:

*Don't expect Amtrak to stop at Santa Fe Depot *

Link: http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2015-02-07/dont-expect-amtrak-stop-santa-fe-depot



> “The prospects (the Southwest Chief) will be rerouted to Texas are about nil,” said Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari. “I think we’ve made it clear we want to keep it on the current route.”





> “If the Southwest Chief were rerouted, it would be the first time Amarillo had regular passenger service since the 1970s,” said Amarillo City Manager Jarrett Atkinson. “We’ll get a sense of that when the New Mexico Legislature goes through their session.”
> 
> That session ends at noon March 21, and preliminary budgets from the governor and the Legislative Finance Committee have no provisions for paying the $4 million a year for 10 years that would be the state’s share to keep the train on track.
> 
> The New Mexico Department of Transportation provided an economic impact study for the new session showing a $3.5 million drop in labor income if the train route left northeast New Mexico and a $1.2 million drop in taxes collected.





> “Despite the federal TIGER grant received last year, the train is still not out of the woods. Amtrak and the BNSF Railway may have backed off of a
> Wichita-Amarillo reroute threat due to cost,” Evan Stair, president of Passenger Rail Oklahoma and avid rail transportation observer said in his January newsletter. “So all eyes will be on the New Mexico Legislature this season as they struggle with their financial offering to Amtrak’s Southwest Chief tin-cup request. The only options we see as remaining are an Amtrak-BNSF retreat, year-to-year funding challenges and discontinuance.”
> 
> So local supporters of Amtrak coming to town, including turning the historic Santa Fe Depot into a multi-modal transportation hub, might have some hope that events in Santa Fe, N.M., could steer the train to Amarillo.
> 
> “We’re really hopeful, but we’re the default,” said Downtown Amarillo Inc. Executive Director Melissa Dailey. “It’s not in our control.”





> But that hope the Chief would leave its route that sweeps over the plains and into the mountains could be futile. There might not be a new agreement between the railroads, but they appear ready to take things much more gradually than previously said.
> 
> “We will continue to operate on that route under future agreements,” Magliari said. “We always said we had to have a way forward, and certainly we now have investments and the grant.”


Finally, here is what BNSF had to say on the matter (which seems framed by a lawyer to me):



> BNSF is out of the action at the moment concerning the tracks it owns in northeastern New Mexico.
> 
> “We are not involved in talks between New Mexico and Amtrak,” said BNSF spokesman Joe Sloan. “There are only two trains on those tracks, and that’s the Southwest Chief, so there’s no incentive for us to maintain or keep them up.”
> 
> They also are not involved in talks about “future agreements” with Amtrak.
> 
> “If BNSF is approached, we’ll have that conversation,” Sloan said.


Looks like things are about as clear as sangria at this point, with all sides still posturing. Tunes might change after New Mexico decides what it is going to do, but it does seem like this issue could stretch well into the future. I'll be stopping by my local taqueria before this issue is decided, for sure.

BTW - Check out the comments posted by folks in response to the article. Amarillo city officials would be tarred and feathered if these posters had their way.


----------



## printman2000

The Davy Crockett said:


> I'm getting hungry for my Mexican meal at the Mexico City Cafe on Raton Ave. in La Junta... http://www.yelp.com/biz/mexico-city-cafe-la-junta?osq=mexican+food+restaurants ...that is to be my winnings in a friendly bet with another member here (who lives in the Amarillo area) if the SWC is not rerouted.


While I remember you proposing a bet, I have no memory of accepting it.


----------



## neroden

The Davy Crockett said:


> Looks like things are about as clear as sangria at this point, with all sides still posturing.


Oh yeah. And it seems like total discontinuance is more and more likely. I guess that means more passengers for the Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, California Zephyr, and Coast Starlight...


----------



## WoodyinNYC

neroden said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like things are about as clear as sangria at this point, with all sides still posturing.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. And it seems like total discontinuance is more and more likely. I guess that means more passengers for the Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, California Zephyr, and Coast Starlight...
Click to expand...

C'mon. You know better than that.

The _Chief_'s end-to-end passengers accounted for less than 15%

of the total in 2013. (NARP site.) But discontinuing the route would

hurt all the connecting lines in Chicago as well as the _Coast Starlight_

in L.A.

To fix the problems, we always need more Amtrak, not less.


----------



## rubber duck

Come on Davy, you believe in rule by law don't you? and what do you believe about one's word?---Well, Have you read the New Mexico State constitution in article 9 about the anti- donation clause? The State of New Mexico by law can not give one red cent towards repairing these rails (unless the state owns then). Now you were going to treat every on who shows up at BIG TEXAN when the Chief is rerouted weren't you?--that 720z steak meal is awaiting. None of us really know for sure what is going to be until the current contract expires on 12/31/15 at midnight


----------



## The Davy Crockett

printman2000 said:


> :unsure:
> 
> 
> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting hungry for my Mexican meal at the Mexico City Cafe on Raton Ave. in La Junta... http://www.yelp.com/biz/mexico-city-cafe-la-junta?osq=mexican+food+restaurants ...that is to be my winnings in a friendly bet with another member here (who lives in the Amarillo area) if the SWC is not rerouted.
> 
> 
> 
> While I remember you proposing a bet, I have no memory of accepting it.
Click to expand...

_*What!?!*_ 

Do I denote some uncertainty? :lol:


----------



## printman2000

The Davy Crockett said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> :unsure:
> 
> 
> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting hungry for my Mexican meal at the Mexico City Cafe on Raton Ave. in La Junta... http://www.yelp.com/biz/mexico-city-cafe-la-junta?osq=mexican+food+restaurants ...that is to be my winnings in a friendly bet with another member here (who lives in the Amarillo area) if the SWC is not rerouted.
> 
> 
> 
> While I remember you proposing a bet, I have no memory of accepting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*What!?!*_
> 
> Do I denote some uncertainty? :lol:
Click to expand...

If there is one thing I know, never bet on anything having to do with Amtrak.


----------



## Guest

The New Mexico Gov't has ended its session and I can't find where they set aside money to repair the track and notice that Colorado has put an amendment (SB15-176) to bill it passed last year. What does this mean?


----------



## neroden

The situation is clear as mud. New Mexico is not providing any funding and actually can't, under the current ownership. With Colorado and Kansas funding, Amtrak is claiming that the funding issue has been resolved and that they will stay on the Raton line. BNSF is not paying for maintenance of the line.

Apparently Amtrak is content to let the New Mexico line deteriorate. I don't know how long it can deteriorate before it becomes a problem. Years, maybe? There were some claims that it was really the Colorado and Kansas parts which were at immediate risk.


----------



## LaJuntaSub

Guest said:


> The New Mexico Gov't has ended its session and I can't find where they set aside money to repair the track and notice that Colorado has put an amendment (SB15-176) to bill it passed last year. What does this mean?


Absolutely nothing. There was never a plan to get funding from the legislature this year. The current plan is to apply for a TIGER grant for funding beyond La Junta. The Kansas and Colorado portions already have funding.

Does anyone with BNSF connections know the work schedule for the La Junta subdivision?


----------



## neroden

LaJuntaSub said:


> Absolutely nothing. There was never a plan to get funding from the legislature this year. The current plan is to apply for a TIGER grant for funding beyond La Junta.


It would be disgraceful if they got it. I can list a hundred better TIGER grant recipients easily -- TIGER is an oversubscribed program.


