Southwest Chief News & Future Operations

[bretton88]

The core part of this problem is that Railrunner has submitted a request for an extension of the PTC deadline in which Railrunner cuts back to the max the FRA will allow to get an exemption. The problem is this means Amtrak can't run on Railrunner territory because they would be outside maximum trains allowed to run. Truth be told, Rio Metro still has no idea how to pay for PTC even if they get the extension, they don't have much money and the state isn't willing to help.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

In other words, this is a little more complicated than Anderson just saying let's kill off a train (which I'm sorry to say was my first reaction)?

 

[Seaboard92]

This isn't the only route up on the block like this. I hope you ride the New River Gorge soon because it too could disappear. (And no the Broadway Limited won't come back).

Do you guys loathe Anderson and Gardner as much as I do yet? If you don't it should come soon.

 

[jis]

The core part of this problem is that Railrunner has submitted a request for an extension of the PTC deadline in which Railrunner cuts back to the max the FRA will allow to get an exemption. The problem is this means Amtrak can't run on Railrunner territory because they would be outside maximum trains allowed to run. Truth be told, Rio Metro still has no idea how to pay for PTC even if they get the extension, they don't have much money and the state isn't willing to help.

I have been pointing out this Rail Runner problem for a while now. Glad others are starting to notice.

I just hope something gets worked out, because it will be sad (and devastating to the LD network) to lose this venerable train through fragmentation of the route.

I also hope in the worst case they will be able to run at least upto La Junta and then on to Pueblo. But one of the problem areas being east of La Junta concerns me immensely. I have no idea what the traffic situation is there. If it can be exempt, it still probably means that maintenance of tracks is left to Amtrak. However, with the changes made in appropriations that no longer differentiates between Capital and Expense appropriations, Amtrak does have quite a bit of flexibility on the matter of finding the money for such things. This is the thing that puzzles me, since the appropriation is already higher than anything Amtrak asked for. Apparently a choice is potentially being made in accelerated acquisition of new equipment while sacrificing a route or two. That should be an interesting debate in Congress if those venerable folks are awake.

BTW, this is not the first time that a proposal has been made to discontinue through service on the Raton route BTW, In my knowledge this is the third time, but there may have been others. I remember scrambling to ride the Southwest Limited back in the days fearing its imminent disappearance.

 

[bretton88]

We also have to remember 50 million (Cost of Railrunner PTC) is just a starting point. There's still several sections of the line West of La Junta that need rebuild. So we could be looking at 100 million needed in the next several years. That's a lot of capital with no reliable funding source. Trains don't run on just hope.

 

[amtrakpass]

In my opinion I think it is just Anderson and other voices within Amtrak attempting to kill the train and using PTC as cover. I don't think they actually want it to work out.

It is like trying to make plans with someone who always says they are busy. Sooner or later you get the idea that they just don't want to see you.

They know the talk about PTC requirements and waivers is confusing for most people and if they spin the debate in their favor and throw out some very high cost numbers they can cancel the service.

 

[bretton88]

In my opinion I think it is just Anderson and other voices within Amtrak attempting to kill the train and using PTC as cover. I don't think they actually want it to work out.

It is like trying to make plans with someone who always says they are busy. Sooner or later you get the idea that they just don't want to see you.

They know the talk about PTC requirements and waivers is confusing for most people and if they spin the debate in their favor and throw out some very high cost numbers they can cancel the service.

So why aren't we seeing this for the Coast Starlight (coast track is all exempt), the CZ (Grand Junction to SLC also exempt) or for that matter Vermont? The issue is RailRunner is tryin to get an exemption that limits the number of trains they can run, they have no interest in Amtrak taking up one of those limited slots. So Amtrak has to propose alternatives fast because the deadline for this is December 31st.

 

[jis]

In my opinion I think it is just Anderson and other voices within Amtrak attempting to kill the train and using PTC as cover. I don't think they actually want it to work out.

It is like trying to make plans with someone who always says they are busy. Sooner or later you get the idea that they just don't want to see you.

They know the talk about PTC requirements and waivers is confusing for most people and if they spin the debate in their favor and throw out some very high cost numbers they can cancel the service.

