# Raton Pass Route vs. Transcon



## Guest_Tom_* (Aug 18, 2008)

Which route would be faster for the Southwest Chief? It seems like the Transcon Route would be much faster since all the BNSF trains use it from LA to Chicago. If the Chief used the southern route, a bus connection could serve Albuqurque from Belen. Could this work?


----------



## AlanB (Aug 18, 2008)

One probably wouldn't even need a bus connection between Belen and ABQ, as I believe that they can get the train up to ABQ without much hassle from the Transcon. They did it two years ago during a period where heavy snow closed the passes in Raton.

However, such a detour would cut out one of the more scenic parts of the trip and probably only save a few hours in running time overall. And that also assumes that BNSF actually wants Amtrak on the transcon at that point.


----------



## gswager (Aug 18, 2008)

The Raton track (from ABQ to Trinidad via Lamy, Las Vegas, and Raton) is now owned by state of New Mexico. BNSF wants to get out of that area because it is no longer needed because of more efficient Transcon. Rest of Colorado and Kansas is owned by BNSF.

Some days there will be commuter trains between ABQ and Denver. It could be 30 to whenever years you think it may happened.

As for Belen and ABQ track, there is a wye in trackyard area as it was mentioned on trip report.


----------



## Guest_Tom_* (Aug 18, 2008)

A time savings of ONLY a few hours? About how many hours are we talking about here? If the Transcon route saves much more time, it could be wise to route it on that route, even at the expense of less scenery.


----------



## JohnF (Aug 18, 2008)

Guest_Tom_* said:


> A time savings of ONLY a few hours? About how many hours are we talking about here? If the Transcon route saves much more time, it could be wise to route it on that route, even at the expense of less scenery.


The so called "transcon" is totally plugged with freight traffic and would be a poor choice for the SWC. If you have ever been out there you are virtually never out of site of a headlight. It's basically nonstop action day and night. Back when the AT&SF ran all the passenger trains a section of the Grand Canyon and the San Francisco Chief both ran via the transcon via Amarillo and Belen bypassing Albuquerque. Timing for the SFC between Newton and Gallup was about 15 hours. The Chief, Super Chief and El Capitan via Raton took almost the same amount of time.....15 hours. So there would be no saving of time to reroute the SWC. And......if you took the SWC up to Albuquerque from Belen, something the San Francisco Chief did not do, it would actually lengthen the timing.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 18, 2008)

Frankly it's not even really the fact that the Transcon is too busy that it would slow down Amtrak because of freight interferance. The simple fact is that the route isn't any faster and is in fact slightly longer than the current route. I hope that George Harris won't mind my requoting his old post.



George Harris said:


> For General Information:
> In the Nov. 1956 Official Guide, the distance Kansas City to Albuquerque was shown as 933.0 miles via Topeka, Amarillo, Belen and the San Francisco Chief took 17 hours 20 minutes each way. The Passenger Route through La Junta was shown as 902.0 miles KC to Albuq., again via Topeka, 15 miles less via the Ottawa cutoff, and the Super Chief took 15 hours 30 minutes westbound and 15 hours 10 minutes, bypassing Topeka.


And none of what has been discussed so far deals with the issue and costs of building/refurbishing the train stations on the Transcon.


----------



## abqdave (Aug 18, 2008)

It would be nice to have faster service whenever possible, but faster doesn't outweigh abandoning communities. Would we want to add another mid/large city to the list that our national passenger railroad system does not serve? (Not to rant too much about this, but doesn't it already reflect very poorly on us that we have no direct service to some of our biggest and most important cities...Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Francisco, etc.)...

BTW, I couldn't find a map of exactly which line in the BNSF system is the Transcon. Does it...continue straight past Belen to Vaughn, then go northeast towards Chicago from there?

One issue about the ABQ-Raton route I wonder about is what will happen to the Lamy stop when the Rail Runner is up and running. As many of you are probably aware, the new line to Santa Fe branches off the former BNSF tracks at Waldo Canyon, directly south of Santa Fe, then continues north in the I-25 median. There are going to be 7-8 trains a day initially and service will start in December.

Will Amtrak keep Lamy, or just close it and tell passengers to connect to Santa Fe via Albuquerque? If you are going from LA-Chicago, it would make sense to get off at the Alvarado Transit Center/Amtrak complex in ABQ and just catch the commuter train to Santa Fe. Coming from Chicago-LA, it wouldn't be as good...you would have to travel 80-90 minutes from Lamy to ABQ, then transfer and go another 80-90 minutes back up to Santa Fe via Rail Runner. Also, initially, there will be no Sunday Rail Runner service.

