Amtrak Southwest Chief Discussion

Station Aficionado wrote:Ah, but NM did elect a Tea Party governor, Mr. Norman, although the state leg remains in the hands of the Dems. That's why the state pulled out of the purchase of the Lamy-Trinidad segment. Not sure whether she thinks the political fight to kill the railrunner worth the candle.

Over at the Trains website, Fred Frailey's latest post says BuffettNorthernSantaFe is sending bills to Amtrak for the maintenance cost on Lamy-Trinidad, which Amtrak then studiously ignores.

Not terribly surprising. SCRRA did an audit recently and found that Amtrak has "forgotten" to pay track maintenance for the Surfliner on local government owned track (most of the LA-San Diego portion) for the last 18 years.

Also, Amtrak decided it wasn't worth paying $100k/year to maintain a few hundred yards of ex-ATSF track in Chicago a few years back, causing the Chief to route via the CZ route to Galesburg and thence via traditional route to KC and LA. In the process, Chilicothe and Streator lost service. Now, it's worth $300m/year to provide service to Hutchinson?

I also am never a big bus riding advocate, but either Ambus or Railrunner connection makes a lot more sense than backing to ABQ. These days, it's not a question of which mode of transportation, it's "in what order?". Every family has 2+ reliable cars and doesn't mind driving 40+ miles to catch a train.

You could eliminate reverse moves in ABQ if all Superliner cars used by the Chief were rewired for push-pull operations. Please don't suggest that is impossible, all the Superliners used by the Heartland Flyer are push-pull capable. I'll admit it probably isn't financially practical to do push-pull to every Superliner, but some more push-pull Superliners dedicated for the Chief is.

Is the cost so high that they didn't see a need to order the whole fleet like that standardized?

It should be a goal for Superliner coaches to be rewired for P-P at midlife rebuild, as quite a few of them are shuffled into midwest corridor assignments and a handful are used on west-coast corridor assignments. That said, I still think it's a bit nuts to back the train into ABQ rather than stopping at a nearby city with the possibility of a bus or commuter train connection.

For the unenlightened among us, namely myself, what's the issue with using Superliner equipment push-pull right now?

Lest we forget, the train sets, Horizon or Superliner as the case may be, assigned to 350-355incl, Wolverines, need not be "push pull" equipped. By push pull equipped, Mr. Magnus, this means that there are train lines through the cars so that an Engineer on one end can control the locomotive on the other.

While the Wolverine sets have locomotives on either end, the rear locomotive is simply taking a ride. This represents a woefully inefficient assignment of equipment that cannot be addressed (there is no locomotive turning facility at Pontiac) until new equipment (hopefully bi-level so those wholly unsuitable Talgos ordered by "pre Tea Party" Wisconsin can go somewhere else - Spain for all I care) push pull capable is ordered and placed in service.

To my knowledge, the only Superliners required to have push pull capacity are those that have been leased to the California DOT for use on the San Joaquin and Capitol trains. I'll defer to others if those assigned to the Heartland Flyer need also be equipped.

All told, it would be absurd to expect that a pool of equipment would be modified and additional NPCU's (Cabbages in fanese) converted from one hulk or the other laying about simply so that a rerouted Chief could serve Albuquerque by rail. I'm sorry to be disrespectful to whomever at this forum once made the suggestion that through cars be interchanged with a Railrunner train, but that proposal is equally absurd. Should the Chief serve Belen in place of Albuquerque, the only passengers that would consider riding Railrunner would be within the railfan community. Ambus is simply the only reasonable and practical means to make the transfer.

The reverse move from Abajo wye to the south end of the platforms is about 1.5 miles in "restricted(yard) limits",this was done before in 2010
when there were washouts near Las Vegas NM with a long Bus connection to Lajunta Co.
#3+#4 are used to get the "surfliner" cars to Beech Grove shops and by private car operators to get to Chicago, forget about "Push-Pull".
NMRX DS would make sure there are no conflicting moves when AMTK makes the reverse move.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: But more to the point, I accept Mr. Weaver's position that LD's do provide a greater public service when routed through regions that have fewer alternative transportation resources, such as Interstate highways as well as available - and affordable - air transport.

