Southwest Chief Re-Route?

[user 1215]

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

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

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

 

[zephyr17]

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

 

[fulham]

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

 

[Ryan]

Agreed.

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

 

[user 1215]

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

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

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

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

And livestock.

 

[Ryan]

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

 

[user 1215]

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

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

 

[zephyr17]

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

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

 

[jis]

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

 

[TinCan782]

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

 

[AlanB]

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

BNSF is very good at that on that line!

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

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

 

[printman2000]

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

 

[George Harris]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[user 1215]

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

We gotta talk about SOMETHING....

 

[cirdan]

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

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

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

 

[TinCan782]

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

 

[DET63]

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

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

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

 

[cirdan]

Let me "stir the pot" with this idea...eliminate the ABQ reverse moves with no additional equipment required. Instead of both locos at the head end, run one at each end (a-la "push-pull").At the ABQ crew change, the oncoming crew heads out "forward" in the other loco. Surfliners do that at LAUS although with a cab-car at one end.

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

The latter problem could be solved with a cabbage.

 

[Cristobal]

Let me "stir the pot" with this idea...eliminate the ABQ reverse moves with no additional equipment required. Instead of both locos at the head end, run one at each end (a-la "push-pull").At the ABQ crew change, the oncoming crew heads out "forward" in the other loco. Surfliners do that at LAUS although with a cab-car at one end.

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

The latter problem could be solved with a cabbage.

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

 

[DET63]

Some Superliners are used in Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, and Pacific Surfliner service, all of which are push-pull. However, they may have been modified for that purpose.

 

[DET63]

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

 

[user 1215]

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

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

 

[cirdan]

Let me "stir the pot" with this idea...eliminate the ABQ reverse moves with no additional equipment required. Instead of both locos at the head end, run one at each end (a-la "push-pull").At the ABQ crew change, the oncoming crew heads out "forward" in the other loco. Surfliners do that at LAUS although with a cab-car at one end.

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

The latter problem could be solved with a cabbage.

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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