Southwest Chief Re-Route?

[neroden]

Listening to scanner traffic on the westbound SW Chief last week, each train is reporting exact timings to the dispatcher (station arrivals, station depatures).

The train lost an hour in Kansas, and departed ABQ on time.

It seems like the plan is to fix up the Kansas and Colorado track, and let the New Mexico track continue to rot. This is a pretty dumb plan, if you ask me. But the New Mexico track is good enough to run on the current schedule (which has had hours added to it due to previous deterioration) and apparently Amtrak thinks that this deteriorated service is good enough for the forseeable future.

In a few years, the New Mexico track will be even worse, and what will Amtrak do then? There's still no money for it. Dumb, dumb plan.

(If news comes out that BNSF has decided to pay out of its own pocket to maintain the NM tracks, then I'll take my criticism back; in that case it's a decent plan.)

Also worth noting from my trip: the stations on the Raton route are worthless. There were no sleeper passengers and maybe 1-2 coach passengers per station. Forget bus service, you could handle it with limo service.

 

[Agent]

There have been several reports on Trainorders.com recently that BNSF has started replacing semaphores on the Raton Subdivision. Some new signals have already been installed and are waiting to activated and turned toward the tracks.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

In one corner, we have Printman. Established poster of nearly 10 years who seems to generally know what's going on and isn't prone to spread BS.

Agreed. It's not that surprising to me that a member of the forum would have connections here and there. Indeed it is rather clear that some members do in fact have connections. My own minor involvement with the rail industry is rather limited and has nothing to do with Amtrak. Nonetheless if I possessed some pertinent information and chose to pass it along I would hope my fellow members would give me the benefit of the doubt without expecting me to spell out where the information came from or how I received it.

 

[CHamilton]

Via SW Chief Coalition on Facebook:

from the NM Section, Southwest Chief Coalition 1/31/15:

On February 5, 2015 the Amtrak CEO, and the Secretary of NMDOT will discuss the final terms of an agreement going forward. That agreement will include future annual maintenance support from New Mexico. It will also include the pursuit of a TIGER grant from USDOT when that program is announced. We are not able to state anything further until after the February 5th meeting.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Well, it certainly looks like a deal has been cut to keep the Chief on the Raton Route! Too bad for Witchita, Amarillo and Clovis but good for tourists and the Boy Scouts!

 

[Frequent RRTraveller]

Also worth noting from my trip: the stations on the Raton route are worthless. There were no sleeper passengers and maybe 1-2 coach passengers per station. Forget bus service, you could handle it with limo service.
--Not true. Business on the Raton line (Trinidad-Lamy) varies from 22 per train at Raton to 7 per train at Las Vegas. Lamy runs about 16 per train.

 

[willph]

Hi, folks. Long time reader, first time poster.

As someone with a casual interest in passenger rail, I've been following the story of the potential SWC reroute since there were first rumblings about it. In particular, I've greatly enjoyed/appreciated reading along with this thread, as your discussion here has been quite informative and helpful to me, so thank you all for that.

There is still one thing I'm not quite getting about the whole scenario, though: it's a more than reasonable assumption that the population centers served by a potential reroute would allow for a significantly higher ridership base than the current route, right? So I'm not quite sure I understand why Amtrak has, from the very beginning, been so staunchly committed (at least publicly) to keeping the SWC on its current route.

Is Amtrak just not bothering because they know BNSF is so loathe to share the Transcon with it? Or is the idea of staying on such a relatively low-trafficked route so appealing that they think it's preferable even in the face of eschewing a potential serious ridership boost? Or are Boardman and co. genuinely being driven by the desire to do right by the towns and riders currently being served by the SWC?

As a total amateur with no horse in this race, it's just surprising to me that Amtrak doesn't appear all that interested in the potential ridership boon offered by serving Wichita directly plus Amarillo and Clovis/Portales, as opposed to the string of little rural towns it currently serves.

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[afigg]

There is still one thing I'm not quite getting about the whole scenario, though: it's a more than reasonable assumption that the population centers served by a potential reroute would allow for a significantly higher ridership base than the current route, right? So I'm not quite sure I understand why Amtrak has, from the very beginning, been so staunchly committed (at least publicly) to keeping the SWC on its current route.