----------



## rubber Duck

From what I understand the Federal Grant cover only from Las Animas eastward., And all this time we have heard how giving Colorado was to be in this matter: look at Colorado Senate Bill 15-176. This Bill amends the bill passed last year. If it passes next week it "requires" Amtrak and BNSF to each put $16 million each into the kitty before Colorado put in its share. and it requires Amtrak to put in writing that it will continue to serve Lamar, La Junta, and Trinidad before Colorado gives any money for repairs. Now also factor in the new Transportation spending bill that the senate will consider next week--- includes 3rd party panel to be involved in route changes. Would it not be prudent for Amtrak to make desired changes or confirmations before that goes into effect?(based on Senate passing the House bill)


----------



## neroden

rubber Duck said:


> If it passes next week it "requires" Amtrak and BNSF to each put $16 million each into the kitty before Colorado put in its share. and it requires Amtrak to put in writing that it will continue to serve Lamar, La Junta, and Trinidad before Colorado gives any money for repairs.


Yeesh. I don't think Amtrak can afford to commit to running on this money-sucking route in perpetuity no matter what, even if circumstances change for the substantially worse; it would not be a reasonable thing to agree to. It would expose Amtrak to potentially having to rebuild the line on its own budget, which is neither reasonable nor possible.


----------



## rubber Duck

You are right. It causes me to ask question ,"What does Colorado think they are doing?"


----------



## printman2000

The Southwest Chief will be staying on its current route...

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature/amtrak-says-southwest-chief-route-is-secure-despite-new-mexico/article_b51ca7dc-cee0-573b-9e9c-dbe50eaa7b9d.html



> Amtrak will stick with its existing route of the Southwest Chief passenger train that makes stops in the New Mexico towns of Raton, Las Vegas, Lamy and Albuquerque, a company spokesman said in an interview. This ends more than two years of fear and uncertainty in Northern New Mexico’s smaller communities about whether Amtrak would alter the route and leave them without a stream of visitors with money to spend.


----------



## Guest

For now-Tomorrow may be different. Notice this is from Amtrak NOT BNSF


----------



## jis

Statement of the obvious. Tomorrow can always be different. That goes without saying.


----------



## andersone

I believe it was Uriah Heep that poignantly observed today is only yesterday's tomorrows


----------



## jis

*Like*


----------



## Paul CHI

All it will take to change the route will be a stalled thunderstorm over Raton Pass in July or August. And then no one will be prepared, so the route may be simply abandoned.


----------



## jis

Change or termination. Do not be so sanguine about survival of routes. Make no mistake, they are currently in grave danger. So be very careful what you surmise. It might come to pass but with a very different result than what you thought!


----------



## tomfuller

I had lunch with a gentleman on Thursday on board the SWC. He was on his way to a meeting in Los Angeles on this topic. I believe he was representing the Western Governors Association.

He told us that they were looking to improve/repair some of the worst sections of the rail so the train could remain on its current route. I did see one of the old semaphore signals while I was eating lunch. The route will die quickly if is given the Texas option.

Who knows anything about the Friday meeting?


----------



## greatcats

While I am pleased that this train is remaining on its present route, I do not see your point that it would die quickly if rerouted through Texas. If anything, that would produce a spike in ridership. Kindly explain your rationale.


----------



## jis

greatcats said:


> While I am pleased that this train is remaining on its present route, I do not see your point that it would die quickly if rerouted through Texas. If anything, that would produce a spike in ridership. Kindly explain your rationale.


Perhaps he was talking of the Raton route dying? That would make perfect sense.


----------



## Alice

tomfuller said:


> Who knows anything about the Friday meeting?


Could have been the Rail Users Network annual meeting. Most of the agenda is about Los Angeles, but Amtrak was supposed to send Mark Murphy to talk about the SWC. Haven't seen any notes yet.


----------



## tomfuller

It must have been Mark I was talking to over lunch. It sounded like Amtrak was going to try to gather funds from whatever sources it could (including state governments) and another TIGER grant to patch up the current route. His opinion seemed to be that if any part of the present route got washed out or otherwise unusable, the entire route would die just like the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans.

I asked about going through Amarillo and he felt it would never fly (or roll).

The agreement with BNSF ends 12/31/16 but the line could easily get one or two bridges washed out before then with no money to fix them.

The sleeper car I was in was recently used on the Capitol Limited (Cardinal?) because there was the script for an announcement for a station in West Virginia on the inside of the comm door which didn't want to stay shut.

It was a beautiful day in Raton on Thursday. I hope I get to take some more pictures there someday without driving I-25.


----------



## Chas

Editorial from the Pueblo Chieftain, March 30, 2015

"Chugging Ahead on the Chief"

There is reason to be cautiously optimistic that rail service through Kansas, Colorado and northern New Mexico could stay put.



“We are making progress,” Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari told The Chieftain Monday, “but we have not yet resolved the funding issue from Albuquerque to Las Animas. There is not a solid plan in place.”

And local leaders who spearhead a coalition to preserve passenger service on the Southwest Chief have vowed to continue the funding fight in Colorado. The Chief runs from Chicago to Los Angeles, and along the way, it stops in Lamar, La Junta and Trinidad.

“We still need to come up with the rest of the funding,” said Pueblo County Commissioner Sal Pace, who chairs the state’s Southwest Chief Commission.

Nonetheless, Amtrak announced last week that it is lifting a Jan. 1 deadline to finance some $8 million in track repairs.

That’s a welcome about-face from the company’s previous threats to move the passenger train to a more southern route unless the rails were replaced on its current track. That track is owned by the BNSF Railway, and preliminary estimates for repairs in Southern Colorado and Kansas pushed $100 million.

But under the leadership of Mr. Pace, the Southwest Chief Commission negotiated with BNSF Railway and convinced the railroad to cover the costs of maintaining the line. In addition, a partnership with the state of Kansas secured a $22 million TIGER grant to help upgrade the rails from Southeastern Colorado to Topeka, Kan.

And now the state is searching for $8.91 million to cover its share of the funding. Senate Bill 176, a bipartisan plan co-sponsored by Sens. Leroy Garcia, D-Pueblo, and Larry Crowder, R-Alamosa, would foot that bill.

While there’s still work to be done, we are delighted that Amtrak lifted its deadline. It’s a strong step for this critical route.


----------



## sitzplatz17

I rode the SWC recently with the worry it would be the last time over Raton, glad to see it looks like it won't be my last time. It really is a great route.

If only there could be a train on both the Raton line and the Transcon... ah well a man can dream can't he?


----------



## guest

It would be interesting to know what is behind statement " the Train would die quickly if given Texas option". There is population base of about I million people from which to pull ridership.


----------



## guest

It would be interesting to know what is behind statement " the Train would die quickly if given Texas option". There is population base of about I million people from which to pull ridership.


----------



## SantaFeScout

guest said:


> It would be interesting to know what is behind statement " the Train would die quickly if given Texas option". There is population base of about I million people from which to pull ridership.





guest said:


> It would be interesting to know what is behind statement " the Train would die quickly if given Texas option". There is population base of about I million people from which to pull ridership.


The region has not had train service since 1971, and people are not accustomed to use trains in west Texas. You would have to be nearly 60 years of age to remember the last passenger train through Amarillo. Business was always better on the northern line than the southern; by 1971 the last train on the southern line, the San Francisco chief, had dwindled away to almost nothing (two coaches, one sleeper) while there was still good business in the north.

But the bottom line is that there should be service on both lines, not an either/or situation.


----------



## jphjaxfl

While I agree, it would be difficult to build up a passenger following on the Amarillo route, as someone who rode the San Francsco Chief several times in 1969-1971, it was not the train that the last poster described. It was the best Chicago-Bay area train at the end.it had 2-3 sleeping cars, full diner and dome lounge car. Since it was the only train, it was fairly well patronized.


