# Southwest Chief reroute via Wichita and Amarillo?



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 13, 2018)

When I was on the LSL I met up with neroden and he mentioned an idea to reroute the SWC west of Kansas City via Wichita and Amarillo, TX. I forget all of the details (maybe he or anyone else can fill them in). It sounded like you can pick up a lot more population between Kansas City and Albuquerque and you would not lose time (Neroden said you can run the train faster along the specific route?) These are his words, not mine.

Certainly the idea of Wichita, one large area which does not have Amtrak right now, would be an upgrade to the SWC and if the Heartland Flyer ever does get extended north it can open up connections between the SWC and Texas. Neroden said he posted about this several years ago but I barely can search for my own old posts let alone his and I wouldn't know what key words to look for.

I would certainly be in favor as long as the timing remains close to the same as it is now and you know I am always about population, the more population we serve the better.


----------



## WICT106 (Jan 13, 2018)

One issue that I see is that this re-route would end service to Raton, NM, with all of the Scouts that use that station. That would result in less exposure to train travel, as for many Scouts, their first train trip is the one taken to Philmont. These Scouts would then have no exposure to train travel at all.

A second issue is wither or not there is any alternative transportation along the existing route, that could replace the SW Chief's service.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 13, 2018)

If you use the old ATSF San Francisco Chief route that would take care of KCY, Lawrence, Topeka, Newton, Wichita, and for sure Amarillo. The first current SWC stop listed after Newton is Gallup, NM. I believe neroden mentioned somehow backtracking somewhere to serve ABQ as no way would the SWC skip over them.

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track8/sanfranchief197104.html


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 13, 2018)

What's really needed is a second train using the suggested route. I know: it takes money and equipment for that. And BNSF wouldn't be all to pleased to have a passenger train on their very busy Southern Transcon line, either.


----------



## Anthony V (Jan 13, 2018)

A reroute of the SWC is not going to happen because some of the funds for track upgrades on its current route have been secured and such work began a few years ago. Due to this, the Chief will stay on it's present route for the foreseeable future, so don't get your hopes up.


----------



## neroden (Jan 14, 2018)

Yeah, I was mentioning this as an example of Amtrak wasting money on a genuinely inferior routing when a clearly better routing is available which would serve more people, attract more riders, get more income for Amtrak, be faster, and cost less -- simultaneously.

Those "track upgrades" are a one-time thing -- they don't come with maintenance funding, so the route will immediately start deteriorating again. I'd feel differently if the states or localities had actually committed to long-term maintenance. They didn't.

These would be the bypassed stations:

Newton (an exurb of Wichita, replaced with Wichita)

Hutchinson (also close enough to drive to Wichita -- closer than I am to Syracuse)

Dodge City

Garden City

Lamar

La Junta

Trinidad

Raton

Las Vegas

Lamy (everyone getting off here takes a connecting bus or car to Santa Fe; they can can take a connecting bus, car, or train from Albuquerque)

The stations which don't have obvious alternatives are...

Arrivals + depatures, yearly

Dodge City: 4895

Garden City: 7378

Lamar: 1879

La Junta: 7080

Trinidad: 5747 (but actually rising, unlike the others)

Raton: 16454 (the highest -- all boy scouts)

Las Vegas: 4851

Raton is all Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts going to Raton? Fewer and fewer each year -- it's a declining business, though it's still a lot for now.

The population of the Amarillo metro area is roughly 263,000. For comparison, Lynchburg, VA is 260,000, Champaign-Urbana is 238,000, and Erie PA is 276,000. Erie gets 16,000 passengers per year with wee-hours scheduling. Lynchburg gets 14,000 on the Crescent (again with poor scheduling) and 67000 on the Regionals (with good scheduling). Amarillo would have good scheduling. We can guess that Amarillo would at least replace the Raton passengers, but I would expect more. Champaign-Urbana has multiple trains so not a good comparison point, but it has 37,289 passengers on the CONO alone.

Wichita has 644,000 population. Similar-sized cities with one train per day include Toledo, Provo (5500 passengers, with awful timing), Lakeland (20,000 passengers), and Springfield MA (14,000 on the LSL, far more on the Regionals). OK, I guess it's not so easy to predict ridership here!

