Bill to Save Southwest Chief

[anir dendroica]

One car is the same as a dozen cars from the perspective of the host. Once you start exceeding the size of the average platform then the station stops start taking longer for double or triple spotting but so long as Amtrak is able to clear a station in within an agreed upon window the host probably doesn't care about the size of the train itself. If you keep increasing the length of the consist then at some point you'd eventually risk exceeding the size of the average siding for a given route, but we're so far from that point that I doubt we'll ever see such a thing in any of our lifetimes. You could double or triple or even quadruple most Amtrak trains before the host would be incapable of dispatching them due to issues with length.

I was thinking that the fees were based on induced costs to the host, ie, wear, ie, x cars produce f(x) wear and 2x cars produce f(2x) wear... though maybe the biggest wear source might be the loco(s). Hadn't considered the cost to the host in terms of the time-domain, but that would also make sense.

thanks - greg

Amtrak's impacts on the freight railroads, especially on busy routes, are almost 100% time-domain. Wear on the tracks is negligible compared to 18,000 ton freights.

Every time a freight pulls into a siding for Amtrak, costs start adding up.

Let's say the average siding dwell time of a freight is 30 minutes, including the time lost during deceleration and acceleration. That's one hour of crew time plus benefits ($150?), 30 minutes of three locomotives idling (3.1 gal/hr * 3 * 0.5 hr *$3/gal = $14), and about six minutes of three locomotives in Notch 8 getting the train back up to speed (185 gal/hr * 3 * 0.1 hr * $3/gal = $166). So that's about $330 in cost to the railroad every time a freight meets Amtrak on a passing siding, or a freight traveling the same direction takes a siding to allow Amtrak to pass.

From Seattle to Minot is roughly 1200 miles, with passing sidings every ~8 miles and freights in at least half of the sidings. That means that over the course of an Empire Builder run, roughly 75 freights need to stop in sidings. At $330 per siding stop, that comes to nearly $25,000 in time-domain and fuel-domain cost.

 

[PRR 60]

How did Amtrak muck up the deal?

By having contracts people take what was an agreement in principle and begin adding in various terms and conditions one-by-one until they rendered the original agreement unrecognizable. At that point, a thoroughly disgusted Union Pacific reinstated the original $750 million capacity enhancement requirement and walked away. The perception by some Amtrak fans that the UP is the villain in the Sunset Limited saga is not 100% correct.

 

[amtkstn]

The SWC is lucky with most of it's route either double track or void of freights. Until just recently had of of the best on time performance. Also helps is the 90 mph running in places.

 

[Nathanael]

And the plan would have brought PRIIA into the equation, requiring that Texas and/or Louisiana fund the stub train since it would have been under the 750 mile limit.

I've mentioned it before, but this isn't actually what PRIIA says. The text of the PRIIA rules is substantially weirder than most people think it is. Amtrak could fund the stub train on its own, because it isn't on a federally designated high-speed rail corridor. (Note that

I'm not really sure about equipment; but I believe that it would have required more equipment than either the current plan or the daily Eagle plan.

I believe this is part of why Amtrak proposed a daily Eagle/Sunset combo with a stub from San Antonio to New Orleans; it used less equipment than a simple daily Sunset.

 

[Nathanael]

How did Amtrak muck up the deal?

By having contracts people take what was an agreement in principle and begin adding in various terms and conditions one-by-one until they rendered the original agreement unrecognizable.

Sure. Until you name what these supposed provisions were, I'm going to guess they were things like "Union Pacific will run the trains on time, or pay penalties".
Most of the Class Is have been balking at the FRA's recent requirement that government-funded track upgrades have enforceable performance classes in the contracts with the freight railroad. The executives of the Class Is apparently think it's unreasonable to be asked to run the trains on time. The rest of us think the executives of the Class Is are unreasonable people.

At that point, a thoroughly disgusted Union Pacific reinstated the original $750 million capacity enhancement requirement and walked away. The perception by some Amtrak fans that the UP is the villain in the Sunset Limited saga is not 100% correct.

So far the evidence I've seen points towards the idea that there never was a real agreement in principle. The UP execs probably had a different interpretation of what they'd agreed to than Amtrak did. And given the unreasonable and irrational attitude they've shown elsewhere (50 foot separations and concrete walls) I am not inclined to consider their interpretation reasonable without proof. I'm sure they thought it was reasonable.

 

[Nathanael]

When Amtrak was created the host railroads were itching to get rid of their passenger trains and there was oodles of excess capacity. So they had readily agreed to a basic MoW based trackage charge scheme. Of course since then they have shed capacity and demand for capacity has gone up and the results of that are visible in many places.