----------



## SantaFeScout

jphjaxfl said:


> While I agree, it would be difficult to build up a passenger following on the Amarillo route, as someone who rode the San Francsco Chief several times in 1969-1971, it was not the train that the last poster described. It was the best Chicago-Bay area train at the end.it had 2-3 sleeping cars, full diner and dome lounge car. Since it was the only train, it was fairly well patronized.


If you look at Fred Frailey's consist book, from the autumn of 1970 the SF Chief leaving Richmond was as follows: mail, dormitory, two 68-seat coaches, lounge, diner, and a single 10-6 sleeper. A Los Angeles sleeper (10-3-2) was added at Barstow. Of course the Santa Fe was always good at adding extra cars, and if the above poster rode it in summer it had more cars. But off season was the most minimal it could be.


----------



## BNSFboy

SantaFeScout said:


> guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what is behind statement " the Train would die quickly if given Texas option". There is population base of about I million people from which to pull ridership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what is behind statement " the Train would die quickly if given Texas option". There is population base of about I million people from which to pull ridership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The region has not had train service since 1971, and people are not accustomed to use trains in west Texas. You would have to be nearly 60 years of age to remember the last passenger train through Amarillo. Business was always better on the northern line than the southern; by 1971 the last train on the southern line, the San Francisco chief, had dwindled away to almost nothing (two coaches, one sleeper) while there was still good business in the north.
> 
> But the bottom line is that there should be service on both lines, not an either/or situation.
Click to expand...

One should not assume that because we haven't had a train since Amtrak formed that we wouldn't use it. I know many people that would want to use Amtrak over any other form of transportation. Yes Amarillo has an airport but only bare minimal flights come through it and we all know Greyhound is the last thing you want to use. Another thing is I believe that the City of Amarillo will promote the train to the area to use and Palo Duro Canyon to places out side the area which would make the Southwest Chief have the biggest and second biggest canyons in the United States along its route. I would love to see a train on both routes but I believe we have a better chance of bringing the space shuttle back than get a train on both parts. I just hope that the train will survive.


----------



## Chey

BNSFboy said:


> One should not assume that because we haven't had a train since Amtrak formed that we wouldn't use it. I know many people that would want to use Amtrak over any other form of transportation. Yes Amarillo has an airport but only bare minimal flights come through it and we all know Greyhound is the last thing you want to use. Another thing is I believe that the City of Amarillo will promote the train to the area to use and Palo Duro Canyon to places out side the area which would make the Southwest Chief have the biggest and second biggest canyons in the United States along its route. I would love to see a train on both routes but I believe we have a better chance of bringing the space shuttle back than get a train on both parts. I just hope that the train will survive.


There is interest all over West Texas in it. Clovis too.

I think we have the same chances for the alternate transcon route as we have for a brand new Caprock Chief line to Denver, which I'd like even better. I guess we can just keep dreaming.


----------



## Guest

Could this be answer for passenger train service for Amarillo. That area could just build its own train service and blow away Amtrak. Amtrak not like it--- tough, they had their chance.


----------



## jis

Sure! Wake me up when that happens


----------



## west point

The arguments of going onto the Trans con compared to the Raton route needs rethinking. Why not have a coach(s) split from the Chief and go on the Trans con to Albuquerque and rejoin the chief there ? That would be a train 403 & 404 for reservations. That would require 2 operating crews each way every day + a coach attendant / snack seller.. The Trans con is faster so almost all the time this split section connecting train would wait at Newton and ABQ for the main train to arrive. Also in case the Raton route was blocked in any way the Chief could detour on the Trans con without any delay for a pilot.

Realize that BNSF will balk at such an idea but who knows if the Texas & Oklahoma congressional delegation's could find the money ?.

Right now the main problem would be equipment as 2 additional operational locos would be needed with 2 - 1/4 allocated. At least the locos could get TLC at ABQ and NEW. The present spare loco kept at ABQ also helps. Depending on the number of originating and terminating passengers the number of coaches needed could be substantial with 5 train sets now used.

A study of additional revenue and costs would need careful evaluation.


----------



## greatcats

Great idea, just as simple as 123. Guaranteed to be a 90 day wonder. In my last several times through ABQ I have not seen any spare loco, which used to be obvious. If one is around, maybe they hide it down on the yard by the eye.


----------



## Nathanael

Money quote



Chas said:


> But under the leadership of Mr. Pace, the Southwest Chief Commission negotiated with BNSF Railway and convinced the railroad to cover the costs of maintaining the line.


This is the first real news and explains Amtrak's decision to stay on the Raton route.


----------



## GWG

According to posting in Trainorders.com titled "SW Chief funding failing in Colorado" from article by Jeff Tucker published in Pueblo Chieftian April 16,2015, the funding for bill 176 (Amtrak funding) did not pass the Joint Budget Committee.. New Mexico is out, Colorado is out, The cities that won the grant have yet to put their money on the table. Well, looks like La junta to Hutchinson might make a good oil route


----------



## neroden

The news is that BNSF is now volunteering to maintain the line on its own dime. Which pretty much eliminates the original motivation for the reroute. For now.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

I don't mean to tell you all "I told you so," but, well, I told you so!


----------



## Palmetto

neroden said:


> The news is that BNSF is now volunteering to maintain the line on its own dime. Which pretty much eliminates the original motivation for the reroute. For now.


Could you point us to a source for that info? It's quite interesting to learn.


----------



## guest

BNSF has never to this day said in printed form that they would repair or maintain the line from Lamy to La Junta. And you know legally if not in print, it did not happen. What BNSF has said from the very start was it would maintain from La Junta eastward to Newton. So has pot taken Colorado so much they can not understand English?


----------



## jis

Lamy to La Junta is predominantly in New Mexico. The Colorado portion is only from La Junta to Trinidad and then on to Raton tunnel, right?


----------



## SarahZ

jis said:


> Lamy to La Junta is predominantly in New Mexico. The Colorado portion is only from La Junta to Trinidad and then on to Raton tunnel, right?


Correct.


----------



## neroden

We don't have anything direct from BNSF, but we have several statements from various government agencies saying that BNSF has agreed to maintain the line. Yes, the whole thing.

Maybe BNSF will back out on that commitment; maybe they never made it. But as long as this is the impression of the government officials, then there's no pressure for a reroute. If BNSF decides to stop maintaining the line, the reroute plans will come back very very quickly.


----------



## jis

Maybe BNSF is slowly coming to the conclusion that maintaining the Raton route as a safety valve for empties/deadheads from the Amarillo route during heavy congestion there, is cheaper than trying to add a third track, or even a zillion sidings to the transcon.


----------



## bretton88

While BNSF is starting to come around to maintaining the Raton route, the big question is if it will be at passenger speeds. That's really where the debate still is.


----------



## tomfuller

So who first proposed the reroute through Amarillo? Not Amtrak!

BNSF has a commitment to allow the SWC on the Raton route until 12/31/16. Now if the route becomes impassable for any reason bridge/washout and no one comes up with money to fix it, then the SWC will not roll again until the route is repaired (if ever).

I asked Mark Murphy (Sr. VP Amtrak LD routes) about coming through Amarillo and he indicated that it would never happen. He was on his way to Los Angeles for a 3/27 annual meeting of rail users.

The SWC rolled into LAX about an hour late but I had plenty of time to connect to the CS. I am glad that we got breakfast on the SWC starting at 5:30AM PT since I would not have had the time to go to Phillipes.