I don't know what the numbers are like of people boarding/disembarking at Lamy, but I would imagine it is not too large. Santa Fe is not a large city, although it does have a lot of tourists visit it. If the numbers were cut in half (assuming everyone coming from LA will take the Rail Runner), would Amtrak keep Lamy open?


----------



## sechs (Aug 18, 2008)

A useful reference

I believe that both of the routes in question are in the Kansas and Southwest divisions.


----------



## Guest_Tom_* (Aug 19, 2008)

But if the Transcon route is slower, why does BNSF route all of its trains on that route?


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 19, 2008)

Guest_Tom_* said:


> But if the Transcon route is slower, why does BNSF route all of its trains on that route?


Elevation may be one reason. It is not as great an altitude to climb going that way.

I have copied the 1968 ATSF national map and California - Chicago ATSF passenger schedules if anyone is interested. They are rather big files, too big to put in this thread. If any one would want them to look at, PM me and I'll email them to you. The map also has altitude info on it for the entire routes.


----------



## JohnF (Aug 19, 2008)

Guest_Tom_* said:


> But if the Transcon route is slower, why does BNSF route all of its trains on that route?


Simply because the grades over Raton approach 3% and thus require helpers for most all freight trains going over the pass. In other words it's cheaper, much cheaper to route freight via the low gradient route through Amarillo and Belen. Passenger trains are able to tackle the Raton grade because they are lighter and don't require helpers. At times BNSF would try and route some trains over the pass, particularly when the transcon was blocked with a derailment or when they had major maintenance scheduled, but now they route nothing over Raton. Rerouting requires crews that know the route, etc. and they just don't have any stationed along that route anymore.


----------



## printman2000 (Aug 19, 2008)

I think the biggest and most important reason to reroute the SWC on the transcon is that is would then serve Amarillo! You know how many people I have talked to who would love to use Amtrak, but probably never will since the closest station is 4 hours away?

I have personally talked to the owner of of our old Sante Fe passenger depot and he is very open to the idea of using it for Amtrak. Back when there was talk of the Caprock Express, they were planning on using it.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 19, 2008)

In addition to the altitude issue, I believe that the other main reason that the freight goes via the transcon is that the transcon is all two track railroad and in many places three or even four track RR. By contrast most of the route used by Amtrak is single and double track only.

So if BNSF were to start sending freights over Raton, in addition to the added expense of switching helper units on and off, you'd have many more meets in sidings slowing down things considerably.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 19, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> I think the biggest and most important reason to reroute the SWC on the transcon is that is would then serve Amarillo! You know how many people I have talked to who would love to use Amtrak, but probably never will since the closest station is 4 hours away?
> I have personally talked to the owner of of our old Sante Fe passenger depot and he is very open to the idea of using it for Amtrak. Back when there was talk of the Caprock Express, they were planning on using it.


But you would serve Amarilo at the expense of (not) serving KC! I think there are less people in the Amarilo area than there are in the KC area!


----------



## printman2000 (Aug 19, 2008)

the_traveler said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the biggest and most important reason to reroute the SWC on the transcon is that is would then serve Amarillo! You know how many people I have talked to who would love to use Amtrak, but probably never will since the closest station is 4 hours away?
> ...


I am pretty sure that a reroute through Amarillo would still include Kansas City.


----------



## printman2000 (Aug 19, 2008)

Frm a quick look at BNSF's maps, it looks like the stops that would be lost...

Lamy, NM

Las Vegas, NM

Raton, NM

Trinidad, CO

La Junta, CO

Lamar, CO

Garden City, KS

Dodge City, KS

Hutchinson, KS

Looks like it could be routed to hit Newton, KS and join back in on the regular route after that.


----------



## JohnF (Aug 19, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Frankly it's not even really the fact that the Transcon is too busy that it would slow down Amtrak because of freight interferance. The simple fact is that the route isn't any faster and is in fact slightly longer than the current route. I hope that George Harris won't mind my requoting his old post.
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> ...


The times I listed above came from the July 1956 Official Guide. I used Newton, KS because it is the last city that all the trains stopped at and Gallup, NM is the first city west of Belen and Albuquerque that all the trains stopped at. The times between those two cities of around 15hrs is more or less identical between trains within a few minutes. Amtrak by contrast now takes 16hrs42min westbound and 17hrs10min eastbound to go from Newton to Gallup. If you want to serve Amarillo then bring back the old Texas Zephyr Ft Worth/Dallas to Denver route via the BNSF and connect with the SWC at Trinidad or bring back the San Francisco Chief which made the run from Chicago to Oakland in 47 1/2 hours vs the current CZ which takes 54 hours or why not both. The SFC also served Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 19, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


Correct, KC would not be lost due to a reroute through Amarillo.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 19, 2008)

I thought KC was father west - I didn't look at a map!