Newton gets 13,700 passengers most of whom are, anecdotally, from Wichita. Hutchnison gets 4691. I would expect Wichita to retain the sum of these two numbers, conservatively.

So I guess based on current numbers the current route may still have more ridership -- if we're pessimistic about the uptake in Amarillo and Wichita, and we don't add enough other stations, the reroute might reduce the passenger count.

It might be worth comparing the population of the minor cities on the San Francisco Chief route -- these are larger cities than the ones on the existing route:

Woodward, OK

Pampa, TX

Hereford, TX

Friona, TX

Clovis, NM

Also, people would drive from Lubbock. Trinidad is currently getting people driving from Pueblo and even Colorado Springs. Portales, NM is within driving distance of Clovis (and arguably Hereford and Friona are within driving distance of Clovis and Amarillo respectively).

If I were in a position to make a serious proposal, and I lived in that part of the country, I'd work up a business case, because I think it does turn out better -- partly because the trip is faster, partly because Amtrak doesn't have to maintain 500 miles of track, and partly because there is growth potential along the Amarillo route and not along the Raton route.

I have other priorities, though, living in upstate NY...

On reviewing this, I find that there's even lower-hanging fruit on the Southwest Chief route. It passes through Emporia, KS without a station. Every single city on the portion of the route from Newton to Lamy -- the portion I would prefer to reroute -- is either the same size as Emporia (Garden City and Dodge City) or much smaller than Emporia (the rest).


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 14, 2018)

As Anthony V pointed out, there was a reason the La Junta Subdivision was spruced up: BNSF won't allow a passenger train on its Southern Transcon route. Unfortunate, but that's the story. If you recall, they also got the Southwest Chief off that route and asked Amtrak to move the train over to the less-used Mendota Sub between Chicago and Galesburg. Unless there is a total collapse of freight traffic, I don't think we'll ever see a regular passenger train on the City of San Francisco route, even if money and equipment were available to do so.


----------



## Anthony V (Jan 14, 2018)

The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.


----------



## daybeers (Jan 14, 2018)

Neroden, how do you find the ridership for specific routes for stations? I only know how to find the total ridership for an entire route or the combined ridership of all trains serving a particular station.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jan 14, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> As Anthony V pointed out, there was a reason the La Junta Subdivision was spruced up: BNSF won't allow a passenger train on its Southern Transcon route. Unfortunate, but that's the story. If you recall, they also got the Southwest Chief off that route and asked Amtrak to move the train over to the less-used Mendota Sub between Chicago and Galesburg. Unless there is a total collapse of freight traffic, I don't think we'll ever see a regular passenger train on the City of San Francisco route, even if money and equipment were available to do so.


Not only did they ask, they built a connecting track in part to allow that type of move.


----------



## neroden (Jan 14, 2018)

Anthony V said:


> The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.


Well, to hell with them, bluntly. What's so special about them that they get special treatment?

They're already depopulating. There are plenty of other larger cities with no other transportation options other than driving, such as:

Woodward, OK

Pampa, TX

Hereford, TX

Friona, TX

Clovis, NM

In short, *you have not made an argument*. The cities I listed are just as deserving as the ones on the existing route.

"Boy Scouts go to Raton so it punches above its weight" is a valid argument.

"North Dakota High Line cities punch above their weight because the roads close in the winter, unlike in other areas" is a valid argument.

What you said is NOT an argument, because it doesn't explain why these particular cities should get better treatment than Ithaca, NY (population >100,000) or Emporia KS (actually *on* the existing line and with no station) which have the same problems with sky-high airfare and long drives.


----------



## neroden (Jan 14, 2018)

daybeers said:


> Neroden, how do you find the ridership for specific routes for stations? I only know how to find the total ridership for an entire route or the combined ridership of all trains serving a particular station.


Oh. NARP provides the ridership statistics for stations, but quite conveniently, in *this year's reports*, they have also broken out what portion of that ridership is on the so-called "long distance" trains. (Which is typically only one train.) So I can get the LSL numbers for Springfield, MA. But I can't break out ridership on the Vermonter vs. the Shuttles.


----------



## neroden (Jan 14, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> As Anthony V pointed out, there was a reason the La Junta Subdivision was spruced up: BNSF won't allow a passenger train on its Southern Transcon route.