----------



## ABQFloridian

tomfuller said:


> I asked Mark Murphy (Sr. VP Amtrak LD routes) about coming through Amarillo and he indicated that it would never happen.


Did he say why? That's a curious "never". What if the current route became impassable? Would Amtrak throw out the whole route just to avoid Wichita/OKC/Amarillo? Is the chief just a prolonged tour of the Raton Pass? I thought it was a transportation service.

Or is there some underlying issue like track unsuitable for passenger speeds? (BNSF was the one who suggested the route, so I figure they would no know if it was passenger-legal).


----------



## zephyr17

The Transcon is all Class 4 70 mph intermodal, so it is not an issue with the track. It is passenger legal, but of course everything that isn't FRA-excepted, like industrial spurs, is passenger legal, the question is speed, but that isn't a question on the Transcon.

I think BNSF is the one blocking using the Transcon now. BNSF was throwing out arguments like having to increase the timing circuits, which is bogus because you could easily operate the SWC at 70 mph instead of 79 and the grade crossing timing circuits are already there for 70. BNSF simply doesn't want it on the Transcon, I think.

Amtrak is just putting the best face on what is likely a BNSF decision, although if BNSF is willing to maintain the Raton and Glorietta subdivisions to keep Amtrak off the Transcon and maintain a secondary line just in case, I am fine with that.


----------



## tomfuller

If the route becomes impassable before 12/31/16 the SWC will die a death similar to the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans. After 1/1/17 it's anybodies guess what happens to the SWC.

At one point in Western Kansas, we were a little over 2 hours behind schedule (before we got to Raton).

Over the route from Galesburg to Los Angeles we averaged 50.5mph which is 5 better than the CZ from SAC to Galesburg.

While I was having lunch with Mark I happened to see one of the few remaining semaphore signals left in the US. I don't know if anyone is still maintaining the signals in NM


----------



## railiner

I cannot understand why the freight railroads seem to be so against running one daily passenger train on their multiple-main railways....how can just the one train each way impede their operations so bad?

They do get compensation for running it, don't they? Doesn't it earn them revenue equal to some of the freight trains they operate? What are they afraid of?


----------



## jis

The revenue that they get for running a passenger train is not even close to the revenue from a typical intermodal. That is part of the problem. They run passenger trains more as an obligation like kid having to eat his veggies


----------



## railiner

So they do earn some revenue from them. I guess they have a short memory of the losses they had to endure before Amtrak began, and they had to bear the losses of running passenger trains "for the public good and necessity'...

Perhaps railroads should look at passenger trains as another way to promote their railways and earn revenue at the same time, rather than spend a fortune on those "touchy-feely", "image" advertisements they run on certain national television...


----------



## TinCan782

zephyr17 said:


> The Transcon is all Class 4 70 mph intermodal, so it is not an issue with the track. It is passenger legal, but of course everything that isn't FRA-excepted, like industrial spurs, is passenger legal, the question is speed, but that isn't a question on the Transcon.
> 
> I think BNSF is the one blocking using the Transcon now. BNSF was throwing out arguments like having to increase the timing circuits, which is bogus because you could easily operate the SWC at 70 mph instead of 79 and the grade crossing timing circuits are already there for 70. BNSF simply doesn't want it on the Transcon, I think.
> 
> Amtrak is just putting the best face on what is likely a BNSF decision, although if BNSF is willing to maintain the Raton and Glorietta subdivisions to keep Amtrak off the Transcon and maintain a secondary line just in case, I am fine with that.


Didn't BNSF offer the TRANSCON to Amtrak in the first place (as an alternative to the current route)? Perhaps, I read/remember wrong!


----------



## Texan

yes , Transcon route was first offered to Amtrack in 1998 when it was still Santa Fe. It was Santa Fe's position to 1. get Amtrak off current route between Newton and Lamy 2. abandon line between la Junta and Trinidad. 3. sell line between Lamy and Trinidad. When Bn bought Santa Fe this agreement was acknowledge and agreed to by BN. Now today Bn is still acknowledging this agreement by not announcing a change in time and circumstance. Amtrak is playing the role of a bad tenant who won't move when ask-- BNSF is playing role of "Good Guy" by telling Amtralk if they can come up with funds to fund maintaince and repairs they can use it. WE now know that 1. Amtrak has no funds to put toward project. New Mexico is probhited by its constution from giving any monies to any private railroad and Colorado"s t attempt last week is now "Postponed indefinitely" The "never" is politics-- goes back to when Johnson was elected. Democrat bureaucrats have forgotten who is in charge now


----------



## DesertDude

I support maintaining the tracks and keeping the SWC on it's current route in order to 1) maintain service to communities that rely on the SWC for long-distance travel 2) maintain service to downtown ABQ and 3) make it theoretically possible to someday have passenger rail service from Denver to ABQ.

That being said, I think there is a strong case to move the SWC to the Transcon simply for the fact it would serve Amarillo. With a metro area of a quarter million people and an airport that has limited commercial flights (with no direct flights to LA, ABQ, Kansas City or Chicago), Amarillo seems like a perfect candidate to be situated in the middle of the SWC route.


----------



## Guest

Where did this date (12-31-16) come from? It has been published and acknowledge by Amtrak that the current contract ends midnight 12-31-15. or (1-1-16 at 12 am)


----------



## VentureForth

ABQFloridian said:


> tomfuller said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked Mark Murphy (Sr. VP Amtrak LD routes) about coming through Amarillo and he indicated that it would never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Did he say why? That's a curious "never". What if the current route became impassable? Would Amtrak throw out the whole route just to avoid Wichita/OKC/Amarillo?
Click to expand...

See: Sunset Limited


----------



## tomfuller

A couple of reasons I can think of - Amtrak would have to hire engineers qualified to run the route through Amarillo who are probably BNSF engineers now. Is there a suitable platform that Amtrak can use in Amarillo? While we are talking about population, Both Denver (600000) and ABQ (545000) have more than twice the population of Amarillo.

Amtrak will not abandon the Raton route until it is forced to do so either by contract expiration or the route becoming impassable with no money to fix it

I would love it if Mark and Warren Buffet sat down for a face to face meeting about this and several other things that concern Amtrak. Maybe Warren could buy Amtrak and close it down within a year because it lost money.


----------



## printman2000

tomfuller said:


> A couple of reasons I can think of - Amtrak would have to hire engineers qualified to run the route through Amarillo who are probably BNSF engineers now. Is there a suitable platform that Amtrak can use in Amarillo? While we are talking about population, Both Denver (600000) and ABQ (545000) have more than twice the population of Amarillo.
> 
> Amtrak will not abandon the Raton route until it is forced to do so either by contract expiration or the route becoming impassable with no money to fix it
> 
> I would love it if Mark and Warren Buffet sat down for a face to face meeting about this and several other things that concern Amtrak. Maybe Warren could buy Amtrak and close it down within a year because it lost money.


Pretty sure the current Amtrak engineers can get certified on the new route. No need to hire new ones.

Amarillo does not have a proper platform but has shown they are willing to invest in Amtrak service.

Also, doubt Albuquerque would lose service with a reroute. Been discussed here many times.


----------



## Ryan

VentureForth said:


> ABQFloridian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tomfuller said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked Mark Murphy (Sr. VP Amtrak LD routes) about coming through Amarillo and he indicated that it would never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Did he say why? That's a curious "never". What if the current route became impassable? Would Amtrak throw out the whole route just to avoid Wichita/OKC/Amarillo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See: Sunset Limited
Click to expand...

Sunset Limited didn't have an alternative routing offered to it on which operations could begin immediately.


