Amtrak Southwest Chief Discussion

[gprimr1]

On one hand, I'm tempted to say "If the states want to foot the bill to maintain a large section of track for a 1 a day train, let them."

On the other hand, one wonders what kind of improvements to the split Southwest Chief could be funded with the money being spent to keep the Raton pass open.

[electricron]

They should move the Chief to the BNSF Transcon via Amarillo, on tracks BNSF will maintain without additional funds from the local states. Yes, some new sidings will be needed, and some new stations will have to be built or old stations refurbished. The problem with states maintaining the Raton Pass line is that the maintenance is never ending, requiring continuous maintenance year after year after year. Getting three different states to commit to a continuous funding for a daily train will be hard to achieve. With a move to the Transcon, funds the local states will provide to make the move will be a one-time only expenditure.

I realize the Transcon is not the traditional route of the Chief, but neither is IH-25. IH-25 doesn't run through a tunnel. Southern California already lives with Amtrak bus substitutions between LA and Bakersfield, so let's do the same thing to the Chief might be palatable for Amtrak's desert passengers. What a shame! Imagine Amtrak asking NEC passengers to accept bus subsutsitions on a daily basis, they'll be riots in every town and city.

[RRspatch]

Of course once Amtrak stops running between Trinidad and Lamy BNSF will quickly file to abandon the line. There is no freight over this segment and no online business. The CTC segments between Trinidad and Springer as well a Rowe and Lamy will be turned off. Pole lines and signal equipment will be quickly vandalized and stripped for their copper.

Once this route is gone .... IT'S GONE.

What will be the next train to have a segment chopped out of the middle of it and converted to a Through Way bus?

Anderson MUST go.

[electricron]

If the BNST Transcon can't be implemented as an alternate route, maybe it's time to think of a daily LA to Salt Lake City via Las Vegas train, with switching operations like in Spokane for the Empire Builder, or in Albany for the Lake Shore Limited? You'll still be able to ride a train from LA to Chicago, but maybe not as a one seat ride without transfers. Utah and Nevada are more likely to support that train than Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico.

Don't get stubborn and insist on using the existing route, keep your options open for alternatives.

[RRspatch]

They should move the Chief to the BNSF Transcon via Amarillo, on tracks BNSF will maintain without additional funds from the local states. Yes, some new sidings will be needed, and some new stations will have to be built or old stations refurbished. The problem with states maintaining the Raton Pass line is that the maintenance is never ending, requiring continuous maintenance year after year after year. Getting three different states to commit to a continuous funding for a daily train will be hard to achieve. With a move to the Transcon, funds the local states will provide to make the move will be a one-time only expenditure.

I realize the Transcon is not the traditional route of the Chief, but neither is IH-25. IH-25 doesn't run through a tunnel. Southern California already lives with Amtrak bus substitutions between LA and Bakersfield, so let's do the same thing to the Chief might be palatable for Amtrak's desert passengers. What a shame! Imagine Amtrak asking NEC passengers to accept bus subsutsitions on a daily basis, they'll be riots in every town and city.

BNSF really doesn't want A3 and A4 going through Amarillo, Clovis and Belen. These three terminals are some of the most congested on the southern trans-con .... trust me, I KNOW that for a fact (something about dispatching the Panhandle and Clovis subdivisions). BNSF actually chipped in money to KEEP Amtrak on the Raton line.

As for stations, new platforms will be needed at Belen, Clovis, Amarillo and Wichita and maybe at Woodward or Waynoka. The cost of the station upgrades as well and track and signal improvements BNSF will require will NOT be cheap.

[electricron]

BNSF really doesn't want A3 and A4 going through Amarillo, Clovis and Belen. These three terminals are some of the most congested on the southern trans-con .... trust me, I KNOW that for a fact (something about dispatching the Panhandle and Clovis subdivisions). BNSF actually chipped in money to KEEP Amtrak on the Raton line.

As for stations, new platforms will be needed at Belen, Clovis, Amarillo and Wichita and maybe at Woodward or Waynoka. The cost of the station upgrades as well and track and signal improvements BNSF will require will NOT be cheap.

I don't disagree, but it will be a one time capital costs for the various States.
And there is another possible rerouting over UP tracks as well, completely dropping BNSF altogether.

[RRspatch]

BNSF really doesn't want A3 and A4 going through Amarillo, Clovis and Belen. These three terminals are some of the most congested on the southern trans-con .... trust me, I KNOW that for a fact (something about dispatching the Panhandle and Clovis subdivisions). BNSF actually chipped in money to KEEP Amtrak on the Raton line.

