Southwest Chief Re-Route?

[PaulM]

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.

I noticed the same thing on the EB through ND and MT; it was like it were double tracked. And that despite the dooms-day predictions about the effects of crude oil trains.

 

[rusty spike]

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.

And those high-speed crossovers at 90 MPH will throw you into someone's lap if you're walking through the train and not paying attention. :wacko:

 

[rusty spike]

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.

Agreed.

If the re-route occurs and with intermodal services of Greyhound, Railrunner and local transit lines radiating from the Alvarado Transportaion Center, I don't see Amtrak vacating ABQ. Amtrak can wye the SWC in from 2-3 miles south of the Alvarado TC, service the locos and change crews from the south end of the platform and then run out to the Belen cutoff either east or west. I doubt Belen would get a station stop; pax from the Belen area can still use the RailRunner to access Amtrak.

 

[yarrow]

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

santa fe rr(and amtrak) never took passengers by train to santa fe but dropped them at lamy so who knows?

 

[Bob Dylan]

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.

Agreed.

If the re-route occurs and with intermodal services of Greyhound, Railrunner and local transit lines radiating from the Alvarado Transportaion Center, I don't see Amtrak vacating ABQ. Amtrak can wye the SWC in from 2-3 miles south of the Alvarado TC, service the locos and change crews from the south end of the platform and then run out to the Belen cutoff either east or west. I doubt Belen would get a station stop; pax from the Belen area can still use the RailRunner to access Amtrak.

True this!

 

[The Davy Crockett]

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.

Agreed.

If the re-route occurs and with intermodal services of Greyhound, Railrunner and local transit lines radiating from the Alvarado Transportaion Center, I don't see Amtrak vacating ABQ. Amtrak can wye the SWC in from 2-3 miles south of the Alvarado TC, service the locos and change crews from the south end of the platform and then run out to the Belen cutoff either east or west. I doubt Belen would get a station stop; pax from the Belen area can still use the RailRunner to access Amtrak.

True this!

I'll 'pile on' and agree with this too...

... including the 'If."

It was not very long ago everyone was writing the post-mortem for the EB on the Devil's Lake sub. Undeniably different circumstances, but BNSF originally said 'no way' in that situation too. In this case, with the widening of the Panama Canal, no one is sure exactly how things are going to shake out, other than it will have a significant impact on the movement of goods. It has been claimed that it will bring the biggest change in moving goods in America since the advent of intermodal. (See post #47 in this same thread for more detail.) The stakes are high for BNSF, and even though things do look dire for Raton Pass at this point in time, its not over until Warren Buffett sings.

 

[TinCan782]

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.

Gonna be my comment too...the Pacific Surfliner uses Superliners...I figured all were already set up for that vs modifying a few.

 

[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.

The latter problem could be solved with a cabbage.

With two locomotives, which the SWC normally has, a cabbage is not really needed. Run a loco at each end instead of both at one end and no additional equipment is needed.

 

[Ryan]

Other than the extra number of MU cabled Superliners (at a minimum you'll need to do some transforms, sleepers, diners and (probably) lounges.

 

[George Harris]

And those high-speed crossovers at 90 MPH will throw you into someone's lap if you're walking through the train and not paying attention. :wacko:

Would be true, except there aren't any. According to the 2007 employee timetable, the fastest turnouts and crossovers are 50 mph. There may be some installed since that are good for a higher speed, but I think those are for around 70 mph. So far as I know, except for some in the northeast corridor there are no turnouts good for about 80 mph in the US.

 

[TinCan782]

And those high-speed crossovers at 90 MPH will throw you into someone's lap if you're walking through the train and not paying attention. :wacko:

Would be true, except there aren't any. According to the 2007 employee timetable, the fastest turnouts and crossovers are 50 mph. There may be some installed since that are good for a higher speed, but I think those are for around 70 mph. So far as I know, except for some in the northeast corridor there are no turnouts good for about 80 mph in the US.

Between Barstow and Needles in eastern California (and areas into Arizona and New Mexico), the SWC takes the crossovers with hardly a reduction in speed. Yes, you can feel it but, not too bad really. As Rusty Spike said, if standing and caught off balance, you might wind up in someone's lap!

 

[user 1215]

And those high-speed crossovers at 90 MPH will throw you into someone's lap if you're walking through the train and not paying attention. :wacko:

Would be true, except there aren't any. According to the 2007 employee timetable, the fastest turnouts and crossovers are 50 mph. There may be some installed since that are good for a higher speed, but I think those are for around 70 mph. So far as I know, except for some in the northeast corridor there are no turnouts good for about 80 mph in the US.

George, I trust you on this, but don't the speed limits apply only on the curved section of the switch? If you're going straight, I thought you could go full speed on most rated switches.