----------



## Guest

But what if Amtrak has plans to increase ridership by changing the consist to something else. Can you see AutoTrain? What if all this fuss is just a charade to keep peoples minds busy. Might they want to call it something else? Therefore the end of " super Chief"!


----------



## Ryan

Those appear to all be English words, but they're arraigned in a way that makes it impossible to decipher a coherent meaning.


----------



## ABQFloridian

That was almost haiku-like.


----------



## jis

It is more like put tinfoil hat on head and then type away whatever comes in


----------



## Guest

Correct, Amarillo is on alternate route and by contract that would mean without any hesitation the" Chief" would automatically be diverted thru Amarillo as long as current contract is in play and for what ever reason the current route is impassable.


----------



## neroden

tomfuller said:


> I asked Mark Murphy (Sr. VP Amtrak LD routes) about coming through Amarillo and he indicated that it would never happen.


Well, that either means "won't happen until he's fired," or more likely, "won't happen until his boss tells him to make it happen". In other words, it means nothing at all in the long term. Facts on the ground have a way of creeping up on such statements.

However, it seems quite likely that BNSF has reversed its previous policy, and decided to maintain the Raton line forever, which would preserve the route.


----------



## DryCreek

RyanS said:


> Those appear to all be English words, but they're arraigned in a way that makes it impossible to decipher a coherent meaning.


Yes, but the court is still out on determining intent.


----------



## DryCreek

printman2000 said:


> tomfuller said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of reasons I can think of - Amtrak would have to hire engineers qualified to run the route through Amarillo who are probably BNSF engineers now. Is there a suitable platform that Amtrak can use in Amarillo? While we are talking about population, Both Denver (600000) and ABQ (545000) have more than twice the population of Amarillo.
> 
> Amtrak will not abandon the Raton route until it is forced to do so either by contract expiration or the route becoming impassable with no money to fix it
> 
> I would love it if Mark and Warren Buffet sat down for a face to face meeting about this and several other things that concern Amtrak. Maybe Warren could buy Amtrak and close it down within a year because it lost money.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure the current Amtrak engineers can get certified on the new route. No need to hire new ones.
> 
> Amarillo does not have a proper platform but has shown they are willing to invest in Amtrak service.
> 
> Also, doubt Albuquerque would lose service with a reroute. Been discussed here many times.
Click to expand...

After looking here: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2085352,-101.8261397,135m/data=!3m1!1e3

It seems that while there is no platform currently, it sure wouldn't take long to pour a concrete pad. A long one too. That should help prevent multiple spots for a standard consist. In fact, looking from street view, the depot is in pretty good shape on the exterior. I don't know about the location though. While it is right across the street from the Amarillo Civic Center, I didn't see many nearby options for lodging or dining. The area doesn't look to be in decline, but it could sure use some more attractions to draw folks into the area. maybe if they also incorporated a museum and upscale dining like in Tuscon it could be a draw.


----------



## VentureForth

ABQFloridian said:


> That was almost haiku-like.


Could Robert Frost it:

Two routes diverged in a yellow dessert

And sorry I could not travel both

But be one train, long I sat

Until some money promised growth...


----------



## BNSFboy

DryCreek said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tomfuller said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of reasons I can think of - Amtrak would have to hire engineers qualified to run the route through Amarillo who are probably BNSF engineers now. Is there a suitable platform that Amtrak can use in Amarillo? While we are talking about population, Both Denver (600000) and ABQ (545000) have more than twice the population of Amarillo.
> 
> Amtrak will not abandon the Raton route until it is forced to do so either by contract expiration or the route becoming impassable with no money to fix it
> 
> I would love it if Mark and Warren Buffet sat down for a face to face meeting about this and several other things that concern Amtrak. Maybe Warren could buy Amtrak and close it down within a year because it lost money.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure the current Amtrak engineers can get certified on the new route. No need to hire new ones.
> 
> Amarillo does not have a proper platform but has shown they are willing to invest in Amtrak service.
> 
> Also, doubt Albuquerque would lose service with a reroute. Been discussed here many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After looking here: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2085352,-101.8261397,135m/data=!3m1!1e3
> 
> It seems that while there is no platform currently, it sure wouldn't take long to pour a concrete pad. A long one too. That should help prevent multiple spots for a standard consist. In fact, looking from street view, the depot is in pretty good shape on the exterior. I don't know about the location though. While it is right across the street from the Amarillo Civic Center, I didn't see many nearby options for lodging or dining. The area doesn't look to be in decline, but it could sure use some more attractions to draw folks into the area. maybe if they also incorporated a museum and upscale dining like in Tuscon it could be a draw.
Click to expand...

They are planning to build a hotel on the other side of the Amarillo Civic Center from the station. The lower level would be able to house restaurants and shops. Still would be a little bit of a walk though. http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2015-02-25/downtown-hotel-design-plans-revealed


----------



## DryCreek

BNSFboy said:


> They are planning to build a hotel on the other side of the Amarillo Civic Center from the station. The lower level would be able to house restaurants and shops. Still would be a little bit of a walk though. http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2015-02-25/downtown-hotel-design-plans-revealed


A quote from the linked article: "_Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex weather prevented the Merriman team from attending the meeting as planned Wednesday. So Anderson and team leader Jennifer Picquet-Reyes described the plans in a presentation via the Internet and speakerphone_."

Hmm. I would bet that a train could have gotten them there!


----------



## Guest

You might just want to take a visit and see for yourself (google doesn't tell all}Take you pocket book with you, cause you will want to invest.


----------



## Chas

The BNSF just needs to put one of these monsters on the job in western Kansas. (Link is YouTube video.)


----------



## DryCreek

Guest said:


> You might just want to take a visit and see for yourself (google doesn't tell all}Take you pocket book with you, cause you will want to invest.


Oh, I am quite familiar with Amarillo. We always run up there when we haul our camper to Palo Duro Canyon State Park. I've even made it a point visit the Big Tex steakhouse one - although I knew better than to accept their challenge!


----------



## Palmetto

Chas said:


> The BNSF just needs to put one of these monsters on the job in western Kansas. (Link is YouTube video.)


I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Amtrak has one of those on the NEC.


----------



## jis

Palmetto said:


> Chas said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BNSF just needs to put one of these monsters on the job in western Kansas. (Link is YouTube video.)
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Amtrak has one of those on the NEC.
Click to expand...

Yes Amtrak has at least one. It has also been used by NJTransit from time to time. It is fun to watch.


----------



## CHamilton

We heard about this at the NARP meeting. Still not nailed down, but sounding much more positive. And the Amtrak reps at the meeting said that the train will operate along the current route beyond the December 2015 deadline.