Sorry!


----------



## printman2000 (Aug 19, 2008)

This discussion got me to thinking about populaions along each route. Here is what I came up with with the current route(populations are approximate from city-data.com)...

Lamy, NM (Santa Fe) - 62,000

Las Vegas, NM - 14,000

Raton, NM - 7,000

Trinidad, CO - 9,000

La Junta, CO - 7,000

Lamar, CO - 8,000

Garden City, KS - 27,000

Dodge City, KS - 26,000

Hutchinson, KS - 41,000

-------------------------

Total: 201,000

If it rerouted on the transon, here are some possible stops and their populations...

Clovis, NM - 33,000

Hereford, TX - 14,000

Canyon, TX - 13,000

Amarillo, Tx - 185,000

Pampa, TX - 17,000

Woodward, OK - 12,000

Wichita, KS - 350,000

----------------------

Total - 624,000

That number only includes a few cities/towns along the way. Could be some good ones I missed.


----------



## gswager (Aug 19, 2008)

As for Lamy Amtrak stop and the RailRunner, I don't think that it will discontinue that station stop due to several reasons: 1) long distance trains are not on-time schedule, so what happpened if Amtrak is really late or is on the weekend and RailRunner is nowhere on that time schedule?, 2) excellent parking lots, esp. for out of towners, 3) Lamy is a "busy" stop- railfanners, artists, history buffs, and passengers. Usually I see about 10-25 passengers boarding when I'm there. These are my opinions.


----------



## wayman (Aug 19, 2008)

gswager said:


> As for Lamy Amtrak stop and the RailRunner, I don't think that it will discontinue that station stop due to several reasons: 1) long distance trains are not on-time schedule, so what happpened if Amtrak is really late or is on the weekend and RailRunner is nowhere on that time schedule?, 2) excellent parking lots, esp. for out of towners, 3) Lamy is a "busy" stop- railfanners, artists, history buffs, and passengers. Usually I see about 10-25 passengers boarding when I'm there. These are my opinions.


When I spoke with the Lamy station agent in October 2007, she was of the opinion that the SWC would be rerouted and Lamy no longer served as soon as the Railrunner expansion was initiated, because New Mexico will own all the tracks all the way to the Colorado border (BNSF forced NM to buy everything, not just ABQ-LMY, because BNSF doesn't use those tracks and this was an easy way for them to get rid of the need to maintain them almost exclusively for Amtrak); and New Mexico has no interest in the tracks from LMY to the Colorado border and will probably just let them rust rather than maintain them for Amtrak.

Granted, that was her opinion and nothing more. But she was quite certain she would be out of a job or forced to move in a few years when the SWC moved to the transcon route.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 19, 2008)

wayman said:


> When I spoke with the Lamy station agent in October 2007, she was of the opinion that the SWC would be rerouted and Lamy no longer served as soon as the Railrunner expansion was initiated, because New Mexico will own all the tracks all the way to the Colorado border (BNSF forced NM to buy everything, not just ABQ-LMY, because BNSF doesn't use those tracks and this was an easy way for them to get rid of the need to maintain them almost exclusively for Amtrak); and New Mexico has no interest in the tracks from LMY to the Colorado border and will probably just let them rust rather than maintain them for Amtrak.
> Granted, that was her opinion and nothing more. But she was quite certain she would be out of a job or forced to move in a few years when the SWC moved to the transcon route.


I'd hardly say that NM was forced to buy the tracks all the way to the Colorado border, since they got the tracks for a song and a dance. I don't recall the actual purchase price for that track, but it was so low that one could say that BNSF basically gave it away.

As for Amtrak, NM has no choice but to continue to maintain the tracks for Amtrak at least until the current contract expires. I'm not sure when that might be, but the conditions of the sale to NM would have included the transference of Amtrak's right to operate on those tracks.


----------



## had8ley (Aug 19, 2008)

Granted, New Mexico might have come upon the trackage for a song and a dance but what insurance is there that they will not turn it into a 10 mph nightmare?


----------



## AlanB (Aug 19, 2008)

Click here for an interesting video from Olympian Amanda Beard's take



had8ley said:


> Granted, New Mexico might have come upon the trackage for a song and a dance but what insurance is there that they will not turn it into a 10 mph nightmare?


