SWC issue heating up

[Swadian Hardcore]

Apparently the old SFC served ABQ by bus, but back then there were plenty of other trains through ABQ. So I really don't know what o say. i guess I'll just have to wait for when it happens.

 

[Amtrak George]

I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that when the Chief has detoured on the Transcon, via Amarillo, the train still served Albuquerque and was wyed there; and that it has been able to make its schedule on the detour. Anyone out there with firsthand knowledge about this?

 

[gswager]

I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that when the Chief has detoured on the Transcon, via Amarillo, the train still served Albuquerque and was wyed there; and that it has been able to make its schedule on the detour. Anyone out there with firsthand knowledge about this?

Yes, it is true. As usual, they were using wye.

 

[cirdan]

I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that when the Chief has detoured on the Transcon, via Amarillo, the train still served Albuquerque and was wyed there; and that it has been able to make its schedule on the detour. Anyone out there with firsthand knowledge about this?

If I recall correctly though, the SWC stop in ABQ is quite long. I guess this is necessary for fuelling, restocking etc, but some of it is probably also recovery time. So even if it comes in late it can still leave on time.

 

[Amtrak George]

"decisions and financial commitments will be needed by the end of 2014. If

they are not in place, steps will need to be taken to operate the train via a different route between

Newton, Kan., and Albuquerque by early 2016."

The above quote is from Amtrak's press release regarding the Southwest Chief route, letter dated April 12, 2012, press release date April 13, 2012. Available on www.amtrak.com.

'a different route between Newton, Kan., and Albuquerque' would indicate Amtrak and BNSF plan to continue serving Albuquerque. It is a very important part of the Southwest region and keeping it on Amtrak's map makes a lot of sense.

Bear in mind, the current deadline (unless extended) for Positive Train Control implementation is the end of 2015. I don't see BNSF installing that on the entire Raton line, unless someone else pays for it.

 

[dart330]

If the SWC is the only train on the Raton line, wouldn't it be exempt from PTC?

 

[Amtrak George]

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) mandates that Positive Train Control (PTC) be implemented across a significant portion of the Nation's rail industry by December 31, 2015. Lines requiring PTC are essentially Class I railroad main lines (i.e., over which 5 million or more gross tons are transported annually) that handle any poisonous-inhalation-hazardous (PIH) materials; and, any railroad main lines over which regularly scheduled intercity passenger or commuter rail services are provided. PTC is expected to be implemented over a total of approximately 70,000 miles of track.

Above is taken from FRA website.

 

[Nathanael]

I don't know how difficult it is to relocate a crew change point. The fueling point is definitely no problem as right now it's little more than a tanker truck.

But also to consider - is this a service stop that requires refilling the fresh water tanks and emptying the holding tanks?

Yes, it is.

One *more* reason the SWC will continue to stop in ABQ: it has to stop for a nice long time, what with all the servicing and recovery time and so forth. BNSF won't let it block the main while it's doing that. BNSF doesn't want it blocking any of the tracks in the freight yard at Belen, either. There's no direct route to the RailRunner platform in Belen, and the platform isn't long enough anyway, and Railrunner has to stop at that platform, potentially while the SWC is there.

In contrast, Albuquerque has platforms to spare.

It's just *easier* for Amtrak to take the train to Albuquerque and wye it. There's no comparison with Cheyenne (tiny) or Phoenix (which would be an enormous detour); this would be a smaller detour than the Silver Star route to Tampa.

The statement from Amtrak quoted by Amtrak George appears to settle the matter:

"decisions and financial commitments will be needed by the end of 2014. If

they are not in place, steps will need to be taken to operate the train via a different route between

Newton, Kan., and Albuquerque by early 2016."

Albuqeuerque will continue to be a station stop. So will Newton.

 

[dart330]

Would this rarely used freight line even come close to 5 million tons a year? Since it says AND instead of OR, the SWC could run without PTC as long as the tonnage stays low enough and no PIH.

Of course this does nothing to solve the speed restriction issues which will still cost millions.

 

[George Harris]

Would this rarely used freight line even come close to 5 million tons a year? Since it says AND instead of OR, the SWC could run without PTC as long as the tonnage stays low enough and no PIH.

Of course this does nothing to solve the speed restriction issues which will still cost millions.

As understood by the writer of the requirement and all others in the industry, it means any line carrying passenger trains has to have PTC regardless of what other traffice or even if any other traffic is carried on the line.

 

[TML]

I guess it all comes down to how much political will there is to preserve the status quo.