They would allow it now. Management has changed twice since the last time they actually refused; they've been a lot more friendly since Matt Rose and then Carl Ice took over.

More importantly, they will soon have double-tracked the entire route. The technical reason for wanting the passenger trains off the route in the Southwest was the single-tracked sections between Wichita and Belen, which messed up capacity. They're nearly done double-tracking from Wichita to Belen; I think there's just a little bit in Oklahoma left, which is scheduled to get done this year or next.

I would expect a hard requirement for each station of platforms on both sides located on passenger sidings, which has become the normal request from CSX and NS. It avoids dispatching problems: no stopping on the mainline, no crossing opposing traffic.



> Unfortunate, but that's the story. If you recall, they also got the Southwest Chief off that route and asked Amtrak to move the train over to the less-used Mendota Sub between Chicago and Galesburg.


BNSF runs lots of freight on the Mendota Sub too. This was part of a deliberate traffic bifurcation strategy, with fast trains on the former BN route and slower trains on the former Santa Fe route. Of course the BN route had permanent and substantial passenger traffic because of Metra, and triple tracking as far as Aurora, so there were economies of scale involved; this benefited Amtrak in several ways. The approach from Joliet to Chicago was a delay nightmare due to all the diamonds, and the approach from Aurora to Chicago usually runs fast. The main disadvantage was the loss of Chillicothe as a station for Peoria; apart from that there's probably more population on the ex-BN route.
I should repeat that I'd be fine with the existing routing if the states and localities were actually paying the costs to keep it open. Which they are not. Bunch of cheapskates in rural Kansas and New Mexico. Paying to fix it up once, following which it will immmediately start deteriorating again, is NOT paying to keep it going. Vermont pays to maintain its tracks; so do Massachusetts and New York.


----------



## Pere Flyer (Jan 14, 2018)

Why not have a second frequency of SWC on the transcon?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 14, 2018)

Pere Flyer said:


> Why not have a second frequency of SWC on the transcon?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Same reason as always... $$$$$$$$$$


----------



## railiner (Jan 15, 2018)

neroden said:


> > Unfortunate, but that's the story. If you recall, they also got the Southwest Chief off that route and asked Amtrak to move the train over to the less-used Mendota Sub between Chicago and Galesburg.
> 
> 
> BNSF runs lots of freight on the Mendota Sub too. This was part of a deliberate traffic bifurcation strategy, with fast trains on the former BN route and slower trains on the former Santa Fe route. Of course the BN route had permanent and substantial passenger traffic because of Metra, and triple tracking as far as Aurora, so there were economies of scale involved; this benefited Amtrak in several ways. The approach from Joliet to Chicago was a delay nightmare due to all the diamonds, and the approach from Aurora to Chicago usually runs fast. The main disadvantage was the loss of Chillicothe as a station for Peoria; apart from that there's probably more population on the ex-BN route.
> .


Not to mention, the former BN route is 15 miles shorter to Galesburg from Chicago, than the ATSF route....and Amtrak was able to close GBA, a staffed station...


----------



## cirdan (Jan 15, 2018)

neroden said:


> In short, *you have not made an argument*. The cities I listed are just as deserving as the ones on the existing route.
> 
> "Boy Scouts go to Raton so it punches above its weight" is a valid argument.
> 
> ...


I don't think you can make a rule and say, every city above a given size should get Amtrak service, or every city below a certain size should be denied it. The real situation is much more complex than that. People don't just ride a train for the sake of riding a train and you don't satisfy a need just by providing a train - any train. Rather, you have to look at what other cities people living in a given city actually need to travel to the most, and ask whether the proposed train makes any meaningful contribution towards that.

Often travel patterns develop for a reason. Somebody may live or have parents in city A but go to college or have a job in city B, precisely because they can actually get from one of those cities to the other. So in other words people use a train and have become reliant on the train because the train has been there for long enough to support those patterns.

This isn't always the case of course, and ypu can't always just assume thinghs, but have to look at and survey the actual passengers and potential passengers. But saying the city has this number of inhabitants and is therefore more deserving of a train servive than a city with fewer inhabitants may be simplifying the situation too far.