From the Las Vegas (NM) Optic via the Southwest Chief Coalition on Facebook



> Gov pledges $1M for tracks
> State wants to keep Southwest Chief
> By Mercy Lopez
> Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 4:10 pm (Updated: June 7, 4:11 pm)
> 
> Gov. Susana Martinez is pledging $1 million to improve part of the track utilized by the Southwest Chief, a state Department of Transportation official informed Mayor Alfonso Ortiz on Thursday.
> 
> The future of the Southwest Chief had been in limbo for more than two years with Amtrak saying it might have to change the route due to costly maintenance and upgrades to the tracks that would be needed in order to keep the current route, which includes stops in Raton, Las Vegas and Lamy. The company was asking Colorado, Kansas and New Mexico to pitch in millions of dollars for the track upgrades in order to save the existing route. Colorado and Kansas moved aggressively last year to allocate money for repairs on their portions of the Southwest Chief tracks. They have also been working to secure a federal grant to pay for the needed repairs. In March an Amtrak spokesman said the company planned to stay with the current route.
> 
> During a brief meeting with Las Vegas Mayor Alfonso Ortiz on Thursday afternoon, New Mexico Department of Transportation Deputy Secretary Loren Hatch informed the mayor that Gov. Martinez has committed $1 million to improve a part of the track utilized by the Southwest Chief in New Mexico....
> 
> He added that the funding would be contingent on a TIGER VII grant being awarded by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Several communities and states have come together to seek the grant funding, including the City of La Junta, Colo....
> 
> Ortiz said several municipalities including Raton and Las Vegas have each agreed to contribute $12,500 as a match for the grant and another $3,000 to pay for the grant writer. He said that support is needed from local municipalities along the route in order to secure the grant....
> 
> Ortiz, Hatch and Sharpless said they are optimistic about the Tiger VII grant....
> 
> Ortiz said a million dollar state investment and the roughly $100,000 from municipalities clearly shows that New Mexico is in full support of the grant and the need to keep the current route.


----------



## neroden

Given that TIGER VII is oversubscribed by a factor of, if I remember correctly, *19*, I'd frankly consider it an embarassment if this got the TIGER grant. There are much more worthy projects in the application list.


----------



## abcnews

I think the Southwest Chief is worthy of a transportation grant. The route is quite historic and the railroad played a major role in the region.

Also - Chicago to LA is a major Amtrak route. Based on population, Los Angeles is one of the largest regions in the US. Maybe the largest.

And the funding is not to build a new route or a new station, but it's to simply help maintain an already existing line with a long history of passenger service.


----------



## neroden

> The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER Discretionary Grant program, provides a unique opportunity for the DOT to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. Since 2009, Congress has dedicated more than $4.1 billion for six rounds of TIGER to fund projects that have a significant impact on the Nation, a region or a metropolitan area.
> 
> In each round of TIGER, DOT receives hundreds of applications to build and repair critical pieces of our freight and passenger transportation networks. The TIGER program enables DOT to examine these projects on their merits to help ensure that taxpayers are getting the highest value for every dollar invested through TIGER Discretionary Grants. Applicants must detail the benefits their project would deliver for five long-term outcomes: safety, economic competitiveness, state of good repair, quality of life and environmental sustainability. DOT also evaluates projects on innovation, partnerships, project readiness, benefit cost analysis, and cost share.


I suppose this qualifies as "state of good repair" and "has a significant impact on a region". However, there is $500 million available, and there are *950 pre-applications* for a total of *$14,500* million, which is *29 times* the amount of money available.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Rail-project-funding-TIGER-VII-preapps-top-14-billion-Sen-Carper-cosponsors-RRIF-reform-bill--44647

Wait five years and if BNSF decides to stop maintaining the tracks again, we're back to square one.

There are bound to be better applications in the list of 950. Much better. Heck, there are better *passenger rail projects in New Mexico*, including the PTC installation for RailRunner. The unwillingness of New Mexico to spend its own money is not a good reason to bump this one up the list.


----------



## jis

Doesn't the same unwillingness to spend money on part of New Mexico also necessitate the funding for PTC for the Rail Runner? What is the basis for selecting one New Mexico project over another both requiring external help to overcome New Mexico's follies? From a federal funding angle one would imagine that something that preserves the national rail,network should have higher priority than running a local intra-state service, no?


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Doesn't the same unwillingness to spend money on part of New Mexico also necessitate the funding for PTC for the Rail Runner? What is the basis for selecting one New Mexico project over another both requiring external help to overcome New Mexico's follies? From a federal funding angle one would imagine that something that preserves the national rail,network should have higher priority than running a local intra-state service, no?


Guess which section of Railrunner needs expensive signal upgrades to install PTC. Hint: it isn't Santa Fe to the junction with the mainline! Consider which train uses this route.


----------



## jis

But if Railrunner stopped running there would only be one train on thats ection which then could be operated without PTC using an exemption as permitted by the PTC rules. 

Just being silly and argumentative here myself, but the more serious point is, perhaps the whole New Mexico folly needs to be addressed as a single issue and not as multiple ones. It would be foolish to sacrifice the integrity of the national network to just be able to run the Rail Runner. Just IMHO of course.


----------



## printman2000

Looks like Amtrak is threatening to end or reroute AGAIN...

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/amtrak-required-new-safety-tech-could-end-southwest-chief/article_c3c8d07a-ca23-53cf-90fb-4f188856f1d5.html



> Just when advocates of saving the Southwest Chief’s historic route through New Mexico and two nearby states thought they had come up with money for necessary track repairs, Amtrak told congressional leaders this week that it might terminate the service altogether because it can’t afford to install required new safety technology.


----------



## Eric S

printman2000 said:


> Looks like Amtrak is threatening to end or reroute AGAIN...
> 
> http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/amtrak-required-new-safety-tech-could-end-southwest-chief/article_c3c8d07a-ca23-53cf-90fb-4f188856f1d5.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when advocates of saving the Southwest Chief’s historic route through New Mexico and two nearby states thought they had come up with money for necessary track repairs, Amtrak told congressional leaders this week that it might terminate the service altogether because it can’t afford to install required new safety technology.
Click to expand...

What are the requirements, in terms of exactly which stretches of track must have PTC installed? It's not just tracks over which passenger trains operate, right?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Passenger trains and hazardous materials are the two primary triggers to my knowledge.


----------



## Eric S

Given how busy that KCT trackage is (BNSF transcon mainline, plus others), is it accurate that the 6 Amtrak trains/day are the only ones that would trigger the requirements that PTC be installed?


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> the more serious point is, perhaps the whole New Mexico folly needs to be addressed as a single issue and not as multiple ones.


It sure should! Unfortunately we won't see that from the short-sighted Martinez administration. 




Eric S said:


> Given how busy that KCT trackage is (BNSF transcon mainline, plus others), is it accurate that the 6 Amtrak trains/day are the only ones that would trigger the requirements that PTC be installed?


It's *sort of* accurate.

For some inexplicable reason, the Secretary of Transportation / FRA have allowed TRRA and KCT to get away with running massive numbers of dangerous hazmat shipments over these lines without triggering the PTC requirement. The non-Class I carriers are not *automatically* required to install PTC. However, the FRA could simply order them to install PTC at any time. Based on the intent of the law, the FRA *should* order them to do so. From 49 US Code section 20157:



> (f) Other Railroad Carriers.— Nothing in this section restricts the discretion of the Secretary to require railroad carriers other than those specified in subsection (a) to implement a positive train control system pursuant to this section or section 20156, or to specify the period by which implementation shall occur that does not exceed the time limits established in this section or section 20156. In exercising such discretion, the Secretary shall, at a minimum, consider the risk to railroad employees and the public associated with the operations of the railroad carrier.


The Class Is (who own TRRA and KCT) looooove to try to force their costs onto other entities; it's a habit they probably developed during the 'bankruptcy era' of the 1960s-1980s.

In short, this is more malicious behavior by the Class I execs. They should be smacked down hard by the FRA, which should simply tell KCT and TRRA that they're required to install PTC due to the high number of hazmat shipments and to stop blaming Amtrak.

This is basically a loophole which TRRA and KCT are trying to exploit. The FRA -- or the Secretary of Transportation -- can close the loophole on its own. Or if they refuse to do their job, Congress can be asked to close the loophole by applying the PTC rules to non-class I carriers. (They would still only apply to lines with 5 million gross tons of traffic annually, or passenger traffic. I'm pretty sure TRRA and KCT have more than 5 million gross tons of traffic annually.)