The contract with Amtrak will ensure that. Amtrak actually came very close to clubbing UP over the head with the contract two years ago and was prepared to take things to the FRA and get Justice involved. That prompted UP to start working harder to fix the slow orders that were plaguing the CZ and CS. on the new laser suits.


----------



## George Harris_* (Aug 19, 2008)

Here is the information from the horse’s mouth, quoting from the Belen to Santa Fe commuter Rail Project Overview and Status of Project Elements, revised July 5, 2007.



> Property Acquisition
> Through three separate closings, New Mexico will acquire the line and associated right of way from Belen, new Mexico to the Colorado state line for $75 million. specifically, New Mexico will assume all BNSF’s right, title, and interest in improvements located on the land including signals, rights of way and track, right, title and interest in any tangible personal property and fixtures of any kind owned by BNSF and attached to or used exclusively in connection with the ownership, maintenance or operation of the railroad, and right, title and interest to third party leases/easements other than fiber optic agreements as of the date of each closing. BNSDF reserves for itself and its successors an exclusive easement for freight railroad purposes, including, but not limited to, the construction, maintenance, repair, replacement and operation of freight rail and associated facilities, subject to the provisions of the joint Use Agreement.
> 
> The first closing, which occurred on March 17th, 2006, resulted in the purchase of the line, spurs, rights of way etc. for the portion of the corridor between Belen and Bernalillo. The cost for this segment was $50 million. There are about 51 miles of mainline track and 10 miles of spur line track in this segment. In most places along this section, New Mexico acquired the full width of the corridor that is currently owned by BNSF. For most of the corridor this width is 100 feet. BNSF retained the Abajo Switching Yard, and the auto offloading and inter-modal facilities in the southern part of Albuquerque. New Mexico received additional width properties that BNSF owns in Belen and downtown Bernalillo for stations.


This section works out to just under one million dollars per mile.



> The second closing, occurred on February 28th, 2007 and resulted in the purchase of the line, rights of way etc. for the portion of the corridor between Bernalillo and Lamy. The cost for this segment was $20 million. There are approximately 48 miles of mainline track and four miles of spur track in this segment. New Mexico acquired the full width of the corridor that was owned by BNSF. For most of the corridor, this width is 100 feet.


This section words out to about $417,000 per mile.



> The third closing, which is scheduled to occur in December 2008, will result in the purchase of the line, rights of way etc. for the portion of the corridor between Lamy and the Colorado state line. The cost for this segment is $5 million. There are approximately 170 miles of mainline track and 30 miles of spur track in this segment. New Mexico acquired the full width of the corridor that is currently owned by BNSF. For most of the corridor, this width is 100 feet.


Note: all other discussions on this sale give the northern end as Trinidad, Colorado, not the state line. Trinidad is about 20 miles north of the state line. The undated “nmgrip” press release on the sale, Summary of the State of New Mexico’s agreement with BNSF says,



> Phase Three involved the $5 million purchase of 200 miles of mainline track between Lamy NM and Trinidad, Colo. this agreement will go into effect Dec. 5, 2008.


This section words out to $29,400 per mile for 170 miles or $25,000 per mile for 200 miles.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 19, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> If it rerouted on the transon, here are some possible stops and their populations...
> Clovis, NM - 33,000
> 
> Hereford, TX - 14,000
> ...


Why not add new routes instead of talking about rerouting existing trains?

NARP's vision map doesn't seem to be proposing service along that transcon.


----------



## abqdave (Aug 19, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> This discussion got me to thinking about populaions along each route. Here is what I came up with with the current route(populations are approximate from city-data.com)...
> Lamy, NM (Santa Fe) - 62,000
> 
> Las Vegas, NM - 14,000
> ...


One big addition to the loss column...Albuquerque, population 520,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque,_New_Mexico

The transcon route would have Amtrak go through Belen and continue east. This is 40 miles south of ABQ.

New total losses 726,000, total gains 624,000.


----------



## sechs (Aug 20, 2008)

You also might as well wipe Wichita off the gains side. Newton is practically right next door.

While a station in Wichita would probably improve ridership, it's doubtful that it'd be a great amount. Extension of the Heartland Flyer would probably be a lot more useful than a reroute of the SWC coming through at o'dark thirty.


----------



## printman2000 (Aug 20, 2008)

abqdave said:


> One big addition to the loss column...Albuquerque, population 520,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque,_New_MexicoThe transcon route would have Amtrak go through Belen and continue east. This is 40 miles south of ABQ.
> 
> New total losses 726,000, total gains 624,000.