As for stations, new platforms will be needed at Belen, Clovis, Amarillo and Wichita and maybe at Woodward or Waynoka. The cost of the station upgrades as well and track and signal improvements BNSF will require will NOT be cheap.

I don't disagree, but it will be a one time capital costs for the various States.
And there is another possible rerouting over UP tracks as well, completely dropping BNSF altogether.

I assume you mean Kansas City to Vaughn on the UP and west on BNSF? The connection at Vaughn faces the wrong way and it's a backup move through so so yard tracks. I wouldn't expect UPRR to approve this anyway. I used to work with the UP dispatcher who ran that line and he told me it's always congested. NOPE.

[Backshophoss]

The Transconn can get congested at times,some of us wonder why BNSF wont route Empty well cars/Bare tables or Coal unit train Empties via Raton to relive some congestion on the Transconn.
There's a feeling that when Gov Suzanna halted the rest of the purchase of the line thru Raton (state line),that created some ill will toward the state of NM at BNSF HQ(And a bunch of tax breaks to allow completion of the bridge near Ft Sumner,and fuel tax breaks that UP got as well as a peace gesture)
Traffic congestion delays for the SW Chief would get worse on the Transconn if # 3 and # 4 were routed that way.

This year Gov Suzanna is on the way out(term limits)along with most of the Roundhouse critters (state wide elections).
For now not sure what the outcome will be.

FYI, the UP/BNSF interchange at Vaughn is an uphill reverse move from the UP to BNSF,on not so good track.
The Chief would have to do this twice a day as a reverse move in both directions.

[Gilbert B Norman]

A conference with Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) went over "about like a lead balloon":

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/he ... e/4961142/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fair Use:

Heinrich said the meeting did not go well.

“I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that I’ve ever experienced,” he said. “To learn that not only are they planning to pull back their commitment to the TIGER grant, but that they're going to abandon the route I think is just outrageous.”

Those documents obtained by KOB detail what Amtrak presented in that meeting.

Because of outdated railroad track and signal systems between Raton Pass and Lamy, upgrades need to be made that would cost more than what is included in that Department of Transportation-provided TIGER grant.

Amtrak officials said they’re not willing to contribute any money without a "comprehensive plan from other stakeholders." That means the company doesn't plan on paying to repair track and signals they don’t own.

As for the passengers, documents outline a plan to divert service at Albuquerque, sending eastbound passengers on charter buses to meet up with the train in Colorado or Kansas.

[RRspatch]

The Transconn can get congested at times,some of us wonder why BNSF wont route Empty well cars/Bare tables or Coal unit train Empties
via Raton to relive some congestion on the Transconn.

And that's exactly what the ATSF and later on the BNSF used to do. The reason for this was three sets of single track bottle necks. The first was in Abo Canyon which was 5 miles of single track on a 1.5% grade. This was a major PITA as eastbounds crawled up the hill and westbounds were speed restricted down the hill. The cost to BNSF was close to $90 million to blast a 2nd track through the canyon. I was dispatching the Clovis sub during this project and there was always trains backed up at either end. The second choke point was at Vaughn where there was 10 miles of single track (with a 10000 foot siding in the middle) over the UP (ex SP). I also had the pleasure of dispatching this section of railroad and like Abo Canyon there was always trains stacked up at either end waiting got get across. The third bottle neck was at Fort Sumner over the Pecos river. This one wasn't as bad as the first two as it was only 3 miles long. Today all three segments have been doubled tracked at a huge co$t to BNSF.

Now as far as the Raton and Glorieta subs are concerned there are several things that would constrain freight traffic over this route. The first one if the commuter schedules that NMRX runs between Belen and CP Madrid (where the line to Santa Fe branches off of the Glorieta sub). There are no shots available between 0400 and 0900 in the morning and then again from 1500 and 1900 in the evening. Between those hours midday you have A3 and A4 running. That leaves only the night time hours to run an empty "over the hill". As there's few places on the Gallup sub to hold/park a train waiting for a shot over the hill it make NO sense to even do so now that the Clovis sub is all two main (double) track. The other problem with the Raton route is most of the sidings are "steam era" length which is between 3000 to 6000 feet. These days freight trains are way longer than that. Attempting to run over the hill during the day between the two commuter periods would make for an ugly meet between the eastbound empty and A3. The third and final problem is that with no westbound traffic crews would have to be taxied back from Las Vegas and La Junta all the way back to Albuquerque or Belen.

There's a feeling that when Gov Suzanna halted the rest of the purchase of the line thru Raton (state line),that created some ill will toward the state
of NM at BNSF HQ(And a bunch of tax breaks to allow completion of the bridge near Ft Sumner,and fuel tax breaks that UP got as well as a peace gesture)

That is exactly what happened.