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 15, 2018)

Don't get me wrong: I'd like to see another train on the Transcon. Neroden: do you have inside info that BNSF is more willing now than in the past to let Amtrak onto the Transcon east of Dalies? As it is, BTW, the Southwest Chief is on the Transcon for about 750 miles between Dalies and Los Angeles.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 15, 2018)

cirdan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > In short, *you have not made an argument*. The cities I listed are just as deserving as the ones on the existing route.
> ...


I think "deserving" is the wrong word but the question IMO is who can benefit Amtrak the most, who can contribute the most R&R. Agreed, it isn't always about the most population, some cities/towns do outperform their population, college towns do have a tendency to do so. On the other hand, it is hard to beat cities with large populations and it's pretty hard to justify Lamar. 

To me, if the SWC reroute will increase R & R while not significantly affecting costs, runtime, or performance, I say do it. You shouldn't not do because damnit those 2,000 riders per year in Lamar we lose in Lamar are important! What about the riders in Wichita and Amarillo we would gain? If you think we won't have a net gain overall by doing this, of course we shouldn't do it. But if we would, why not?


----------



## Eric S (Jan 15, 2018)

Anthony V said:


> The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.


How many of the communities that would lose intercity rail service (between Hutchinson and Lamy) do not have commercial air service or intercity bus service? Off the top of my head, Dodge City, Garden City, Hutchinson, Raton, and Trinidad do. Not sure about La Junta, Lamar, Lamy, and Las Vegas.


----------



## Anthony V (Jan 15, 2018)

Eric S said:


> Anthony V said:
> 
> 
> > The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.
> ...


They may have commercial air service, but due to limited competition in those markets, it is VERY expensive compared to flights out of major cities. Having train service allows those in those small towns to have an affordable way, without the hassle of driving hundreds of miles, to get to the nearest major city airport so they can take advantage of the bigger city's lower airfares.


----------



## Eric S (Jan 15, 2018)

Anthony V said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony V said:
> ...


Yes, commercial air service to Dodge City and Garden City may well usually (or always) be rather expensive. Intercity bus service to those cities, as well as to Hutchinson, Raton, and Trinidad, generally is not. So the only communities "cut off" by re-routing the SWC would be La Junta, Lamar, Lamy, and Las Vegas (although Las Vegas does have regional bus service on weekdays).

And I'd be rather surprised if there's a nontrivial number of passengers boarding in, say, Lamar, and riding the SWC to Albuquerque or Kansas City to connect with commercial air service. Amtrak's LD service is not particularly conducive to air/rail multimodal journeys. If linking these communities with commercial air service in, what?, Albuquerque, Denver, and perhaps Wichita is a major concern, intercity bus service that directly connects to airports and is timed to facilitate an air/bus journey would probably be a much better goal to work toward rather than opposing a move of the SWC to the southern route.

Of course, having said all that, I can't really see the SWC moving from the northern route to the southern route anytime remotely soon.


----------



## neroden (Jan 15, 2018)

Anthony V said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony V said:
> ...


 So? The same is true of Ithaca, NY. Ever looked up airfare out here? By your NON-argument, we should reroute the Lake Shore Limited through Ithaca. Stop making non-arguments.

And the same is true of the cities which are currently bypassed because they're on the route via Amarillo. Really, Anthony, you're *not making an argument*.


----------



## neroden (Jan 15, 2018)

Eric S said:


> Of course, having said all that, I can't really see the SWC moving from the northern route to the southern route anytime remotely soon.


It'll happen as soon as the refurbished tracks deteriorate again. How long is the patch-up job good for?

Next time it starts falling apart, all these "cities" will have even smaller populations, less money, less support from their state governments (because smaller populations), and fewer Boy Scouts going to Philmont. They barely scraped together the money this time.

Do you see a trend which might reverse this? I don't. There are no signs of any growth on the horizon for anything on the northern route.


----------



## neroden (Jan 15, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> Don't get me wrong: I'd like to see another train on the Transcon. Neroden: do you have inside info that BNSF is more willing now than in the past to let Amtrak onto the Transcon east of Dalies? As it is, BTW, the Southwest Chief is on the Transcon for about 750 miles between Dalies and Los Angeles.


And it's also on the Transcon from Emporia, KS to Galesburg!