Is Amtrak just not bothering because they know BNSF is so loathe to share the Transcon with it? Or is the idea of staying on such a relatively low-trafficked route so appealing that they think it's preferable even in the face of eschewing a potential serious ridership boost? Or are Boardman and co. genuinely being driven by the desire to do right by the towns and riders currently being served by the SWC?

As a total amateur with no horse in this race, it's just surprising to me that Amtrak doesn't appear all that interested in the potential ridership boon offered by serving Wichita directly plus Amarillo and Clovis/Portales, as opposed to the string of little rural towns it currently serves.

The reason Amtrak is working to stay on the current route is provided in the other thread on the SWC:

"During the hearing, Ray Lang, Amtrak Sr. Director for State Relations, answered legislators' questions. He said that "we are approaching an existentialist moment" for the future of the train, and that lacking an agreement, "Amtrak will explore all its options." Tom Church, NMDOT Secretary, later countered, "Amtrak must make a commitment to this route before we fund it -- my opinion." Lang also emphasized that moving the Chief to the Southern Transcon will be a very expensive proposition -- much more expensive than retaining the train on the current route -- due to the need to lengthen sidings, re-time grade crossing signals, and upgrade the signaling system to handle the Chief which operates at speeds higher than freight trains. He also emphasized that Amtrak does not have the funding available to re-route the train."

Many on this forum who advocate for a re-route over the BNSF transcon are ignoring the above reality. Amtrak doesn't have the capital funds for a circa 700 mile re-route and it will be very, very difficult to get that level of money for a new route and stops from Kansas, OK, TX. NM and the cities/towns along the new route in a viable time frame. The gain in passenger traffic would realistically be modest for the amount of money invested. Amtrak is going for the lower risk option here because a threat of losing a train service is more likely to get the needed funds than the possibility of gaining one for towns that have not see passenger rail service in many decades.

 

[neutralist]

So looks like the boy scouts have won this time.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Hi, folks. Long time reader, first time poster.

As someone with a casual interest in passenger rail, I've been following the story of the potential SWC reroute since there were first rumblings about it. In particular, I've greatly enjoyed/appreciated reading along with this thread, as your discussion here has been quite informative and helpful to me, so thank you all for that.

There is still one thing I'm not quite getting about the whole scenario, though: it's a more than reasonable assumption that the population centers served by a potential reroute would allow for a significantly higher ridership base than the current route, right? So I'm not quite sure I understand why Amtrak has, from the very beginning, been so staunchly committed (at least publicly) to keeping the SWC on its current route.

Is Amtrak just not bothering because they know BNSF is so loathe to share the Transcon with it? Or is the idea of staying on such a relatively low-trafficked route so appealing that they think it's preferable even in the face of eschewing a potential serious ridership boost? Or are Boardman and co. genuinely being driven by the desire to do right by the towns and riders currently being served by the SWC?

As a total amateur with no horse in this race, it's just surprising to me that Amtrak doesn't appear all that interested in the potential ridership boon offered by serving Wichita directly plus Amarillo and Clovis/Portales, as opposed to the string of little rural towns it currently serves.

I'll hang up and listen.

As afigg said, it will more expensive to move the train to the transcon than to keep it on its present route. A lot of people assumed the BNSF would absorb any expenses involving a transfer in return for the abandonment of the present route. Turns out that's not true. While Amarillo might (and I emphasize might, since there's been no train service there since 1971 and the local culture isn't train orientated) provide some more ridership, the added problems of a backup to ABQ might hurt ridership at that important place. All in all, keeping the SWC on the current route is a better option and, guess what, all those improvements might not be as costly as originally estimated.

 

[neroden]

"During the hearing, Ray Lang, Amtrak Sr. Director for State Relations, answered legislators' questions. He said that "we are approaching an existentialist moment" for the future of the train, and that lacking an agreement, "Amtrak will explore all its options." Tom Church, NMDOT Secretary, later countered, "Amtrak must make a commitment to this route before we fund it -- my opinion." Lang also emphasized that moving the Chief to the Southern Transcon will be a very expensive proposition -- much more expensive than retaining the train on the current route -- due to the need to lengthen sidings, re-time grade crossing signals, and upgrade the signaling system to handle the Chief which operates at speeds higher than freight trains. He also emphasized that Amtrak does not have the funding available to re-route the train."