My personal view on this issue is as follows: As much as I like to see Amtrak service restored to Wichita, Amarillo, etc., I don't think it should be at the expense of a number of other communities. I would lobby to create a new route instead of changing an existing route. This is why, for example, I have mixed feelings about past train reroutes such as the Capitol Limited in 1990 and the City of New Orleans in 1995.

 

[Nathanael]

I25 is just clogged with traffic. Something will have to be done soon. I just drove it a few weeks back. Probably Colorado will start with commuter trains south as far as Pueblo then Walsenburg and Trinidad. After that it won't take much to connect a couple of those trains with Rail Runner to the south. They may have to build a second or third track, but so far money hasn't stopped Colorado's expansion of light rail lines. The line from Trinidad east, however, probably won't be needed for anything but local freight service, so I don't see the SWC coming back to the route.

While that's true I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for CO to build, or invest in, heavy rail southward. CDOT thinks they just "fixed" I25 and as far as I know are moving their attention to the I70 corridor which gets clogged with people going to/retruning from romps in the mountains. The light rail system Denver has built and expanded upon is impressive, and well used, but that's Denver only and I'm pretty sure heavy rail was rejected.

Southward from Denver also goes through not-interested-in-passenger-rail Colorado Springs -- and then Pueblo, though pro-rail, is pretty small.

I think intercity rail northward from Denver is indeed more likely; Boulder and Longmont are trying to get service from RTD (and are pretty angry about delays), while Fort Collins and Loveland have *both* studied intercity service. If the state of CO decides to fund *anything* in terms of intercity rail, I would expect it to go that direction.

And, having had to visit Fort Collins recently, I really wish they'd done that long ago.

Anyway, enough with that off-topic digression....

 

[Amtrak George]

A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS:

1. It is my understanding that PTC (positive train control) will have to be installed not only where passenger trains run, but also on "freight only" class one rail lines that carry toxic-by- inhalation hazardous materials. With this in mind, the BNSF transcon will have PTC installed its entire length whether Amtrak runs on it or not.

2. Nobody (including me) really likes the idea of abandoning the Raton line. The grim reality is that the states can't pony up the money, and the cost would be prohibitive to maintain the line for one passenger train, making the Chief an easy target for budget cutters. The survival of the Chief may depend on rerouting it.

While I would love to see new services,In the current political/budget climate there isn't a snowball's chance of getting a new long distance train added. I hope that situation improves!

The City of New Orleans had to be re-routed to the Delta if it survived... That is "my" train (closest to home), I've ridden both routes, and hated to see the line through Grenada downgraded.

All you folks out there who may lose service, I feel your pain. I lost passenger service to my city in 1971 and never will have it again. In many places, the trackage on the route of the City of Miami is not even there any more. To a big extent, long distance trains are dependent on the health of the freight route they run on.

 

[Nathanael]

Would this rarely used freight line even come close to 5 million tons a year? Since it says AND instead of OR, the SWC could run without PTC as long as the tonnage stays low enough and no PIH.

Of course this does nothing to solve the speed restriction issues which will still cost millions.

As understood by the writer of the requirement and all others in the industry, it means any line carrying passenger trains has to have PTC regardless of what other traffice or even if any other traffic is carried on the line.

Ah -- but it only applies to main lines. In addition to a rather limited definition of mainline, the FRA has issued rather specific regulations allowing for track to be defined as not "main lines" by request and with FRA approval -- the "main line track exclusion addendum" procedure -- which can be used to exclude a *lot* of passenger tracks.

See http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e1efe3270305b02f9d5931f9805e67a8&rgn=div6&view=text&node=49:4.1.1.1.30.9&idno=49 for full details.

See section 236.1019(a): "This section pertains exclusively to exceptions from the rule that trackage over which scheduled intercity and commuter passenger service is provided is considered main line track requiring installation of a PTC system. "

The exemptions potentially relevant to the Southwest Chief are:

(1) "Limited operations" over track with no freight service, which would apply to the Raton Pass

(2) Operations over track with less than 15 million gross tons / year, with not more than 4 passenger trains per day, which might apply to some of the western Kansas route (I don't know the tonnage).

Accordingly, it is likely to be PTC-exempt.

However, that doesn't change the fact that maintenance of this route at any decent speed would be very expensive. And it needs new signalling even if it doesn't get PTC; it's not like the semaphore signals will last forever. Amtrak simply can't afford to maintain the track on its own for one train each way per day, and it's really not worth it for Amtrak -- this isn't like maintaining the bridge across the Niagara River at Niagara Falls, or the Post Road branch from Albany towards Boston, it's a much larger amount of track for far less benefit. So either the states come up with the $500 million (or whatever) or the train gets rerouted to what will, by then, be a much, much faster route.