It's not inside info, it's public info. The main BNSF objection was always due to the single-track sections on the Transcon, which is a legitimate objection. It wasn't like the bogus objections we hear from CSX.

Double-tracking Vaughn (a huge project completed in 2015) is one of the changes which would make them more amenable now; double tracking Fort Sumner, done next, was another. The remaining single-track bridge near Alva, OK sees less traffic (due to freights heading from Amarillo towards the rest of Texas), but if they wanted that double-tracked too before they'd consider a passenger train, I wouldn't be surprised.

And again, to be clear, I *would* expect them to demand passenger sidings and platforms on both sides for each station; this has become the standard demand of both NS and CSX for all new stations on mainline, and it's actually a very reasonable demand in dispatching terms. Those stations with platforms on one side, of which there are many, create a headache for the dispatchers. (I expect BNSF is glad to get rid of Williams Junction.)


----------



## ainamkartma (Jan 16, 2018)

Eric S said:


> Anthony V said:
> 
> 
> > The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.
> ...


Lamy is the train station for Santa Fe, which does have (very expensive) air service.

Santa Fe also has a commuter train connection to ABQ, but it is not coordinated at all with the SWC and is not practical for making reliable connections due to its limited hours of service.

Ainamkartma


----------



## west point (Jan 20, 2018)

This proposal does acknowledge the lack of equipment problems. A second train would be too much demand for equipment. A reroute does seem to neglect the present route. Instead if equipment can be allocated why not run a separate sections Newton <> ABQ ? Make it trains 23 and 24. That would be similar to the Builders 27 & 28. Just split off enough equipment to run on the southern transcon from Newton and ABQ and combine trains at ABQ & Newton ?

You would probably get enough additional revenue for the southern intermediate stations to beyond ABQ & NEW stations to at least break even. Only additional operating costs would then be track charges, 2 additional T&E per trip based at ABQ and NEW, The southern transcon route is quicker so the 23 & 24 would be waiting for regular Chief to recombine.

Agree that multiple platforms would be necessary. As the cities on the southern route get their platforms stops could be instituted. Another advantage is if either route becomes blocked for any reason the whole train could use the other route.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 20, 2018)

So trains splitting and re-merging? We have the LSL and EB splits but no trains splitting off and then coming together but it is intriguing. Is there any precedent for doing so? Interesting concept. Could it be applied to other routes?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jan 20, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> So trains splitting and re-merging? We have the LSL and EB splits but no trains splitting off and then coming together but it is intriguing. Is there any precedent for doing so? Interesting concept. Could it be applied to other routes?


Technically the Empire Builder and North Coast Limited worked in a similar way to this, running combined from Chicago to Minneapolis and Spokane to Portland. This is also how it worked for the Mainstreeter and the Western Star, the secondary streamliners on the NP and GN.
As far as I know, this practice continued into BN days.


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 21, 2018)

neroden said:


> Anthony V said:
> 
> 
> > The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.
> ...


I believe that the argument being made is that the many of the smaller towns have little or no public transportation options especially during winter. . People in the larger cities do


----------



## neroden (Jan 21, 2018)

dlagrua said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony V said:
> ...


Sure, and AS I WROTE IN THE QUOTED MESSAGE, the smaller towns which I listed on the Amarillo route have the same problem.

Again, I repeat, *this is not an argument* for one route over the other.


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 21, 2018)

It would be nice to have "both/and" rather than "either/or", for sure. But as I stated before, the host railroad--BNSF--doesn't want Amtrak on their Southern Transcon. They tolerate Amtrak on it now because there's really no alternative like the one through Glorieta Pass. [A pretty ride, BTW.] Now, I have not seen this stance in any official BNSF document; but there's been a lot of talk about the matter elsewhere.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jan 21, 2018)

neroden said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


However, people living in the communities along the current route have come to expect to have Amtrak as a transportation option. Anyone living in the towns along the proposed routing chooses to live there knowing that train service is not available. If ridership along the other route would be significantly higher, I could understand moving the train over, but if it is not a large difference I think the current route should be retained. Another consideration is that the Raton Pass route would likely be abandoned if the Southwest Chief was moved away, essentially eliminating any possibility of restored service or a new route such as Denver-Albuquerque.