I am pretty sure there was discussion earlier that Albuquerque could still be served.


----------



## printman2000 (Aug 20, 2008)

sechs said:


> You also might as well wipe Wichita off the gains side. Newton is practically right next door.
> While a station in Wichita would probably improve ridership, it's doubtful that it'd be a great amount. Extension of the Heartland Flyer would probably be a lot more useful than a reroute of the SWC coming through at o'dark thirty.


Well, it is almost 30 miles. While that is not far compared to what I have to travel to a station, serving Wichita directly would be optimal, IMHO.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 20, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> Well, it is almost 30 miles. While that is not far compared to what I have to travel to a station, serving Wichita directly would be optimal, IMHO.


Isn't Wichita where a lot of the little airplanes come from?

I'm wondering what effect that has on the demand for rail service. On the one hand, maybe transportation by small airplane is more readily available there because of that, but I'm not sure if all of the population ends up with access to small planes or not. And people fascinated by transportation might like both trains and small airplanes.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 20, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it is almost 30 miles. While that is not far compared to what I have to travel to a station, serving Wichita directly would be optimal, IMHO.
> ...


Cessena (IIRC & sp?) is headquartered in Wichita, but that doesn't mean they're readily available to everyone to use. Cars are built around Detroit, but many people still drive Hondas and Toyotas! Planes are built by Boeing in Everett, WA, but not everyone there owns a 737!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 20, 2008)

the_traveler said:


> Cessena (IIRC & sp?) is headquartered in Wichita, but that doesn't mean they're readily available to everyone to use. Cars are built around Detroit, but many people still drive Hondas and Toyotas! Planes are built by Boeing in Everett, WA, but not everyone there owns a 737!


Cessna. And I'm not sure about that one way or the other. A large fraction of the people who own small airplanes seem to be willing to take friends flying, in a way that people who own General Motors automobiles don't quite seem to be so excited about giving friends rides.


----------



## Guest_Tom_* (Aug 21, 2008)

So what are the mileages for the Raton and Transcon routes and how much time would be saved by routing the train onto the Transcon (assuming no freight interference)?


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 21, 2008)

A couple of random comments from what I learned living in ABQ for a couple of years. Let's tackle these one at a time.

*Access to ABQ*

If the SWC was rerouted on the transcon and ABQ pax were let off in Belen, it would NOT be at the Railrunner station because that platform is on a terminating spur. There's really no room to add another platform because of the yard traffic. You could put a platform on the mainline with an underpass to the Railrunner station, but not a lot of Real Estate to do that without really ticking off a lot of landowners.

A separate station with bus transfer to ABQ would all but kill the SWC. There is probably more turn over at ABQ than anywhere else on the route. You would probably need a couple of busses for the 25 minute trip to ABQ.

*Lamy*

When one considers both Westbound and Eastbound traffic, the shuttle from Lamy still makes sense. It would be an undue burden for people either going East from Santa Fe or coming in from the East to go all the way to Bernalillo to hop on the NM Railrunner. That and the Sunday issue would make that impractical. As for Western traffic, I think that it'd be cool to take the RR.

*Distance vs Speed*

I think George's data supports that the transcon is about 30 miles shorter, but takes longer to traverse because of the congestion. If there were no such thing as freight trains, it would maybe save 20 minutes. Not justified by the stations lost.

*Cost of the ROW*

Something I read indicated that the ROW between Belen and Bernalillo cost $78 Mil. BNSF threw in the rest of the 200 miles for like $2 Mil. Probably not accurate numbers, but the jist is still the same. TONS of track for little more money. BNSF still occasionally uses the line (despite abandoning it) and they and Amtrak still pay-per-use.

*Scheudle*

So long as Amtrak has practially sole use of the track from Trinidad to Bernalillo, it will never be held up by freight traffic. I've always enjoyed dedicated passenger ROW! The line is single, segmented track that is smoother than a lot of continuous weld. It's nice track. Just needs to be kept in TLC. The biggest bottleneck on the Transcon happens to be just East of Belen at Abo Canyon. They're trying to get a 2nd main in, but the political pressure by the native Americans is VERY strong. In other words, there are 3-4 tracks leading up to the canyon, with only one going in. There would NEVER be any guarantee as to when Amtrak could get clearance to make it through.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 21, 2008)

So basically, New Mexico bought 3600 acres of land for about $6000 an acre?