What drives me nuts is the attitude of CSX when New York proposes reinstating the third and fourth track on the Empire Corridor, at New York State's expense, to get the passenger trains clear of the freight tracks.
50 foot horizontal separations! Concrete walls! This is nonsense, but this is the sort of hysterical garbage which has come out of the CSX and UP boardrooms in response to proposals to restore capacity, get the passenger trains out of the way of the freight trains, and do it at public expense. NS and BNSF have responded somewhat more appropriately, with "Thank you."

 

[AlanB]

So far the evidence I've seen points towards the idea that there never was a real agreement in principle. The UP execs probably had a different interpretation of what they'd agreed to than Amtrak did. And given the unreasonable and irrational attitude they've shown elsewhere (50 foot separations and concrete walls) I am not inclined to consider their interpretation reasonable without proof. I'm sure they thought it was reasonable.

Since there is no evidence to be seen, you have nothing to base any conclusion on. But one doesn't send in underlings to dot the i's and cross the t's unless there is an agreement in principle at the top level.

As for UP's so called unreasonable and irrational attitude, let me direct your attention to the Capital corridor where UP has been a very willing partner in things. They've been more than reasonable about everything, which blows your theory out of the water.

 

[Nathanael]

The Capitol Corridor, sure, that's a partial counterexample. But when you hear complete craziness about concrete walls out of UP when dealing with multiple separate agencies, there's something funny going on. Maybe it's UP's inappropriate way of saying "We don't want to discuss things, go away."

To be fair, we've heard less of this sort of nonsense from UP in recent years; we've even heard less of it from CSX than we used to.

 

[Swimmingcat]

This will be interesting to watch.

I've ridden the SWC in the past (mostly taking the "Thruway" bus (a regular Greyhound run) from C Springs to Raton to connect there, & vice versa). I can see everyone's point -- concern over loss of service to Colo & NM communities vs faster routing on the Transcon, vs costs, vs scenery. Proposals about rerouting the SWC thru Pueblo have been made before -- you might pick up passengers there, plus be closer to Denver & C Springs as well (But, then there is the longer route time . . ). However if BNSF really wants to abandon the line (is that a 'done-deal'?) then costs for Amtrak to maintain it may be prohibitive.

 

[greatcats]

I too am watching this with great interest and am one of those who would prefer to see the train remain where it is. The reasons for re-routing it are valid and there are some positives that would result. But many people are getting all hysterical and the story is anything but over, certainly not a " done deal " and who knows what else may be going on behind the scenes. What we certainly do not want to see is the train discontinued, which I would think unlikely, as it is a primary long distance route. I agree with one of the previous posters that the idea of one of the Colorado officials of routing it into Pueblo does not hold water, as it needs the cooperation of two other states, whose interest seems to have gone south. The impracticality of paying out big bucks to maintain over 200 miles of track from Lamy to Trinidad does seem ridiculous for only one train in each direction. Meanwhile, the friend and I will be on Train 4 late next month to Chicago and return, and I we look forward to that historic ride through northern New Mexico and over Raton Pass.

 

[7deuceman]

The front range of Colorado as we know has grown substantially. I may have missed this part of the conversation, but is there is possibly a need for a substantial new service in Colorado south and northbound.

Perhaps a bus service to/from Wyoming connecting to a front range train serving Ft Collins, Longmont and Denver to/from ABQ via Castle Rock/Colorado Springs/Pueblo/Trinidad/Raton/Las Vegas is an option.

Perhaps ABQ has the potential to become a mini hub...Could a proposed front range train create a good SWC connection at ABQ: west to LAX and east for Amarillo and OKC connecting to the HLF down to Dallas and then on to Houston and Corpus Christi?

Denver is becoming more rail-oriented... could that initiative spread to the entire front range and beyond?

 

[railiner]

What will be interesting in the Colorado Front Range, is how well the Denver RTD's entry into the commuter train business goes....

I would guess that if initially successful, it will be RTD, and not Amtrak that will expand into a growing network along the Front Range cities....

 

[Nathanael]

Perhaps a bus service to/from Wyoming connecting to a front range train serving Ft Collins, Longmont and Denver to/from ABQ via Castle Rock/Colorado Springs/Pueblo/Trinidad/Raton/Las Vegas is an option.

Unfortunately Front Range passenger rail has been discussed repeatedly and the Colorado state government just never seems willing to commit to it. It would definitely be a good idea.