It's also worth noting that FRA routinely grants exemptions for:



> (2) Passenger service is operated on a segment of track of a freight railroad that is not a Class I railroad on which less than 15 million gross tons of freight traffic is transported annually and on which one of the following conditions applies:
> 
> ....
> 
> (ii) If the segment is signaled (e.g., equipped with a traffic control system, automatic block signal system, or cab signal system) and no more than 12 regularly scheduled passenger trains are operated during a calendar day.


Which indicates that there are more than 15 million gross tons travelling on the TRRA and KCT lines. They really should be ordered to install PTC period.

If you want to look at the actual law, it's here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/20157

And consider donating to Cornell's LII; it costs them money to keep all this law on line.


----------



## Eric S

Ah, thanks, I hadn't considered that KCT, as a non-Class I railroad, would not have to install PTC.


----------



## ATSFNewton

I received an alarming message today from a news producer in Wichita. An excerpt is below? Any further info on this?

Amtrak Vice President of Operations DJ Stadler testified Wednesday before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which held a hearing on passenger-rail safety. Stadler gave a report on Amtrak's efforts to implement PTC on its network.

In his written testimony, Stadler said that in Missouri, Amtrak's Southwest Chief route runs on track owned by two host railroads, the Kansas City Terminal (KCT) and the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. As Class III railroads, they are exempt from the federal PTC requirement unless the track is used by passenger trains.

"Because they're considered Class III, the PTC requirement is triggered by the operation of passenger trains," Stadler said. "These hosts have maintained that because Amtrak's trains trigger the PTC requirement, Amtrak is responsible for the cost of PTC installation, which amounts in the case of KCT to $30 million."

Because Amtrak can't afford that cost, and neither can the state of Missouri, Amtrak notified KCT officials that Amtrak service over the KCT track will end by the end of 2015 unless the parties come up with an alternative, Stadler said.

"We do not wish to cease service, but if this issue is not resolved soon, it could end in either the rerouting or termination of the Southwest Chief and the River Runner," he said.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Some kind of exemption will be worked out.


----------



## neroden

KCT and TRRA should be forced to pay for it themselves. The Secretary of Transportation (through the FRA) can simply issue an order that they must implement PTC due to the volume of hazmat traffic on the lines.


----------



## Eric S

Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle trains operate on TRRA as well, right?


----------



## neroden

Yep, and River Runner runs on TRRA and KCT.


----------



## CHamilton

Southwest Chief Commission meets in La Junta


----------



## CHamilton

Tentative plan to keep Amtrak running in Kansas and Missouri


----------



## west point

In a perfect world the SWC would split somewhere west of Kansas City with the main train following the main BNSF transcon to ABQ. A short section of P-42 sleeper, coach(s) lounge would follow the present route to ABQ. Recombine and proceed to LAX. Would need no additional schedule time, no additional loco as 4 or 5 cars should make it over Raton with one loco. No additional cars unless loads go up significantly.

This gives an alternate route for either section if there is a disruption on one route with whole train using other route.


----------



## afigg

CHamilton said:


> Tentative plan to keep Amtrak running in Kansas and Missouri


Figured that an arrangement would be made to keep the SWC and River Runner service operating into 2016 despite the PTC deadline. The purpose of PTC is improve train safety, not shut down train service. No info in the report on what the plan is, but my guess would be an waiver from the FRA in effect for a few years while KCT finds the funds to install PTC.


----------



## afigg

Trains Magazine has a report on the tentative deal that is behind a paywall, but the headline and start of the article provides the key info for those who are not subscribers: Amtrak, Kansas City Terminal to forge PTC deal. In short, Amtrak reached an agreement in principle with Kansas City Terminal, jointly owned by BNSF and UP, to install PTC. The article elaborates on the two Missouri Senators jointly submitting a bill to delay the full implementation of PTC past the end of 2015 deadline. I suspect that BNSF and UP decided it was the wiser political move to go ahead and agree to pay for installing PTC on KCT (after 2015) as a favor to the two Missouri senators


----------



## illinoisandy

Some good news for the Chief!

Amtrak rail project to begin next week

http://www.gctelegram.com/news/local/amtrak-rail-project-to-begin-next-week/article_59556d86-867e-5638-a17b-6abc363f9092.html

This would be speculation but may create some on-time performance issues during project.

Although being middle of the night territory, it may not/ hopefully will not be too bad.

Lastly too bad the ATS (Automatic Train Stop) could not be reinstalled for some 90 mph high-balling, PTC will hopefully do the same, even better.


----------



## Chas

Not sure if this is related to Illinoisandy's post above:

From Pueblo County, Colorado, Commisioner Sal Pace on Friday, 10/16:

*Southwest Chief Announcement*

Join me and dignitaries from Colorado and Amtrak for a big announcement regarding the the Southwest Chief that impacts the Pueblo community.

The announcement will be immediately followed by a reception including cocktails and refreshments.

WHEN: 4 p.m. Monday, Oct. 19, 2015
WHERE: Steelworks Center of the West
215 Canal St. Pueblo, CO 81004


To RSVP please email Laura Heberly at [email protected]


----------



## Palmetto

That sure sounds like the train is going to be routed over to Pueblo, doesn't it? I can't think of any other reason that such a big deal would be made of a meeting concerning the SW Chief and Pueblo.


----------



## DesertDude

I will be so happy if the SWC gets rerouted to Pueblo. Some rail fans may bemoan the added time on their trip through southeast Colorado, but serving the southern end of the Front Range could really boost ridership on the SWC. Whereas people in Colorado Springs (metro area of over a half million people) may have never considered taking Amtrak before, a stop in Pueblo means it's only a short drive for them to hop on a train to ABQ, etc.


----------



## greatcats

Hmmmm. This Pueblo event should have been taking place in the past hour. I am not opposed to a routing into that city, if it can be handled efficiently.


----------



## Eric S

The Pueblo Chieftan is reporting that the announcement mentioned in a post above is that the rails used in the rehabilitation of the route used by the SWC will come from a Pueblo-area company. Amtrak route upgrade means $8M boost for local economy

So, nothing about a reroute through Pueblo, other than a mention that it is still something that Pueblo-area officials are interested in accomplishing.


----------



## Chas

Correct, it is not the re-route at this time, but a local economic-development spin: rails for Kansas and eastern Colorado will be made at the steel mill in Pueblo.

And this:

Jack Rink, president of the Pueblo Economic Development Corp., said the jobs are welcome and fit in with PEDCO’s mission to make Pueblo a center for rail companies.

“PEDCO has identified rail as one the clusters we want to focus on,” Rink said, noting that several other companies are making rail products in Pueblo. “We’re out to promote to the rest of the country that your suppliers are in Pueblo County and you should be, too.”


----------



## greatcats

Thanks for the updates. I would consider this good news.


----------



## afigg

The 2015 TIGER grant award selections are being announced. The application for the SWC route in NM got picked. Next, more debate here over this... 

Senator Udall (D-NM) press release: NM Delegation Announces $15 Million to Upgrade Amtraks Southwest Chief Route. Excerpt:



> WASHINGTON - Today, U.S. Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich and U.S. Reps. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Steve Pearce and Ben Ray Luján announced that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has awarded $15,210,143 for the Southwest Chief Route Advancement and Improvement Project to continue essential upgrades to Amtrak's Southwest Chief line. The Southwest Chief runs from Chicago to Los Angeles and stops in several New Mexico communities, including Raton, Las Vegas, Lamy, Albuquerque and Gallup. Without funding for these essential repairs, the Southwest Chief could have been rerouted or abandoned entirely - a major economic loss to rural communities that depend on the service.