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 21, 2008)

Here's the jist of the purchase:



> *SUMMARY OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO’S AGREEMENT WITH BNSF*
> THREE PHASES OF THE AGREEMENT
> 
> • The BNSF agreement with the New Mexico Department of Transportation is structured in three phases that involve the purchase of nearly 300-miles of rail line from Belen, N.M., to Trinidad, Colo., for $75 million.
> ...


Right after all these phases were executed, BNSF decided they didn't want to use the mainline any more, and New Mexico only needed half the track between Bernalillo and Lamy because they are building a new ROW in the Interstate median.

I worked out the price to be about $14,000 per acre between Lamy and Trinidad (roughly 15' wide x 200 miles divided into $5,000,000). Improved, Class 4 track-already-built, mainline acres.


----------



## JohnF (Aug 21, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> A couple of random comments from what I learned living in ABQ for a couple of years. Let's tackle these one at a time.
> *Distance vs Speed*
> 
> I think George's data supports that the transcon is about 30 miles shorter, but takes longer to traverse because of the congestion. If there were no such thing as freight trains, it would maybe save 20 minutes. Not justified by the stations lost.
> ...


Here is a video of the Abo Canyon single track:



Apparently they started construction this spring for completion next year:

http://www.bnsf.com/employees/communicatio.../pdf/200802.pdf

New Mexico paid about $75 million for the whole 300 miles:

http://nmgrip.com/upload/images/LegalTest.pdf

Amtrak lists the mileage from Newton to Gallup as 867 miles. In the 1956 Official Guide Santa Fe lists the mileage via Raton as 863 and the mileage via Amarillo and Belen the same at 863. Apparently differences in mileage occur when the trains route through Topeka or bypass it. Someone with an employee timetable could confirm this or give us the exact mileage.


----------



## Guest_George Harris_* (Aug 21, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Abo Canyon. They're trying to get a 2nd main in, but the political pressure by the native Americans is VERY strong.


If you read up on this subject, you will find that it is not "Native Americans" but the primary and almost sole opposition is by the owners and operators of a Dude Ranch called Dripping Springs that are relatively recent newcomers to the area. They have spent a bundle fighting this, tried to put an environmental face on the issue, have a web site against it, hired people to make rather preliminary style engineering studies for a long tunnel alternative, written hundreds of letters to the Corp of Engineers, Sierra Club, Indian Tribes, other landowners, and anybody else they thought they could possible co-opt into opposing the building of the second track. They have even included railfans visiting the area as one of the environmental negatives. It appears that the enthusiasm to oppose the project from all other sources has been lukewarm, at best. I do not understand the strength and depth of their opposition as it appears to be wildly out of proportion to anything that the second track project will do that would affect them.

At this point it appears that they have done about all that they can and are still losing their point.


----------



## printman2000 (Aug 21, 2008)

I e-mailed TXARP last month concerning this. One of them contacted someone they knew is NM and got the following response...



> It is true that NM Governor Bill Richardson has purchased the rail rights, not the rail, from Albuquerque to Raton, thus preventing Amtrak from having the rights over that section of the rail. Amtrak is still running their passenger line, because they were there first. However, once NM starts running the Rail Runner on that line, it will very much so alter the schedules of Amtrak trains as well as BNSF. Neither Amtrak or BNSF is pleased with this, but they were paid enough by NM. BNSF still owns the rail and will have to maintain the rail. NM did purchase the rail, in fact built it with contract company Twin Mountain Construction, from 17 miles south of Santa Fe to Downtown Santa Fe itself. This rail is only for the Rail Runner, for Amtrak, you will still have to go Lamy, NM for the time being.
> For the time being, NM has no plans for expansion of the rail runner along that section from Santa Fe to Raton, but in 2010, they will (plan to, at any rate) start work on having the rail runner running from Albuquerque to Raton. Amtrak is thinking of just stopping their passenger line from Albuquerque to Raton when that starts to facilitate schedules and reduce cost.
> 
> This, of course, is bad news for us and here is why: At the same time that this is going on, Colorado is also thinking of starting up their own passenger line very similar to the rail runner that will run from Trinidad to Denver. The exact same thing will happen between Colorado's state government and Amtrak and BNSF. In short, it will be next to impossible to get an Amtrak line running from Ft. Worth to anywhere with each state setting up their own little railroads and running on the lines where Amtrak would have gone.
> ...


Not sure it adds much and does seem a bit confusing, but thought I would add it.