----------



## Rover (Jan 22, 2018)

cirdan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > In short, *you have not made an argument*. The cities I listed are just as deserving as the ones on the existing route.
> ...


Nothing is guaranteed with Amtrak service.

Sh*t happens. Hurricanes happen. Long service interruptions happen.

But freight comes before passengers. In the USA.


----------



## E60JPC (Jan 22, 2018)

A hypothetical compromise could be to run the Southwest Chief on the current route between Holliday Jct., KS and Dailies Jct., NM via La Junta, CO and Albuquerque, NM 4 days/week (e.g. Su, Mo, We, Fr) and over the Transcon between Holliday Jct., KS and Dailies Jct., NM via Amarillo, TX and Belen, NM the remaining 3 days/week (e.g. Tu, Th, Sa). This assumes, of course, that BNSF Railway would be more amenable to a compromise train via Amarillo 3 days/week rather than daily. Passengers bound for Santa Fe, NM and Albuquerque, NM the 3 days/week the train would operate via Amarillo could change to a New Mexico Rail Runner train at Belen, NM.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jan 22, 2018)

E60JPC said:


> A hypothetical compromise could be to run the Southwest Chief on the current route between Holliday Jct., KS and Dailies Jct., NM via La Junta, CO and Albuquerque, NM 4 days/week (e.g. Su, Mo, We, Fr) and over the Transcon between Holliday Jct., KS and Dailies Jct., NM via Amarillo, TX and Belen, NM the remaining 3 days/week (e.g. Tu, Th, Sa). This assumes, of course, that BNSF Railway would be more amenable to a compromise train via Amarillo 3 days/week rather than daily. Passengers bound for Santa Fe, NM and Albuquerque, NM the 3 days/week the train would operate via Amarillo could change to a New Mexico Rail Runner train at Belen, NM.


Even if the train was rerouted it would likely still stop in Albuquerque due to the high volume of passengers as well as the need to service the train there.


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 23, 2018)

Currently, there is no connection in Belen to allow for a run up to ABQ. Nor is there one for the train to continue west on the Transcon from the current Belen station. There's room for one though, it seems, so not an insurmountable logistics problem, and I assume in the ATSF days, there used to be a connection from a Belen station track to the main line.


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking (Jan 25, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> It would be nice to have "both/and" rather than "either/or", for sure. But as I stated before, the host railroad--BNSF--doesn't want Amtrak on their Southern Transcon. They tolerate Amtrak on it now because there's really no alternative like the one through Glorieta Pass. [A pretty ride, BTW.] Now, I have not seen this stance in any official BNSF document; but there's been a lot of talk about the matter elsewhere.


I would like to clear up misconception on population that has been expressed. The population of Amarillo is 200,000 proper and the metro area is almost another 200,000. Lubbock population is 225,000 and its metro is another 200,000. That is a total over 800,000. Facts you may not be aware of-- 1.The state of New Mexico has done nothing to install PTC regarding the rails and signaling. No monies budgeted for this year or next. 2. Their operational contract ends in September of 2018. After Dec. 31.2018 Amtrak will travel only on Fully Compliant PTC rails-- the wreck in Washington state settled that. I ask you a question-- Where does that leave Amtrak?


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 26, 2018)

Terminate in La Junta westbound, and Winslow eastbound?


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking (Jan 26, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> Terminate in La Junta westbound, and Winslow eastbound?


WHY?


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 26, 2018)

Because New Mexico has done nothing to install PTC, according to you. Am I wrong to deduce, then, that Amtrak would not be allowed to run through New Mexico on non-PTC territory?

And why did you quote me to explain your facts? My post had nothing to do with the populations of Amarillo nor Lubbock.


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking (Jan 26, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> Because New Mexico has done nothing to install PTC, according to you. Am I wrong to deduce, then, that Amtrak would not be allowed to run through New Mexico on non-PTC territory?
> 
> And why did you quote me to explain your facts? My post had nothing to do with the populations of Amarillo nor Lubbock.


yes, you are completely wrong ---After the Washington wreck of Amtrak one of the senators on the Transportation committee reported they had or were going to submit a bill that would prohibit Amtrak from operating on non PTC routes after Dec.31,2018. Now have they done that? Only time will tell. There is only two states that that would effect, New Mexico and one other state. Earlier posts on this thread were on subject of population and you were one of those. ONLY the federal gov't. will tell Amtrak where the can or cannot go.