So why aren't we seeing this for the Coast Starlight (coast track is all exempt), the CZ (Grand Junction to SLC also exempt) or for that matter Vermont? The issue is RailRunner is tryin to get an exemption that limits the number of trains they can run, they have no interest in Amtrak taking up one of those limited slots. So Amtrak has to propose alternatives fast because the deadline for this is December 31st.

Small correction. CZ exempt section appears to be Dotsero to somewhere up in the Wasatch around Soldier Summit AFAICT, Can't figure out exactly where in detail.
Two differences between the SWC case on the Raton Line and the CZ and CS case is that in the case of the latter:

(a) Amtrak is not potentially on the hook for paying for maintenance of any tracks, and

(b) There is no non-exempt segment involved where there is any likelihood of PTC not being operative or the host not getting a legitimate extension.

Incidentally, I was unaware of the PTC issue between Las Aniams and Dodge City. Is this a segment that will be under extension pending getting PTC after the end of the year? Or is this Exempt?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

If Anderson was making overtures to migrate a fully intact Southwest Chief over to the BNSF transcontinental route and only using a bus link to maintain service with orphaned cities like Raton and Trinidad then I'd be more willing to believe he was genuinely trying to maintain the national network to the best of his ability. Playing hardball with money in a year when Amtrak was already allocated more than they asked for seems like a risky and potentially disingenuous move to me.

 

[bretton88]

If Anderson was making overtures to migrate a fully intact Southwest Chief over to the BNSF transcontinental route and only using a bus link to maintain service with orphaned cities like Raton and Trinidad then I'd be more willing to believe he was genuinely trying to maintain the national network to the best of his ability. Playing hardball with money in a year when Amtrak was already allocated more than they asked for seems like a risky and potentially disingenuous move to me.

It's quite possible, but I think that ship has sailed. Since it's not really BNSFs problem that Railrunner isn't compliant with PTC, BNSF is under no obligation to offer that alternative again. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak asked and was declined.

 

[neroden]

BNSF, like all other US railroads, has a legal obligation to carry Amtrak on any track whatsoever on Amtrak's demand.

I said years ago that Amtrak should have rerouted through Amarillo. Amtrak still can.

Anderson's illegitimate and dishonest tactic needs to be called out to Congress, because this is just more lies from Anderson. They're still trying to claim shared costs as a cost of the train, which is flat-out ****.

Cutting through service from LA to Chicago will lose gobs of revenue: not just on the Southwest Chief, but on every connecting train too.

And write to Coscia. Anderson needs to be fired immediately.

 

[Chey]

It's quite possible, but I think that ship has sailed. Since it's not really BNSFs problem that Railrunner isn't compliant with PTC, BNSF is under no obligation to offer that alternative again. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak asked and was declined.

I'm not so sure. The BNSF employees my spouse works with think it hasn't sailed just yet.

If Anderson was making overtures to migrate a fully intact Southwest Chief over to the BNSF transcontinental route and only using a bus link to maintain service with orphaned cities like Raton and Trinidad then I'd be more willing to believe he was genuinely trying to maintain the national network to the best of his ability. Playing hardball with money in a year when Amtrak was already allocated more than they asked for seems like a risky and potentially disingenuous move to me.

The southern transcom route always made more sense to me; I hear that BNSF is still very amenable to the idea but I have no idea if it's true, this only comes from the union people.

Ryan and those who think it's a play for more money are probably right. It might be risky but I don't know how much pull the towns/states they propose to bustitute actually have.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

If Anderson was making overtures to migrate a fully intact Southwest Chief over to the BNSF transcontinental route and only using a bus link to maintain service with orphaned cities like Raton and Trinidad then I'd be more willing to believe he was genuinely trying to maintain the national network to the best of his ability. Playing hardball with money in a year when Amtrak was already allocated more than they asked for seems like a risky and potentially disingenuous move to me.

It's quite possible. I think that ship has sailed. Since it's not really BNSFs problem that Railrunner isn't compliant with PTC, BNSF is under no obligation to offer that alternative again. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak asked and was declined.