 

[jis]

What will be interesting in the Colorado Front Range, is how well the Denver RTD's entry into the commuter train business goes....

I would guess that if initially successful, it will be RTD, and not Amtrak that will expand into a growing network along the Front Range cities....

Irrespective of what outfit does it, it is primarily the State of Colorado which will have to fund it. And given that the focal point of the service is going to be Denver, I agree with you that if anyone does it, it will most likely be RTD and not Amtrak.

 

[Eugene Small]

Checking my handy railroad atlas, it would be pretty easy to detour the train via Pueblo. Slower, certainly.

The thing is, I don't think this is going to work. Amtrak has set a deadline of end-of-2014 for getting the existing route funded, or it will start planning to relocate it to the faster Amarillo route.

It's clearly not a priority in Colorado, but suppose this bill goes through.

There are some state legislators in New Mexico pushing for funding, but New Mexico can't get funding unless Martinez is replaced by a pro-train governor -- and the election is in November 2014, not giving much time to find funding before Amtrak's deadline. Even a new governor may not make it a priority, as the reroute still service Albuquerque and the existing route would cost a lot more money.

No state legislators in Kansas are pushing for funding. Nothing will happen in Kansas unless the governor AND the legislative majority are unseated -- and the election is in November. Even if Brownback is unseated and Davis gets a Democratic majority in the legislature, I'm pretty sure the Kansas government will have other priorities. Indeed, Wichita will probably be advocating *for* the reroute. And Garden City etc. don't have any money of their own to contribute -- Wichita might.

I just don't see the funding coming through in time to maintain the existing route. It needs a *lot* of money, and the money isn't going to come through unless all three states agree.

Frankly, the Amarillo route is better anyway, although an Albuquerque-Pueblo-Denver route would be quite worthwhile. (The sticking point there is apparently coal-train crowding on the "Joint Line" between Pueblo and Denver. A "coal bypass" has been proposed but not funded or built.)

For a number of reasons, this really shouldn't be taken as a serious proposal. Rerouting the Southwest Chief through Pueblo would interfere with BNSF's directional running in the area. From La Junta to Pueblo and then Pueblo to Trinidad the westbound train would be running the "wrong way" as the La Junta-Pueblo line is primarily for eastbounds (technically southbounds, since many of the trains swing south past La Junta) while the Pueblo-Trinidad line is primarily for northbounds. Now there are slightly over 45 miles of double-track on the Pueblo-Trinidad line, but all of the double-track is non-signaled, meaning Amtrak would be limited to 59 mph, though realistically the actual speed may be slower as trains heading south from Pueblo to Mayne (located near exit 42 of I-25) grind uphill as the tracks rise about 2000 feet in elevation over the course of approximately 60 miles (the current westbound route from La Junta to Trindad also rises about 2000 feet, but over the course of about 80 miles). Furthermore, the track that the Chief would undoubtedly have to use in order to avoid running on the same track as BNSF trains is owned and dispatched by Union Pacific as part of the BNSF-UP joint line that extends north to Denver.

By far the elephant in the room with this proposal, though, is that this rerouting does absolutely nothing to address the fact that nobody but Amtrak uses the tracks from Trindad to Lamy. A long-term solution here would still be needed.

Since both of you understand the bigger picture involved here - might one or both of you get up on your soapboxes and paint a broader picture of what this reroute is (really) all about... please.

many thanks - greg

It is contract time. Before New Mexico got involved in the track issue BNSF (then Santa Fe) made known through published materials , they wanted Amtrak to move to the new Transcon route. Article stated they wanted to abandon the part from La junta to Trinidad and might sell Trinidad to Albq. Amtrack said NO we are not moving we have a contract. Rail merger takes place creating BNSF. So what is end game.--- To get Southwest Chief off present route between Newton and Albq onto TransCon. Also don't forget that Congress has mandated that as 1/1/16 (12/31/15) all passenger trains can travel only on tracks that have PTC. So contract time and PTC at same time. The line between La junta and Pubelo is full of oil tank cars and coal cars,do you really think that BNSF would allow Amtrak on that line with that kind of risk to passengers since it is only a single track? If Colorado passes their bill it will guarentee the reroute.

 

[AlanB]

Also don't forget that Congress has mandated that as 1/1/16 (12/31/15) all passenger trains can travel only on tracks that have PTC. So contract time and PTC at same time.

That same Congressional mandate requires PTC on lines where freight companies move hazardous materials, and oil tank cars AFAIK are still considered hazmat.