I'd love to see both a Super Chief (current route) and a San Francisco Chief (Amarillo route), but Amtrak is very unlikely to have enough equipment to do that by 2016, let alone the money and political support to operate both. The fact is that train service thrives on volume: multiple services per day on one route already get you more "bang for the buck" than single services at two routes. Branch lines are relatively expensive to operate.

------

For future reference to the PTC installation rules:

The default list of mainlines is the following:

- Track with 5 million gross tons operated by Class I railroads (but not by Class II/III shortlines)

- plus any track used for regularly scheduled intercity or commuter service (but not merely tourist/scenic/historic/excursion operations)

- minus tracks where all trains are limited to restricted speed

The key exemptions from "mainline status" which may be obtained by filing an MTEA and receiving FRA approval are, paraphrasing loosely:

1 - passenger terminals with 20 mph speed limits, no freight activity, and signalled

2 - passenger train yards with 20 mph speed limits, no passengers on board, and signalled

3 - any all-passenger track with "limited operations" (*but see below)

4 - any track with full 'temporal separation' of passengers and freight and "limited operations" for passengers

5 - track with less than 15 million gross tons of freight and 0-4 passenger trains per day

6 - track with less than 15 million gross tons of freight, 0-12 passenger trains per day, not operated by a Class I railroad (so, by a Class II/III), and signalled

Note that there is a separate rule requiring either a manual block system or a full automatic block system in order for passenger trains to run at 60 mph or above (or for freights to run at 50 mph or above); and railroads which are required to implement PTC are required to integrate it with the block system.

Note that there is another separate rule requiring either PTC or automatic train stop, automatic train control, or automatic cab signal, for *all* operations at 80 mph and above.

Note that there is yet another rule requiring that all *new* intercity or commuter rail service have an approved PTC system -- though it looks to me like this may be subject to the same main line exclusion rules, I'm not sure.

Note, finally, that the FRA may order PTC to be installed on *any* line, including a "non mainline", at its discretion.

----

In practice, it looks to me like the FRA will not require PTC for one-a-day passenger service on passenger only track. The trouble is, who can afford to operate that? It's not efficient to maintain lots of track for one-a-day. Sure, on short sections like the Post Road Branch east of Albany or the bridge across the Niagara River, but not for long sections.

More worrisomely, the class Is are uniformly trying to get away with breaking the law regarding PTC. If they fail to install it by 12/31/2015, the penalty is only $16,000 per track segment. This is probably small enough that the Class Is will be willing to just eat the civil penalties.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Would this rarely used freight line even come close to 5 million tons a year? Since it says AND instead of OR, the SWC could run without PTC as long as the tonnage stays low enough and no PIH.

Of course this does nothing to solve the speed restriction issues which will still cost millions.

I guess the interpretation of this law will be one of many which are disputed.

I guess it all comes down to how much political will there is to preserve the status quo.

My personal view on this issue is as follows: As much as I like to see Amtrak service restored to Wichita, Amarillo, etc., I don't think it should be at the expense of a number of other communities. I would lobby to create a new route instead of changing an existing route. This is why, for example, I have mixed feelings about past train reroutes such as the Capitol Limited in 1990 and the City of New Orleans in 1995.

I would rather get a reroute than totally losing service.

A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS:

2. Nobody (including me) really likes the idea of abandoning the Raton line. The grim reality is that the states can't pony up the money, and the cost would be prohibitive to maintain the line for one passenger train, making the Chief an easy target for budget cutters. The survival of the Chief may depend on rerouting it.

I agree with you. I don't like the idea either, but if it's reroute or cancel, I would prefer the reroute. There have been plenty of scenic pax trains that have been cancelled with no replacement. This situation is hard but what has to be done will be done.

 

[zephyr17]

And it needs new signalling even if it doesn't get PTC; it's not like the semaphore signals will last forever.

And it is certainly not worth the expense. BNSF started replacing some of the signals before the decision to not use the line and try to sell it to New Mexico, but halted that effort. However, with one train a day, they could safely let it go dark. Of course, the FRA would have approve downgrading from signaled ABS (which most of it is, with some CTC around Raton Pass itself) to non-signaled for a passenger line, and the train would be restricted to 59mph. Hope someone considers this option when figuring the support costs.

BTW some of the sections through Kansas still have the old Santa Fe ATS operational. The lowered the top speed because of track condition, but left the ATS (it is a big deal to get downgrade of signaling approved). Can the old ATS system fill the PTC mandate for where it is?