----------



## neroden

Bleah. Whatever. Gonna repeat what I said earlier:



> We don't have anything direct from BNSF, but we have several statements from various government agencies saying that BNSF has agreed to maintain the line. Yes, the whole thing.
> 
> Maybe BNSF will back out on that commitment; maybe they never made it. But as long as this is the impression of the government officials, then there's no pressure for a reroute. If BNSF decides to stop maintaining the line, the reroute plans will come back very very quickly.


Nothing has changed since then.


----------



## Palmetto

BNSF will maintain the route--IF they get paid to maintain the route. I wonder where the money will come from for ON-GOING maintenance.


----------



## Chas

Article on the $15.2 million grant for the Chief's route:

http://www.chieftain.com/news/4052773-120/million-rail-chief-colorad0

BY CHRIS WOODKA The Pueblo Chieftain

_Published: October 26, 2015;_ _Last modified: October 26, 2015 10:35PM_
A $15.2 million federal grant to repair some of the worst sections of the Southwest Chief passenger train route through three states has been approved.


Phase 2 of the project will cost $24.5 million and will include improvements in Colorado, Kansas and New Mexico so that Amtrak rail service can continue.


“Today, rural Colorado got a heck of a good deal,” said Rick Klein, La Junta city manager. “I feel confident we will be able to raise the funds and complete the whole job.”

La Junta was the sponsor for the Transportation Infrastructure Generating Economic Recovery grant.

The local match is more than $9.23 million, and includes $4 million from Amtrak, $2 million from BNSF Railway and $1 million from each of the states. The rest of the money is from cities and counties along the route.

“The funds raised within each state stay within the states,” Klein explained.

The TIGER grants are highly competitive, but officials were optimistic after Garden City, Kan., got a $12 million TIGER grant for the first part of the project in 2014.

Phase 1, a $22 million project began recently to replace bad sections of rail in Kansas and Colorado. Last week, local officials celebrated the $8 million contract for the steel rail won by EVRAZ steel mill in Pueblo.

Klein said about $30 million is needed to complete the entire three-state project. The strategy is to repair the worst sections of track first in order to allow passenger trains to travel at speeds of up to 80 mph.

*Just three years ago, Amtrak was looking at an alternative route to the south, because BNSF was unwilling to repair or maintain tracks entirely at its own cost. Since then, BNSF has agreed to maintain any new rail put in, essentially cutting the cost of replacement and repair in half.*

“This was a bipartisan, multistate effort,” said Sal Pace, chairman of Colorado’s Southwest Chief Commission. “The senators from all three states and Gov. John Hickenlooper all played a role in this. I really give credit to Rick Klein for taking the lead and holding this together.”

The grant was announced Monday by the offices of Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo.

“The Southwest Chief railway is an important transportation corridor and plays a vital role in stimulating local economies,” Bennet said. “Without these resources, the rail line could be discontinued or rerouted. This is exciting news for La Junta and for the surrounding communities that depend on the tourism and other economic benefits the train brings.”

“This is all about saving jobs,” Pace added. “These are necessary steps to the next goal of the commission, which is getting rail service for Pueblo.”

“The leadership of the folks in La Junta and Southern Colorado built upon the success of Kansas last year and the progress made in New Mexico this year,” said Marc Magliardi, Amtrak spokesman. “We are looking forward to continued success.”


----------



## VentureForth

Tried looking for the old, super long thread but I couldn't find it with search and gave up after the first 4 pages.

Since it's me that's not been around, you can flame me if this is already being discussed.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29099901/pueblo-seeks-southwest-chief-stop-amtrak-lines-future

- SWC supposed to stay on current route

- Pueblo wants a station

- Colorado wants to have a train from Pueblo to Denver

- Ski Train could return

Wow.


----------



## afigg

The Southwest Chief Re-Route? thread is not that difficult to find with a search for Southwest Chief.

The moderator may move your post (and my reply), but yes, with the announcement of the 2015 $15.2 million TIGER grant for track & signal maintenance and upgrades, the second TIGER grant awarded, the SWC is likely to stay on its current route. With a possible shift to run through Pueblo CO at some point, but that would cost money which may be difficult to line up.


----------



## JNaismith

Denver Post photo essay on track work on current SWC route in western KS and eastern CO

http://photos.denverpost.com/2015/11/07/amtraks-southwest-chief-train-photos/#1


----------



## Eric S

The population is certainly there for a successful intercity passenger rail service in the Fort Collins-Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo corridor (maybe extending north to Cheyenne and south into New Mexico). But, as is typically the case and *especially* here, freight rail congestion makes this a very long term and expensive proposition.


----------



## greatcats

Yes, I understand the route along the Colorado Front Range is congested with freight traffic, but the Raton Pass line certainly is not. Does anyone know if there was any truth to the post here or on Facebook that a week or so ago a freight was seen in the Raton Pass area? Or was somebody just stirring up rumors?


----------



## SWCABQ34

@greatcats As Far as I know I was reading there was a BNSF train that went over Trinidad. Plus BNSF crews are working to upgrade rail, ballast and ties between raton and rowe I heard.


----------



## SWCABQ34

Well I have a question why is there not a Southwest Chief thread since the title of this thread is SWC RE Route and we all know now the Chief will continue to rumble over Raton Pass for years to come...


----------



## johnm

wondering the same thing.... sitting in the LAUPT lounge awaiting the Chief right now... hopefully i dont get tossed outta bed crossing Kansas!


----------



## SWCABQ34

Johnm the track is slowly improving.


----------



## afigg

I was searching for links to 2016 TIGER VIII grant application news (FY2016 applications are due April 29) and found this memo document dated March 16, 2016 from CO DOT (7 page PDF) on planning for the TIGER VIII application for fixing up more of BNSF tracks. There is material there on TIGER and FASTLANE grants, including a TIGER application for a road project, but there is a useful summary of the funding breakdown, track work status, and proposed TIGER VIII requests on pages 4 & 5. 

All the track work funded by the TIGER 6 and 7 grants is to be completed by the end of 2016. Pretty dang quick compared to most of the HSIPR funded projects.



> Details
> TIGER 6: Garden City, KS was the applicant for 48 miles and 12 grade crossings to be repaired or replaced. A federal grant of $12.5 M was secured. Ten of the 48 miles in this project were constructed in Kansas in late 2015. The remainder, including five miles in Colorado, is expected to be completed by Summer 2016.
> 
> TIGER 7: La Junta, CO was the applicant for 61 miles and 13 grade crossings to be repaired or replaced. A federal grant of $15.2 M was secured. The award was announced in Oct.2015, and FRA initiated discussions with La Junta in Dec. 2015. Final project engineering and cost estimation are nearly completed. This has allowed final environmental clearance work to be initiated. The target is a mid-June 2016 notice-to-proceed, with construction completed by the end of 2016.
> 
> TIGER 8: With 38 of 51 miles of the remaining track replacement in Colorado, it has been proposed that Lamar, CO be the applicant city this year. BNSF has offered to pay the costs of assembling the application due to the short time available to assemble the materials. CDOT has been asked to pledge $1 M in matching funds.


The proposed TIGER 8 application would request $26.7 million in funding towards a total of $38 million with Amtrak & BNSF each contributing $4 million. Odds of getting the entire $26.7 million are probably long, do they have a fallback plan if the awarded grant is $12 to $15 million? Fewer miles of track repaired probably. Well, that is if they get an TIGER grant award at all this year.


----------