The line between La junta and Pubelo is full of oil tank cars and coal cars,do you really think that BNSF would allow Amtrak on that line with that kind of risk to passengers since it is only a single track?

BNSF allows Amtrak to run on the Empire line, which is also full of oil tank cars and largely single tracked.

 

[Crossover]

BNSF has recently doubletracked Abo and Alameda Corridor tripled tracked . LA is near the western terminus of the Southern Transcon Corridor may be the reason for the future abandonment of Raton . Recently , Berkshire Hathaway (BNSF) planned to invest $500 Billion to repair and improve the system. They could decide to degrade Raton and not abandon or sell it making it a more intermodal gateway route . Lots can happen between now 2016 . For Amtrak to continue on that original portion , for instance , a company like UP could invest on that route which could keep Amtrak on it because UP is explosive in the growth of the intermodal market and is always looking for avenues of expansion . CNW used to run Falcon Service Piggyback trains on that route which is why it is still feasible so it also possible UP could buy that portion . Another possibility is Amtrak needs to reopen Phoenix by putting a major station in downtown on a major line connecting it even if it has to follow a major interstate with one continously operated in Flagstaff . The thing is that that portion of the route can be added to making it more profitable . Amtrak can add to the route by expanding in that region . You'll never know they may bring Acela in that region and they have the room to do it to all that open desert and mountain space .

 

[Ryan]

You'll never know they may bring Acela in that region and they have the room to do it to all that open desert and mountain space .

I'm pretty sure we know that is never going to happen.

 

[sechs]

BNSF has recently doubletracked Abo and Alameda Corridor tripled tracked . LA is near the western terminus of the Southern Transcon Corridor may be the reason for the future abandonment of Raton . Recently , Berkshire Hathaway (BNSF) planned to invest $500 Billion to repair and improve the system. They could decide to degrade Raton and not abandon or sell it making it a more intermodal gateway route . Lots can happen between now 2016 . For Amtrak to continue on that original portion , for instance , a company like UP could invest on that route which could keep Amtrak on it because UP is explosive in the growth of the intermodal market and is always looking for avenues of expansion . CNW used to run Falcon Service Piggyback trains on that route which is why it is still feasible so it also possible UP could buy that portion . Another possibility is Amtrak needs to reopen Phoenix by putting a major station in downtown on a major line connecting it even if it has to follow a major interstate with one continously operated in Flagstaff . The thing is that that portion of the route can be added to making it more profitable . Amtrak can add to the route by expanding in that region . You'll never know they may bring Acela in that region and they have the room to do it to all that open desert and mountain space .

BNSF doesn't own the Alameda Corridor. It goes directly to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and, so, really has nothing to do with passenger rail.

The western terminus of the Southern Transcon *is* Los Angeles. In fact, it's Redondo Junction, where access to the Alameda Corridor starts.

Berkshire Hathaway treats BNSF like a utility and does not "invest" in its infrastructure. BNSF sells its own bonds on its own credit to finance capital projects -- which it was already planning to do before being purchased by Berkshire.

None of this has anything to do with use of Raton, which has no customers and is much slower than the route through Texas. They've already degraded and sold portions of the route. Except for the portion that is part of the Boise City Subdivision, BNSF doesn't maintain any of the route from Dalies to Newton more than is necessary to accomodate Amtrak and the very limited local traffic they may send.

Union Pacific does not want or need the route through Raton. UP already owns a parallel route to the south. They haven't even finished double tracking the Sunset Route, which, as their southern transcontinental line, is far more useful to them.

If I recall correctly, UP abandoned the route out of Phoenix, requiring a long backtrack to get back to the main line. This would make serving the city directly not worth the effort.

 

[Crossover]

For those that misinterpret my response . I'm breaking down my response in segments and explain what I mean.

1. "BNSF has recently doubletracked Abo Canyon and Alemeda Corridor tripledtracked. "

I did not say that BNSF owned the Alemeda Corridor .

2."LA is near the western terminus of the Southern Transcon Corridor and maybe the reason for the future abandonment of Raton."

The key phrase is "maybe" . LA is near or is the western terminus is likely the same thing .

3. "Berkshire Hathaway (BNSF)is planning to invest $500 Billion to repair and improve the system ."

BNSF is planning to invest (correction not $500 Billion ,but $5 Billion ) to repair and improve the system . This is happening at this time . Whenever you hear Warren Buffet or Berkshire Hathaway, you will most likely hear BNSF.

4. "They could decide to degrade Raton not abandon or sell it making it a more profitable intermodal gateway route."