Yeah, this is the key set of quotes. Of course, it shows terrible short-term thinking on the part of Amtrak. Amtrak definitely does not have the funding available to keep the train on the same route, which will be more expensive in the long run than relocating the train.
Tom Church, meanwhile, is either a fool, or more likely, a lying scam artist. He said "Amtrak must make a commitment to this route before we fund it". He has no intention of funding it and is constitutionally prohibited from funding it. NM will not fund the train under this administration. Period. So his statement is empty and meaningless.

I'll try to be optimistic. Martinez is termed out in 2018, so if Amtrak can muddle through on the deteriorating line until January 2019, there might be a chance of getting a governor who will buy the line at that time. Perhaps Amtrak is trying to round up money for the reroute in the intervening 4 years. Maybe Amtrak's management understands that the current situation will doom the SWC and is just making nice talk about it because why not talk friendly?

In the meantime, fans of the SWC route should prepare for its complete cancellation. This will happen if the line deteriorates too much in the next 4 years, or if funding can't be found for a reroute before then and the 2019 Governor of NM is as rail-hostile as Martinez.

and, guess what, all those improvements might not be as costly as originally estimated.

The current numbers seem to be "muddle through for a couple more years" numbers, not "make this a long-term functional route" numbers.

When we come back to this topic in a few years, expect there to be an extra hour or two (or three, or four) in the SWC timetable. This will make the case for the reroute even stronger; eventually, running the SWC at the same speed as freight on the Transcon will be noticeably faster than running over Raton. I'm not sure how many years of deterioration that will take, but there's already been massive padding added to the schedule over the years. At what point of lengthened schedules does Amtrak need a sixth trainset?

Signalling's a huge issue. Raton needs a complete resignalling. The current budget definitely won't do that. Repairing the existing signal system (mostly semaphores!) is grossly uneconomical and it's being run on track warrants already. The result, I predict, is going to be the removal of the signal system and the resulting imposition of a 59 mph max speed limit on the whole section of route.

 

[zephyr17]

Most of the Raton and Glorietta Subdivisions are run by track warrant because the signal system is ABS (Automatic Block System) and not CTC (Centralized Traffic Control) and not because of the age of the system. They've always been run train order and timetable back in the day and track warrant now. Signals in ABS do not and never have given authority to occupy track, they are a warning system only. There is a stretch of CTC in Raton Pass itself where signal indications gives authority that has been in place since WW II approximately and I think there may be a CTC area around French (York Canyon coal mine) that was installed later.

Santa Fe had done signal replacement fairly recently (last 20 years) on some sections, replacing the semaphores with tri-lights. The issue with signal system is maintenance cost of the old signals, not the fact that it is ABS. There has never been traffic density to justify CTC.

Replacing the signals would not change how the line is dispatched and signal replacement requires significantly less investment than installing CTC, which isn't justified for traffic density. ABS works just fine for a line like Raton.

The FRA is very resistant to downgrading to dark territory where signal systems are already in place. CORP in Oregon, without passenger service at all, tried to and the FRA wouldn't let them, so those semaphores were replaced instead of the signal system being retired entirely. They are even more resistant where there is passenger service.

However, if the FRA did approve retiring the signal system in Raton, that isn't an unreasonable option. Long distance trains aren't all that time sensitive as long as the speed is fairly reasonable. Keeping to the published schedule is much more important than the speed of the schedule. This isn't the 1930s when railroads competed for long distance business travelers on speed. I doubt downgrading to 59 really would make that much of a difference in patronage as long as the lengthened schedule was consistently kept. Time-sensitive travelers fly.

 

[The Chief]

Most of the Raton and Glorietta Subdivisions are run by track warrant because the signal system is ABS (Automatic Block System) and not CTC (Centralized Traffic Control) ...