So far as I am aware BNSF is indeed obligated to make "reasonable accommodations" in the case of abandoned lines. Moving over to the transcontinental route is likely to be seen as a reasonable accommodation in the context of a legal remedy. BNSF can charge for any services rendered/impacted by the change, including logistical considerations and recurring usage fees, but they cannot simply refuse to allow access without opening themselves up to potential litigation. That being said, what motivation would BNSF have for refusing this? The SWC already uses the transcontinental route and keeping it on track and on time instead of wondering off into a perpetually deteriorating detour of dark territory seems like a no-brainer to me. Also, what reason would Anderson have for ignoring these options or for keeping such discussions private? If he wants his threats of imminent danger to be taken seriously then Anderson needs to show he's already done everything he can to keep the route as intact as possible.

 

[neroden]

What DA said. I'm sure BNSF would prefer to run the SWC straight along the Transcon; it vastly simplifies their dispatching. It could even be done without intermediate stops, though I am very certain Wichita would pony up to restore service there. And if the route isn't fully double-tracked, it's already scheduled to be.

 

[frequentflyer]

I read that BNSF, after years of wanting Amtrak to move to the transcon line does not want Amtrak to move there now do to traffic. Apparently there is a stretch of the transcon that's still single track and is already an operations headache with freight trains.

Amtrak's intial resistance was ABQ not being on the line. But RailRunner could provide a connection in Belen. There was even talk of running the SWC to ABQ and using some Y up there to turn it. For at least 20 years BNSF wanted this to downgrade the Dodge City line. It used to be 90mph running, now I think its 79 mph.

 

[neroden]

I read that BNSF, after years of wanting Amtrak to move to the transcon line does not want Amtrak to move there now do to traffic. Apparently there is a stretch of the transcon that's still single track and is already an operations headache with freight trains.

Is it the bridge in Oklahoma? It would cost a lot less to double-track that (and to upgrade the chord at Belen and the wye in Albuquerque) than it would to maintain the Raton Pass route.

And it would cut an HOUR off the schedule, last I checked, which has got to be worth something to everyone involved. Plus, fewer stations mean a faster run *and* simpler dispatching for BNSF. (The only likely stations on the Transcon are Wichita, Amarillo, and maybe Clovis.)

 

[frequentflyer]

I read that BNSF, after years of wanting Amtrak to move to the transcon line does not want Amtrak to move there now do to traffic. Apparently there is a stretch of the transcon that's still single track and is already an operations headache with freight trains.

Is it the bridge in Oklahoma? It would cost a lot less to double-track that (and to upgrade the chord at Belen and the wye in Albuquerque) than it would to maintain the Raton Pass route.

And it would cut an HOUR off the schedule, last I checked, which has got to be worth something to everyone involved. Plus, fewer stations mean a faster run *and* simpler dispatching for BNSF. (The only likely stations on the Transcon are Wichita, Amarillo, and maybe Clovis.)

Not familiar with the area, I was suprised with how important this line is to BNSF, that the whole line was not double tracked. I know they are even triple tracking some areas. I have driven from Clovis to Ft. Sumner NM and it looked like it was double tracked.

 

[bretton88]

If Anderson was making overtures to migrate a fully intact Southwest Chief over to the BNSF transcontinental route and only using a bus link to maintain service with orphaned cities like Raton and Trinidad then I'd be more willing to believe he was genuinely trying to maintain the national network to the best of his ability. Playing hardball with money in a year when Amtrak was already allocated more than they asked for seems like a risky and potentially disingenuous move to me.

It's quite possible. I think that ship has sailed. Since it's not really BNSFs problem that Railrunner isn't compliant with PTC, BNSF is under no obligation to offer that alternative again. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak asked and was declined.

So far as I am aware BNSF is indeed obligated to make "reasonable accommodations" in the case of abandoned lines. Moving over to the transcontinental route is likely to be seen as a reasonable accommodation in the context of a legal remedy. BNSF can charge for any services rendered/impacted by the change, including logistical considerations and recurring usage fees, but they cannot simply refuse to allow access without opening themselves up to potential litigation. That being said, what motivation would BNSF have for refusing this? The SWC already uses the transcontinental route and keeping it on track and on time instead of wondering off into a perpetually deteriorating detour of dark territory seems like a no-brainer to me. Also, what reason would Anderson have for ignoring these options or for keeping such discussions private? If he wants his threats of imminent danger to be taken seriously then Anderson needs to show he's already done everything he can to keep the route as intact as possible.