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 26, 2018)

The 3 Ducks Quacking said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > Because New Mexico has done nothing to install PTC, according to you. Am I wrong to deduce, then, that Amtrak would not be allowed to run through New Mexico on non-PTC territory?
> ...


If you say so.


----------



## jis (Jan 26, 2018)

The PTC law says that beyond the end of 2018 certain types of trains including passenger trains are prohibited from operating on lines with no PTC, barring certain exceptions (which BTW the segment between La Junta and Lamy would fall under). It also provides FRA with considerable latitude to grant exceptions on a case by case basis. So no, things are not as cut and dried as some seem to believe here.

My educated guess is that no service will be halted for the lack of PTC come Jan 1, 2019.


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 27, 2018)

Thanks for that clarification. It would be interesting to learn just where Amtrak is operating on lines NOW that are PTC-equipped.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 27, 2018)

The 3 Ducks Quacking said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > Because New Mexico has done nothing to install PTC, according to you. Am I wrong to deduce, then, that Amtrak would not be allowed to run through New Mexico on non-PTC territory?
> ...


What's the other state?


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking (Jan 27, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> Thanks for that clarification. It would be interesting to learn just where Amtrak is operating on lines NOW that are PTC-equipped.


BNSF currently has theirs on their web site.


----------



## neroden (Jan 27, 2018)

BNSF is much more transparent and straightforward than most of the other Class Is. UP doesn't publish their PTC status in detail, though rumor has it that over half is done. Last I read, there is NO working PTC on NS, CSX, or CN. Not sure about CP.

I continue to assert that BNSF has no particular interest in having Amtrak run on a route which they barely use any more, want to get rid of, but are somehow still stuck owning.

I'm pretty sure they would happily move Amtrak over to the Southern Transcon once it's double-tracked (and with appropriate standards for station design, as I said, passenger sidings and platforms on both sides, and of course funding for the trackwork at Belen and so forth).

I don't think "we might want Denver-Albuqerque service eventually, so we need to keep running a train over Raton Pass" is a good argument for hobbling the Southwest Chief. If we actually had some sort of movement towards Denver-Albuquerque service, that would be different, but we don't. Colorado can't even be convinced to run service from Denver to Fort Collins, and this is with a relatively pro-public-transport administration. Out of state service is something they won't even look at.

There is currently a PTC waiver for routes with a "de minimis" number of passenger trains per day. I don't know how long that's going to last, but it's not a good thing to rely on; that sort of waiver has a tendency to shrink over time.


----------



## Rover (Jan 27, 2018)

I think that Albuquerque should have service, just for the sake of this:


----------



## jis (Jan 27, 2018)

I am almost certain that there will be no PTC required if the max speed is below some threshold.

Also note that just because a track is equipped for PTC does not mean every train running on that tracks is running under PTC. At present and even past 1/1/19 PTC will not become a universally mandatory item. There will be exceptions to deal with operations under failure conditions under some enforced restrictions, like max speed allowed etc. Considering how rickety most of the PTC implementations are, absent such the whole system would grind to a standstill.


----------



## neroden (Jan 30, 2018)

It's a pity the complete fools running the US railroads didn't just adopt off-the-shelf ERTMS/ETCS, which was *already debugged* and is quickly becoming the worldwide standard (China is using a very slight variant). It's quite stable and has been for years.


----------



## jis (Jan 30, 2018)

India is going whole hog ERTMS Level 2 for the entire network. It was declared as policy. It also plans to electrify 24,400 rt kms in five years, which is almost unbelievable. But even if they actually do half of that it is still phenomenal.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden (Jan 30, 2018)

India puts us to shame. We live in an underdeveloped, backwards country.


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking (Feb 5, 2018)

neroden said:


> India puts us to shame. We live in an underdeveloped, backwards country.


No we put own selves to shame by not standing up and enforcing what our forefathers gave us. We gave opportunity for the Super Conducting Maglev to be dreamed and designed in our country, but because of politics it was developed and commercialized in Japan. That was the first generation of superconducting Maglev. The same inventors designed a 2nd generation of Superconducting maglev and were in process of development and were meeting same obstacles as before. ( Politics) One has died.