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 21, 2008)

Seeing as the capacity on the rail between ABQ and Trinidad is almost non existent, I think you could have dozens of trains on that line and never affect an Amtrak train. Plenty of sidings, plenty of room, even though most of it is single tracked. I don't know if this particular segment has been historically Class 5 or not (perhaps irrelevant because of the terrain), but it's a good, solid ROW.

Another point is running a train from Santa Fe to Raton. I don't think that they will be doing that any time soon. I could be wrong, but I think that it will be next to impossible to route a train from Santa Fe to Raton without going trough Lamy on the Santa Fe Southern route (which is like 15 MPH Class I track for 20 miles). Much further than Raton and you'll need sleepers and diners.

I'm all for NM and Colorado and all the other states having their own system. We will continue to need Amtrak to tie them all together.

A more logical scenario would be to buy up the track between Belen and El Paso, but that's all about Class I or II track and will be extremely expensive to overhaul. I don't see them doing that any time soon.

Without doing any research, I believe that most of the folks that board the SWC go to ABQ. Most of the rest go to LAX. It would be H U G E to cut the SWC in any sort of manner.


----------



## WICT106 (Aug 21, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Seeing as the capacity on the rail between ABQ and Trinidad is almost non existent, I think you could have dozens of trains on that line and never affect an Amtrak train. Plenty of sidings, plenty of room, even though most of it is single tracked. I don't know if this particular segment has been historically Class 5 or not (perhaps irrelevant because of the terrain), but it's a good, solid ROW.
> Another point is running a train from Santa Fe to Raton. I don't think that they will be doing that any time soon. I could be wrong, but I think that it will be next to impossible to route a train from Santa Fe to Raton without going trough Lamy on the Santa Fe Southern route (which is like 15 MPH Class I track for 20 miles). Much further than Raton and you'll need sleepers and diners.
> 
> I'm all for NM and Colorado and all the other states having their own system. We will continue to need Amtrak to tie them all together.
> ...


Do not forget about the considerable number of Scouts going to and departing from Philmont. They are the reason that Raton is such a busy stop during the summer season.


----------



## Guest_George Harris_* (Aug 21, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> A more logical scenario would be to buy up the track between Belen and El Paso, but that's all about Class I or II track and will be extremely expensive to overhaul. I don't see them doing that any time soon.


What is the source of this information? Not by the employee timetable as of February 2007. In that the speed limit for the El Paso Subdivision south of Belen is 49 mph end to end with about 15 speed restrictions to various limits for short distances. Two are 20 mph, but most are 30 to 45 mph. Info is identical to 2004 ETT, except the newer one shows 8 miles of CTC with a 55 mph freight limit out of Isleta. (This is north of Belen, therefore in the commuter territory.) Of course, there may be slow orders that would not be reflected in the ETT, but if the whole line is deteriorating, it almost certainly would be reflected in reduced speed limits.


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 21, 2008)

Sorry George, I didn't research; just regurgitated what I thought I heard Chris Blewett tell me. Still, 49 is still eons away from 79. At any rate, they don't have any plans to upgrade to a Class 4, and though not deteriorating per se, destined to remain Class 3 for some time, I imagine.

These are all just speculative comments. Except that Chris did say that they have no current plans to go South.


----------



## sechs (Aug 21, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > You also might as well wipe Wichita off the gains side. Newton is practically right next door.
> ...


Well, the Lone Star time table that I looked at showed 50 minutes between the two stops. If doesn't take nearly that long to drive the distance, and there's practically no public transit in either city (let alone between them).

If people were willing to catch the train at 2:30am, they'll do it in Newton just as easily as Wichita.


----------



## sechs (Aug 21, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it is almost 30 miles. While that is not far compared to what I have to travel to a station, serving Wichita directly would be optimal, IMHO.
> ...


Wichita has Cessna, Learjet, and HawkerBeech, as well as the plant where fuselages for Boeing commercial aircraft are made and an engineering center for EADS Airbus.

My sister went to school there. Trust me, she only rode on commercial flights during those years.

Even though they are reasonably nice union jobs, I doubt that a lot of the folks building these planes can afford them.


----------



## sechs (Aug 21, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Cessna. And I'm not sure about that one way or the other. A large fraction of the people who own small airplanes seem to be willing to take friends flying, in a way that people who own General Motors automobiles don't quite seem to be so excited about giving friends rides.


You throw down a cool ten million dollars of a Cessna Citation, and see if can justify keeping it to yourself.

Honestly, even those who buy relatively inexpensive props usually aren't getting it for transportation purposes. It's a hobby, and people like to show off.