I think that there are instances where it makes sense to run "accommodation" trains, namely in regions where highway access is limited or nonexistent. I can think of two or three current instances in Canada, but none in the lower "48" of the United States.

In general, you want even one a day long distance trains connecting centers of population.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:But, on the flip side, as several here who like myself put the pocketbook before the passion have noted, the possibility that Amtrak could be burdened with the incremental cost of maintaining some 355 miles, Newton-LaJunta, at FRA Class 4 (psgr 80mph) over the apparently existing Class 3 (psgr 60mph) as well as the entire La Junta-Lamy segment (try all the way to Albuquerque if NM elects some Tea Party governor and Railrunner is gone with his inauguration) is simply economic madness - especially when BNSF is "openly receptive' to handling The Chief over the Transcon.

I really don't see how Amtrak can afford to maintain that many route miles solely for their own use. Moreover, even putting aside the issue of signal maintenance, and signalling does seem ridiculous with just one train per day in each direction, the roadbed would eventually deteriorate with time. I would guess that if the route is totally devoid of all freight traffic, the track probably isn't in pristine condition to begin with.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: I'm sorry to be disrespectful to whomever at this forum once made the suggestion that through cars be interchanged with a Railrunner train, but that proposal is equally absurd. Should the Chief serve Belen in place of Albuquerque, the only passengers that would consider riding Railrunner would be within the railfan community. Ambus is simply the only reasonable and practical means to make the transfer.

Well, Railrunner is an "interesting" operation, and I'm using the term "interesting" as a euphemism to be polite. It's not really commuter rail, but intercity rail, with a daily ridership of only 4,500. Nice equipment, nice online and onboard ticketing procedures, reasonably frequent service, not to mention dirt cheap (and originally FREE) fares. And minimal ridership, which shouldn't come as a surprise. I think the political class in New Mexico must have thought they were living on Portland, Oregon or San Jose, California.

I would be very interested in seeing how few people travel by Railrunner who are not state employees. One of New Mexico's problems is that Santa Fe is very expensive to live in because it is a popular tourism and retirement destination. This has led many state employees to live in ABQ and commute between the two cities.

Tadman wrote:Also, Amtrak decided it wasn't worth paying $100k/year to maintain a few hundred yards of ex-ATSF track in Chicago a few years back, causing the Chief to route via the CZ route to Galesburg and thence via traditional route to KC and LA. In the process, Chilicothe and Streator lost service. Now, it's worth $300m/year to provide service to Hutchinson?

Actually, that's $300m over the next decade, which would be $30m/year. Also, that wouldn't just be to maintain service to Hutchinson, but also to the 8 other cities/towns that would lose service. I'm not necessarily saying it would be worth it, but we should fairly represent what costs/benefits are actually being discussed.

If the reroute is done, I think a good argument could be made in favor of a backup move to reach Albuquerque. If the wye at Woodward Rd. is used then the backup would be about 2.5 miles, only slightly longer than the Silver Star does to reach Tampa from its wye. Plus, the Star has to double over its route and pass through Lakeland twice. I don't hear anyone suggesting Tampa be served with an Ambus, even though its way off the beaten path. Also note that Albuquerque is NM's biggest city and the state and city will likely put pressure on Amtrak to continue service. If Amtrak wants to build support in congress and at the state level, then eliminating direct service to a state's largest city(like they did to Phoenix) isn't the way to do it.

Mr.T wrote:If the reroute is done, I think a good argument could be made in favor of a backup move to reach Albuquerque. If the wye at Woodward Rd. is used then the backup would be about 2.5 miles, only slightly longer than the Silver Star does to reach Tampa from its wye. Plus, the Star has to double over its route and pass through Lakeland twice. I don't hear anyone suggesting Tampa be served with an Ambus, even though its way off the beaten path. Also note that Albuquerque is NM's biggest city and the state and city will likely put pressure on Amtrak to continue service. If Amtrak wants to build support in congress and at the state level, then eliminating direct service to a state's largest city(like they did to Phoenix) isn't the way to do it.