----------



## jis (Feb 5, 2018)

What has Superconducting Maglev got to do with enhancing safety of operation of railroads completely beats me I am afraid.


----------



## bretton88 (Feb 7, 2018)

neroden said:


> BNSF is much more transparent and straightforward than most of the other Class Is. UP doesn't publish their PTC status in detail, though rumor has it that over half is done. Last I read, there is NO working PTC on NS, CSX, or CN. Not sure about CP.
> 
> I continue to assert that BNSF has no particular interest in having Amtrak run on a route which they barely use any more, want to get rid of, but are somehow still stuck owning.
> 
> ...


To note, UP does give quarterly updates on their PTC status. You can find them on the UP website or Facebook page. They claim to be on pace for the end of 2018 deadline. This is from November. What we don't know is where Amtrak stands in getting their fleet equipped to work with these systems.pdf_up_media_nov_2017_ptc.pdf
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## neroden (Feb 10, 2018)

Oh, cool. Thanks for the link to the UP updates! That makes them about as transparent as BNSF.

The eastern roads are still way behind.

So, interestingly, three major Amtrak segments appear to have exemptions from PTC: the middle of the Coast Starlight route between SF and LA, the middle of the Denver to Salt Lake route across the mountains, and part of the Texas Eagle route through Missouri.

On BNSF, they've already installed PTC almost everywhere that Amtrak runs -- the exception is the Raton Pass route from somewhere west of Newton to Albuquerque.

These omissions are irritatingly penny-wise/pound-foolish, but they don't compare to the situation on CSX, NS, and CN, which appear to have no tracks where PTC is implemented. CSX and CN don't even have status pages (at least NS is advertising how many radios they've installed and how many locomotives they have ready).


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking (Feb 10, 2018)

Regarding the Raton Pass segment ,BNSF ownership ends at Lamy (does not extend to Albuquerque) From Lamy into Albuquerque is the ownership of the state of New Mexico. The part from Lamy west 22 miles is an area they want to forget about Only Amtrak uses it twice a day,


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking (Feb 17, 2018)

jis said:


> I am almost certain that there will be no PTC required if the max speed is below some threshold.
> 
> Also note that just because a track is equipped for PTC does not mean every train running on that tracks is running under PTC. At present and even past 1/1/19 PTC will not become a universally mandatory item. There will be exceptions to deal with operations under failure conditions under some enforced restrictions, like max speed allowed etc. Considering how rickety most of the PTC implementations are, absent such the whole system would grind to a standstill.


Now that Mr. Anderson has spoken to Congress. What do you think and why?


----------



## jis (Feb 17, 2018)

There will be quite a bit of track that will continue to operate under waiver. Mr. Anderson has relatively little leverage over the owners of the tracks. Many of them are making good progress, but there will remain track segments that don’t quite make it that will be granted waivers by the FRA and Amtrak will continue to operate on them.

The exempt trackage that has been identified will remain exempt unless Mr. Anderson wants to spend his resources installing PTC on them to run a single train of his in each direction on them.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## The 3 Ducks Quacking (Feb 17, 2018)

jis said:


> There will be quite a bit of track that will continue to operate under waiver. Mr. Anderson has relatively little leverage over the owners of the tracks. Many of them are making good progress, but there will remain track segments that don’t quite make it that will be granted waivers by the FRA and Amtrak will continue to operate on them.
> 
> The exempt trackage that has been identified will remain exempt unless Mr. Anderson wants to spend his resources installing PTC on them to run a single train of his in each direction on them.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Have you read what Mr. Anderson told congress?


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 21, 2018)

Caprock chief. Heartland Flyer to Newton. Problem solved.


----------



## jis (Mar 21, 2018)

The 3 Ducks Quacking said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > There will be quite a bit of track that will continue to operate under waiver. Mr. Anderson has relatively little leverage over the owners of the tracks. Many of them are making good progress, but there will remain track segments that don’t quite make it that will be granted waivers by the FRA and Amtrak will continue to operate on them.
> ...


Yes I did. He basically said he will not operate trains illegally, and he will take some extra precautions for operating trains on trackage that are legal but do not have full PTC. That is exactly what he is doing.


----------