----------



## abqdave (Aug 22, 2008)

That was a great video of the train going through the canyon. It looks like it will be very difficult (and very expensive) to put more track in there. Here is some reading on the project http://www.arema.org/eseries/scriptcontent...dings/00018.pdf

There is no Indian reservation east of Belen. Abo Mission is a beautiful ruin worth visiting if you are in the ABQ area http://www.nps.gov/sapu/


----------



## VentureForth (Aug 22, 2008)

sechs said:


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


I think that Wichita would best be served by an extention of the Heartland Flyer, connecting at Newton to the SWC. It's relatively easy to set a schedule to connect both directions of the SWC, even with a _bit_ of delay. Really, I think the only way we can get Amarillo in the picture is to have a Ft Worth - Wichita Falls - Amarillo - Denver route, but I don't think there's ridership to justify that.


----------



## printman2000 (Aug 22, 2008)

Just to be clear, I am not saying a reroute is the best call. I am certainly not an informed enough person to know that. My dream, of course, is that the town I live in have Amtrak service. A reroute of the SWC is the "simplest" way that could ever happen (as opposed to a new route).

While I do think Amtrak might have to do it at a later time, I am certainly not holding my breath nor getting my hopes up. It just keeps coming up from many different places which of course gets my attention.


----------



## GG-1 (Aug 22, 2008)

printman2000 said:


> My dream, of course, is that the town I live in have Amtrak service.


Aloha

My dream also, not that a train stopped here, but that I could book the entire trip at one time, and use the air mileage towards my Amtrak miles. I also wish the Air/rail package was back.

Mahalo


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 22, 2008)

GG-1 said:


> My dream also, not that a train stopped here


Why not dream! After all, If they could build the Chunnel to connect 2 *countries* - why not connect 2 *states*!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 22, 2008)

the_traveler said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > My dream also, not that a train stopped here
> ...


There's the whole problem of physical geography, which is probably a bit more difficult than the political geography in this case. Isn't Hawaii to California something like 2000 miles or a bit more?

I guess it would make a very reasonable sleeper trip at 200-300 MPH. But we need to figure out how to get America excited about the idea of building 200-300 MPH track for trips that can be done in 3 hours long before we're going to have track that's only useful for trips that are way longer than 3 hours.


----------



## Kramerica (Aug 23, 2008)

The obvious solution to Raton Pass vs. Transcon is to simply add a second frequency to the SWC. Keep the current schedule as-is over Raton Pass, and add the second SWC over the transcon. The benefits are numerous. You add service to cities like Clovis, Amarillo, and Wichita. You add a second train to the rest of the route, which greatly improves options for travelers. And depending on the timing of the new train, it would allow for other trains being late into Chicago or LA and still being able to make a connection to a SWC. That could save Amtrak in hotel reimbursements or bussing.

Maybe with more equipment we'll be able to see an added frequency for some LD trains.


----------



## sechs (Aug 23, 2008)

Write your congressman.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Aug 23, 2008)

Kramerica said:


> The obvious solution to Raton Pass vs. Transcon is to simply add a second frequency to the SWC. Keep the current schedule as-is over Raton Pass, and add the second SWC over the transcon. The benefits are numerous. You add service to cities like Clovis, Amarillo, and Wichita. You add a second train to the rest of the route, which greatly improves options for travelers. And depending on the timing of the new train, it would allow for other trains being late into Chicago or LA and still being able to make a connection to a SWC. That could save Amtrak in hotel reimbursements or bussing.
> Maybe with more equipment we'll be able to see an added frequency for some LD trains.


Go ahead and write to your Congresspeople anyway, like sechs suggested. Communicating the sentiment that more trainsets and more frequent trains and more destinations are desired is important.

But the other issue is track capacity, and I suspect adding passenger rail service on saturated freight tracks might actually be worse than having passengers taking airplanes. A single freight train with double stack intermodal freight can probably carry 250-300 intermodal shipping containers. To make enough room for an Amtrak train that might remove the need for maybe five airplane flights, you probably have to remove several freight trains from the daily schedule to give Amtrak reasonable priority. So now you have over a thousand extra trucks on the highways in order to save a few flights. (I think. Does anyone who actually works in the railroad industry have information to support or contradict this?)

The way to make passenger rail work in areas with any significant density is going to be to build more track, and we might as well separate the passenger track from the freight. If we're building passenger track anyway, it may turn out that constructing new rights of way with alignments that will support true high speed operation (I'm thinking 300 km/h (about 186 MPH) or better) will provide better return on investment by attracting lots of passengers than replacing tracks on abandonded conventional speed rights of way which will attract fewer passengers.


----------