I'll join with Mr. T in saying that service to ABQ should be maintained, even if a short backup move is required. I fully acknowledge that part of my reasoning is purely sentimental--I was born there, and I'd hate to see the city lose intercity service. Beyond that, however, ABQ produces the biggest ridership between KC and LA, and I'd bet that would continue, even with service to Wichita and Amarillo. Moreover, I think folks really underestimate the difficulty of establishing a station for the SWC at Belen, especially if the train is to be serviced there (I believe it's still serviced at ABQ). I don't think BNSF would allow use of the old ATSF station because that would interfere with their yard operations (or so it appeared to me when I visited the Harvey House museum a couple of years ago). The NMRX station is inadequate for the SWC, and the station track does not connect to the WB Transcon. Even if it did, is the Chief short enough to be fully clear of the Transcon? I'm quite sure BNSF would not tolerate any interference, and it would be a pretty long station stop.

I also agree that the Woodward Rd. wye would be the spot to turn the train (lots of track--I believe that the now-gone Kirtland AFB spur connected to the mainline there) and it's not far from the ABQ station. I'd do the backup move leaving ABQ, so as not to unnecessarily delay detraining passengers. Two questions: 1) Could Amtrak contract with NMRX to use one of their loco's to tow the SWC to the wye--would that be more efficient than a true back up move? 2) How long is the backup move for the CZ at Denver?

Interesting if it's just a 1.5m backup. Would it make more sense just to start using an NMRX station (are these on the same line?)?

Also, don't get me started on the ludicrousness of the Tampa situation. I think there's a number of problems and solutions there that got shortcutted at some point and it's overall a sad state of affairs. We can open a new thread on that one if need be.

Station Aficionado wrote: Could Amtrak contract with NMRX to use one of their loco's to tow the SWC to the wye--would that be more efficient than a true back up move?

Even if I will continue to hold that the most reasonable and practical way to handle Albuquerque passengers with a rerouted Chief, would be an Ambus transfer, let us not discount Mr. Afficiando's suggestion as captioned - I've seen it done.

About a year ago, #3 Chief had a collision incident with a vehicle somewhere near Plano IL. Although no locomotive or car was derailed, the equipment could not continue the run. In order to get the equipment and passengers back to Chi for further reaccommodation, an eight car METRA trainset with an MP 36 locomotive was sent West from Aurora (MP38) to Plano (MP52). There the MP-36 and trailing set coupled to the rear car of disabled #3, The BNSF Engineer (and likely a Pilot as well as C&Es assigned to METRA service are not Rules qualified West of Aurora) went to the now forward cab car and the entire two trains comprising some seventeen cars plus two out of svc Amtrak locomotives (still providing HEP) was handled to CUS by this one "challenged' MP-36 that was in the middle of the consist.

I just happened to be taking an evening walk; this is spoken with straight tongue.

BNSF would never allow a station stop in Belen,their "idea" was to build a station at Dalies(along with a siding),in the middle of
nowhere on possibly tribal lands to boot. NMRX Belen station is a stub track good only 6 cars+ power, Cab car is used for ADA access.
The NMRX platforms are about 2-3 cars long with the exceptions of Los Ranchos(extended to 4.5 cars),Santa Fe depot, and Albuquerque.
Albuquerque is a AMTK T+E crewbase and protect power is kept here for #3+#4,Woodward Ave(Abajo)is 4 way gated and part of the city wide
Quiet Zone. The reverse move would be safe.
Albquerque is the largest city in NM,tourism is part of it ,when #1+#2 were rerouted away from Phoenix,there was a hit to tourism
and nobody is thrilled with the bus connection from Maricopa to Phoenix!

Regretably,NMRX doesn't have any Roadswitcher type power,work power is a "Trackmobile",
lease pwr from BNSF-$500+ a day,go figure.