The key word is could .

5. "Lots can happen between now and 2016."

Meaning much can take in this two year time period . There is a great possibility much can take place meaning second guessing or other ideas or decisions

6. "For Amtrak to continue on that original portion , for instance a company like UP could invest on that route which could keep Amtrak on it because UP is explosive in the intermodal market and is always looking for avenues for expansion."

Again , the key word is could . The phrase for instance meaning example . I said a company like UP . I didn't say that UP will buy the portion .

7. "CNW used to run Falcon Service piggyback service trains on that route which is why it is still feasible so it's also possible UP

could by that portion."

The CNW fragment is fact . The key word again is could and possible is a key word .

8."Another possibility is Amtrak needs to reopen Phoenix buy putting a major station in downtown connecting it even if it has to follow a major interstate with one continously operated in Flagstaff."

The key word is is possibility . Amtrak could build a spur and add a segment from anorther connecting mainto that Phoenix portion that UP Abandoned or refurbish one leading out of the city in another westerly direction .

9."The thing is that that portion can be added to making it more profitable."

In other words , the area can still can be usable by adding i.e amenities , Expansion for the city of Raton, NM . Bring intermodal to that territory .

10. "Amtrak can add to the route by expanding in that region. "

Like Beech Grove , Raton can be a good place for a repair shop especially for Superliner and Surfliner traffic . Coach Yard (Food and Janitorials), Track House (track gang) . Instead of having to travel to Beech Grove , that same work can be done there . It would bring jobs to that region . Just sayin , could be a possibility .

11."You'll never know they may bring Acela in that region and they have the room to do it to all that open desert and mountain space ." Just sayin .

12 . Raton pass is apart of the Santa Fe Trail . Raton NM was a stop on the Santa Fe RR which is a parent company of BNSF.

I'm not trying to change the subject or take away from the subject . My response is a opinion and possible solutions on how to save Raton and SWC and keep them viable . I'm only brainstorm solutions surrounding Raton and SWC . The idea of this topic is keeping Raton viable and saving SWC .

 

[Crossover]

I understand that the pass is on the border between the cities of Trinidad and Raton which are very close in similarity to DFW. I-25 runs through it .

 

[Chas]

Apologies if this was already posted — I was away for a few days — but here is a brief television news story about the economic impact of the Southwest Chief in southern Colorado and the proposed routing through Pueblo.

It starts,

Colorado State University-Pueblo Professor of Economics Kevin Duncan unveiled a cost-benefit analysis in regards to bringing Amtrak to Pueblo.

During a meeting with community leaders, Duncan said extending the Southwest Chief Rail Service to Pueblo would have a positive impact on the economy.

The Southwest Chief has about 13,000 passengers in Colorado per year. More than half come from out-of-state.

 

[jis]

Did the good professor actually look at a map before giving his expert opinion?

 

[Bob Dylan]

Did the good professor actually look at a map before giving his expert opinion?

Nope, he uses a GPS to get around! ("Follow the Yellow Brick Road!") :giggle:

 

[7deuceman]

There appears to be quite a value in bringing the SWC to Pueblo, Colorado from the (east) La Junta and (west) Trinidad. Not only is Pueblo a reasonable bus-ride feeding travelers to/from the Colorado Springs area, the city has the possibility to become a gateway to southern and southwest Colorado.

Pueblo is the perfect transit hub for vacationers enjoying the train ride and then seeking the solitude and reasonable prices of southern and southwest Colorado resorts. Access to the southwest mountains is much easier through Pueblo, without going through the busier alternative with Denver and Interstate 70 traffic to the balance of the state.

The SWC could become as popular as the CZ to/from Colorado and marketed as the cost-effective choice to southwestern Colorado for skiers and snowboarders who want to visit Telluride, Purgatory, Monarch, Crested Butte and other areas. Such areas are essentially 100-150 miles from Pueblo, a distance essentially equal to the distance from Denver to Vail, Aspen and other places on the I -70 corridor. In the summer, SWC could service campers, hikers, bikers and other vacationers from the east and west,

I envision the increase in SWC ridership from an Amtrak stop in Pueblo. I'll bet that resorts and other businesses in southern and southwest Colorado will be very interested to promote opportunities and value that coincide with Amtrak servicing the area. Ridership will have to be earned, but it is doable.

Pueblo could be the golden goose that SWC needs to be profitable and compete with CZ and EB.

Of course this brings to mind a question... How many skiers and snowboarders are riding SWC to/from New Mexico?