Signals in ABS do not and never have given authority to occupy track, they are a warning system only. ...

ABS works just fine for a line like Raton. ...

Great points, zephyr17. "Just fine for a line like Raton" -- especially if only two trains a day, one each way.

The No.3-No.4 meet would be easy peasy, with current ABS system electronics, satellite tracking, and radio comms.

Semaphores can be replaced, as needed, economically with "Tri-Light" or new Color Light "Darth Vader" style installs.

 

[Guest]

Just a comment: The Illinois Central / Canadian Nation added CTC to the previously unsignlled Yazoo District freight route. They gave it a 79 mph speed limit out of their own pocket so they could move the City of New Orleans off the traditional passenger route Grenada District. Maybe they intended to add the signals anyway. I don't know. The minimum run time over the Yazoo District is at best about 30 minutes slower than the Grenada District at its best.

 

[KmH]

Here is the Cameron Connector between the old CB&Q/BN and ATSF built in 1996 by BNSF:

Google Map

Looks like a SWC sitting on the northwest part of the connector in that Google Maps Satellite view.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

I'm getting hungry for my Mexican meal at the Mexico City Cafe on Raton Ave. in La Junta... http://www.yelp.com/biz/mexico-city-cafe-la-junta?osq=mexican+food+restaurants ...that is to be my winnings in a friendly bet with another member here (who lives in the Amarillo area) if the SWC is not rerouted.

From the article of 2/7/15 at the Amarillo Globe News website:

Don't expect Amtrak to stop at Santa Fe Depot

Link: http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2015-02-07/dont-expect-amtrak-stop-santa-fe-depot

“The prospects (the Southwest Chief) will be rerouted to Texas are about nil,” said Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari. “I think we’ve made it clear we want to keep it on the current route.”

“If the Southwest Chief were rerouted, it would be the first time Amarillo had regular passenger service since the 1970s,” said Amarillo City Manager Jarrett Atkinson. “We’ll get a sense of that when the New Mexico Legislature goes through their session.”

That session ends at noon March 21, and preliminary budgets from the governor and the Legislative Finance Committee have no provisions for paying the $4 million a year for 10 years that would be the state’s share to keep the train on track.

The New Mexico Department of Transportation provided an economic impact study for the new session showing a $3.5 million drop in labor income if the train route left northeast New Mexico and a $1.2 million drop in taxes collected.

“Despite the federal TIGER grant received last year, the train is still not out of the woods. Amtrak and the BNSF Railway may have backed off of a
Wichita-Amarillo reroute threat due to cost,” Evan Stair, president of Passenger Rail Oklahoma and avid rail transportation observer said in his January newsletter. “So all eyes will be on the New Mexico Legislature this season as they struggle with their financial offering to Amtrak’s Southwest Chief tin-cup request. The only options we see as remaining are an Amtrak-BNSF retreat, year-to-year funding challenges and discontinuance.”

So local supporters of Amtrak coming to town, including turning the historic Santa Fe Depot into a multi-modal transportation hub, might have some hope that events in Santa Fe, N.M., could steer the train to Amarillo.

“We’re really hopeful, but we’re the default,” said Downtown Amarillo Inc. Executive Director Melissa Dailey. “It’s not in our control.”

But that hope the Chief would leave its route that sweeps over the plains and into the mountains could be futile. There might not be a new agreement between the railroads, but they appear ready to take things much more gradually than previously said.

“We will continue to operate on that route under future agreements,” Magliari said. “We always said we had to have a way forward, and certainly we now have investments and the grant.”

Finally, here is what BNSF had to say on the matter (which seems framed by a lawyer to me):

BNSF is out of the action at the moment concerning the tracks it owns in northeastern New Mexico.

“We are not involved in talks between New Mexico and Amtrak,” said BNSF spokesman Joe Sloan. “There are only two trains on those tracks, and that’s the Southwest Chief, so there’s no incentive for us to maintain or keep them up.”

They also are not involved in talks about “future agreements” with Amtrak.

“If BNSF is approached, we’ll have that conversation,” Sloan said.