Because BNSF isn't abandoning anything, Amtrak can move over the PTC exempt trackage in Kansas and Colorado. This is Amtrak can't move over NMRX territory. BNSF has no obligations right now.

 

[neroden]

I read that BNSF, after years of wanting Amtrak to move to the transcon line does not want Amtrak to move there now do to traffic. Apparently there is a stretch of the transcon that's still single track and is already an operations headache with freight trains.

Is it the bridge in Oklahoma? It would cost a lot less to double-track that (and to upgrade the chord at Belen and the wye in Albuquerque) than it would to maintain the Raton Pass route.

And it would cut an HOUR off the schedule, last I checked, which has got to be worth something to everyone involved. Plus, fewer stations mean a faster run *and* simpler dispatching for BNSF. (The only likely stations on the Transcon are Wichita, Amarillo, and maybe Clovis.)

Not familiar with the area, I was suprised with how important this line is to BNSF, that the whole line was not double tracked. I know they are even triple tracking some areas. I have driven from Clovis to Ft. Sumner NM and it looked like it was double tracked.

It is double tracked at least from Los Angeles to Alva, Oklahoma, and seems to have a lot of double-tracking north of that as well. Seriously, if BNSF wants some upgrades from Alva to Newton, KS, this has got to be a lot cheaper than maintaining the Raton Pass route.

 

[Chey]

Not familiar with the area, I was suprised with how important this line is to BNSF, that the whole line was not double tracked. I know they are even triple tracking some areas. I have driven from Clovis to Ft. Sumner NM and it looked like it was double tracked.

I am hearing it's double-tracked at least from Amarillo to Belen More than that, according to Neorden, who would know better than I.

 

[neroden]

Aaargh. This is it. I'm writing a letter to Coscia. I'm not going to outright request Anderson's firing, but I'm going to politely suggest that Anderson doesn't understand the finances or customers of Amtrak, and suggest that the Board should demand fully-allocated cost figures from management (as required by law).

 

[bretton88]

I read that BNSF, after years of wanting Amtrak to move to the transcon line does not want Amtrak to move there now do to traffic. Apparently there is a stretch of the transcon that's still single track and is already an operations headache with freight trains.

Is it the bridge in Oklahoma? It would cost a lot less to double-track that (and to upgrade the chord at Belen and the wye in Albuquerque) than it would to maintain the Raton Pass route.

And it would cut an HOUR off the schedule, last I checked, which has got to be worth something to everyone involved. Plus, fewer stations mean a faster run *and* simpler dispatching for BNSF. (The only likely stations on the Transcon are Wichita, Amarillo, and maybe Clovis.)

Not familiar with the area, I was suprised with how important this line is to BNSF, that the whole line was not double tracked. I know they are even triple tracking some areas. I have driven from Clovis to Ft. Sumner NM and it looked like it was double tracked.

It is double tracked at least from Los Angeles to Alva, Oklahoma, and seems to have a lot of double-tracking north of that as well. Seriously, if BNSF wants some upgrades from Alva to Newton, KS, this has got to be a lot cheaper than maintaining the Raton Pass route.

I agree that The Chief should have been rerouted to the transcon years ago. But politics got in the way.

 

[me_little_me]

I didn't know today was April 1st!

 

[chrsjrcj]

I don't even understand why day service is proposed. Chicago to Dodge City might be possible, but you lose East Coast connections (and probably Michigan/Hiawatha too).

LA to Albuquerque is too far for a day train. You'd end up serving ABQ in the middle of the night/early morning.

Transcon isn't even mentioned in the PPT as a possibility.

Also, interesting they use the term "suspension" for the section between ABQ and La Junta. Sounds like an easy way to get around the 180 day notice, as we saw with the Sunset East.

 

[Seaboard92]

Honestly I have a little hope because this has leaked out. It means there is someone at Amtrak headquarters who knows this is detrimental to the network, and detrimental to our country. And that they would knowingly take the risk to put the information out there that could cause them to lose their job. So there is some hope that stems from this.