 

[henryj]

The slower you run this train the higher the labor costs and the more money it loses. These ideas of routing these trains all over the place and taking forever to run the distance are bogus. Every hour you add to this train costs over $750 in labor costs. Every trip this train makes costs $32,000 in labor costs alone.

 

[George Harris]

And those high-speed crossovers at 90 MPH will throw you into someone's lap if you're walking through the train and not paying attention. :wacko:

Would be true, except there aren't any. According to the 2007 employee timetable, the fastest turnouts and crossovers are 50 mph. There may be some installed since that are good for a higher speed, but I think those are for around 70 mph. So far as I know, except for some in the northeast corridor there are no turnouts good for about 80 mph in the US.

George, I trust you on this, but don't the speed limits apply only on the curved section of the switch? If you're going straight, I thought you could go full speed on most rated switches.

Absolutely correct. I never even think about the straight side of a turnout as having a speed limit. If properly maintained it does not need to have one.
That said, there is a reason that there tends to be a sideways jerk that you feel when going through the straight side of a turnout. It is that a train going through the curved side tends to give a sideways kick to the track at the point as it goes across the point of switch, particularly when going in the frog to switch direction. Over time this pushes the track out of line. Also remember that the FRA standards are safety standards, so this misalignment can get very noticible before it has to be fixed. BNSF seldom lets them get anywhere near that bad, but to try to keep the track near enought to perfect to the point that this becomes near imperceptible is extremely expensive. Some of the causes can be designed out but not all. When all is done that can be done you will still be left with a slight shake and some noise in the range of going over a couple of bolted joints.

There is nothing in the turnouts on the BNSF mains that requires the speed limit to be under the current 90 mph.

 

[BrianPR3]

I didn't want to start another thread so i dug this one up so can someone explain this to me like is the route actually at risk of being elimnated or is there gonna be a reroute?

 

[gswager]

I believe that the news will come out next year whether it will remain on Raton subdivision (the current route) or move to BNSF Transcon.

 

[SarahZ]

Yes, the decision has to be made in 2014, but I can't remember the actual date.

 

[printman2000]

I didn't want to start another thread so i dug this one up so can someone explain this to me like is the route actually at risk of being elimnated or is there gonna be a reroute?

While most people I have heard from believe the reroute will happen, I have also heard some people who are worried that Amtrak will use this opportunity to cancel another train.

Which is it? I guess time will tell.

Personally, I lean towards the reroute. But I also cannot completely rule out the cancellation.

I believe Amtrak has stated a decision would be made in 2014 and final implementation in 2016.

 

[SarahZ]

I'm going to say there's a 90% chance they'll re-route it. I can't imagine them canceling a line that serves Chicago, Albuquerque, the Grand Canyon, a bus trip to Vegas, and Los Angeles. I know routes have been canceled before, but the SWC has pretty heavy ridership even without the Scouts heading to Raton.

 

[printman2000]

I'm going to say there's a 90% chance they'll re-route it. I can't imagine them canceling a line that serves Chicago, Albuquerque, the Grand Canyon, a bus trip to Vegas, and Los Angeles. I know routes have been canceled before, but the SWC has pretty heavy ridership even without the Scouts heading to Raton.

All good, valid points. I am probably at the same percentage you are. I still can not totally put it past them to make the cancellation decision.

 

[amtkstn]

The major issue that will force the reroute is the the timekeeping of both trains. Most days number 4 is late into Newton the eastern end of the track that is slow ordered and number 3 is somedays late into LA. There are a few days when both are two hours late.

 

[Eugene]

So the reroute takes place-- where would put a station in Amarillo if BNSF does not allow stopping on Transcon?

 

[BNSFboy]

So the reroute takes place-- where would put a station in Amarillo if BNSF does not allow stopping on Transcon?

The old passenger siding was torn out but the space is still there and the owner of the station said he would let Amtrak use it if it where to reroute. However if this has changed they could still put another track in next to the existing main just next to the station and it would accommodate it very easily even if it is just a shed.

 

[printman2000]

So the reroute takes place-- where would put a station in Amarillo if BNSF does not allow stopping on Transcon?

The old passenger siding was torn out but the space is still there and the owner of the station said he would let Amtrak use it if it where to reroute. However if this has changed they could still put another track in next to the existing main just next to the station and it would accommodate it very easily even if it is just a shed.

It was several years ago that I spoke with the owner, unless you have also spoken with him.

So if it is not the old Santa Fe station, who knows.

 

[PaulM]

I have also heard some people who are worried that Amtrak will use this opportunity to cancel another train.

What, when, and why was the last LD train that Amtrak cancelled? Three Rivers? 1990's? Equipment shortage?