Looks like things are about as clear as sangria at this point, with all sides still posturing. Tunes might change after New Mexico decides what it is going to do, but it does seem like this issue could stretch well into the future. I'll be stopping by my local taqueria before this issue is decided, for sure.

BTW - Check out the comments posted by folks in response to the article. Amarillo city officials would be tarred and feathered if these posters had their way.

 

[printman2000]

I'm getting hungry for my Mexican meal at the Mexico City Cafe on Raton Ave. in La Junta... http://www.yelp.com/biz/mexico-city-cafe-la-junta?osq=mexican+food+restaurants ...that is to be my winnings in a friendly bet with another member here (who lives in the Amarillo area) if the SWC is not rerouted.

While I remember you proposing a bet, I have no memory of accepting it.

 

[neroden]

Looks like things are about as clear as sangria at this point, with all sides still posturing.

Oh yeah. And it seems like total discontinuance is more and more likely. I guess that means more passengers for the Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, California Zephyr, and Coast Starlight...

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Looks like things are about as clear as sangria at this point, with all sides still posturing.

Oh yeah. And it seems like total discontinuance is more and more likely. I guess that means more passengers for the Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, California Zephyr, and Coast Starlight...

C'mon. You know better than that.

The Chief's end-to-end passengers accounted for less than 15%

of the total in 2013. (NARP site.) But discontinuing the route would

hurt all the connecting lines in Chicago as well as the Coast Starlight

in L.A.

To fix the problems, we always need more Amtrak, not less.

 

[rubber duck]

Come on Davy, you believe in rule by law don't you? and what do you believe about one's word?---Well, Have you read the New Mexico State constitution in article 9 about the anti- donation clause? The State of New Mexico by law can not give one red cent towards repairing these rails (unless the state owns then). Now you were going to treat every on who shows up at BIG TEXAN when the Chief is rerouted weren't you?--that 720z steak meal is awaiting. None of us really know for sure what is going to be until the current contract expires on 12/31/15 at midnight

 

[The Davy Crockett]

:unsure:

I'm getting hungry for my Mexican meal at the Mexico City Cafe on Raton Ave. in La Junta... http://www.yelp.com/biz/mexico-city-cafe-la-junta?osq=mexican+food+restaurants ...that is to be my winnings in a friendly bet with another member here (who lives in the Amarillo area) if the SWC is not rerouted.

While I remember you proposing a bet, I have no memory of accepting it.

What!?!

Do I denote some uncertainty? :lol:

 

[printman2000]

:unsure:

I'm getting hungry for my Mexican meal at the Mexico City Cafe on Raton Ave. in La Junta... http://www.yelp.com/biz/mexico-city-cafe-la-junta?osq=mexican+food+restaurants ...that is to be my winnings in a friendly bet with another member here (who lives in the Amarillo area) if the SWC is not rerouted.

While I remember you proposing a bet, I have no memory of accepting it.

What!?!

Do I denote some uncertainty? :lol:

If there is one thing I know, never bet on anything having to do with Amtrak.

 

[Guest]

The New Mexico Gov't has ended its session and I can't find where they set aside money to repair the track and notice that Colorado has put an amendment (SB15-176) to bill it passed last year. What does this mean?

 

[neroden]

The situation is clear as mud. New Mexico is not providing any funding and actually can't, under the current ownership. With Colorado and Kansas funding, Amtrak is claiming that the funding issue has been resolved and that they will stay on the Raton line. BNSF is not paying for maintenance of the line.

Apparently Amtrak is content to let the New Mexico line deteriorate. I don't know how long it can deteriorate before it becomes a problem. Years, maybe? There were some claims that it was really the Colorado and Kansas parts which were at immediate risk.

 

[LaJuntaSub]

The New Mexico Gov't has ended its session and I can't find where they set aside money to repair the track and notice that Colorado has put an amendment (SB15-176) to bill it passed last year. What does this mean?

Absolutely nothing. There was never a plan to get funding from the legislature this year. The current plan is to apply for a TIGER grant for funding beyond La Junta. The Kansas and Colorado portions already have funding.

Does anyone with BNSF connections know the work schedule for the La Junta subdivision?