Traffic congestion delays for the SW Chief would get worse on the Transconn if # 3 and # 4 were routed that way.

The other dispatchers and myself used to joke that by eliminating the bottle necks as they did just allows the trains to run that much faster until they run into the Cluster**** that's Belen and Clovis. When crews would ask me why they were waiting 10 to 15 miles outside of Belen I used to respond "you've run into the .... Belen Wall. Put your feet up as it might be a while". Amarillo, which I remember from my Panhandle sub days, can also be a complete cluster****. As I stated earlier BNSF does not want A3 and A4 fighting they're way through these three terminals. From what I've heard from my former co-workers is that due to record high inter-modal traffic is that things have gotten even worse since I retired last year.

This year Gov Suzanna is on the way out(term limits)along with most of the Roundhouse critters (state wide elections).
For now not sure what the outcome will be.

New Mexico is a "purple" state so it could go either way.

FYI, the UP/BNSF interchange at Vaughn is an uphill reverse move from the UP to BNSF,on not so good track.
The Chief would have to do this twice a day as a reverse move in both directions.

Yes, I did mention that. Having worked with the UP dispatcher at the Harriman Dispatch Center I doubt UP would approve of The Southwest Chief going that way.

Now as far as the signal systems are concerned ... The line from Kansas City to Hutchinson is all CTC. From Hutchinson to Trinidad it's a mix of single track and double track ABS. From Trinidad to Springer (west of Raton) it's CTC. From Springer to CP Rowe (east of Lamy) it's ABS with spring switches at the sidings (line yourself in and trail out the other side). From CP Rowe to CP West Lamy it's CTC. BNSF territory ends at MP 834 which is just east of Lamy. From West CP West Lamy to CP Madrid it's ABS with one siding at Waldo (spring switches). From CP Madrid (line to Santa Fe) to CP Isleta (midway between Albuquerque and CP Dalies) it's CTC controlled by the NMRX dispatcher in Albuquerque. From CP Isleta to CP Dalies it's CTC controlled by BNSF. As far as PTC is concerned it's is NOT required between Trinidad and CP Madrid account NO hazmats and only two passenger trains (can someone tell Anderson this?). I'm not sure about the segment between Newton and Trinidad. There is freight over this segment but I'm not sure if any hazmats are carried. I believe the Raton sub is down to just 5 or 6 remaining semaphore signals. Everything else is either search lights or "Vadars". Yes the system is old but it's reasonably good working order with only the above mentioned semaphores needing to be replaced (sorry railfans). These days it's VERY hard to get the FRA to approve removing a legacy signal system (re: ex RF&P cab signals) so BNSF would probably have to keep what's in place between Newton and Trinidad if the Chief went away or took a different route. The Raton/Glorieta subs west of Trinidad would be a different story as BNSF would at best railbank and at worst abandon the line. This would leave the signal system to suffer the same fate as UP's Tennessee Pass line (railbanked) that was CTC but is now completely destroyed.

Leave the Chief where it is .... get rid of Anderson.

[SouthernRailway]

Leave the Chief where it is .... get rid of Anderson.

Agreed, but in this case it's yet another example of "one size fits all" laws having unintended consequences. The PTC requirement should be amended so that it's not required on the stretch of track used only by Amtrak. If I understand correctly, there are no other trains on the track except the Chief, so part of the reason for PTC (to protect against collisions in busy train traffic) doesn't apply here.

[mtuandrew]

BNSF really doesn't want A3 and A4 going through Amarillo, Clovis and Belen. These three terminals are some of the most congested on the southern trans-con .... trust me, I KNOW that for a fact (something about dispatching the Panhandle and Clovis subdivisions). BNSF actually chipped in money to KEEP Amtrak on the Raton line.

Maybe they should chip in more, and add a 2 mile siding somewhere in the middle. Also, maybe if NMRX can’t afford to buy, a lease might be a better option to give BNSF the money necessary.

And realistically, this is one stretch of American railroad that should not and does not need PTC. There is literally one train/day/direction, so FRA ought to be able to approve an exemption La Junta-Raton-Lamy even for a Class 1 moving a passenger train at 79 mph.

[Mackensen]

BNSF really doesn't want A3 and A4 going through Amarillo, Clovis and Belen. These three terminals are some of the most congested on the southern trans-con .... trust me, I KNOW that for a fact (something about dispatching the Panhandle and Clovis subdivisions). BNSF actually chipped in money to KEEP Amtrak on the Raton line.

Maybe they should chip in more, and add a 2 mile siding somewhere in the middle. Also, maybe if NMRX can’t afford to buy, a lease might be a better option to give BNSF the money necessary.

And realistically, this is one stretch of American railroad that should not and does not need PTC. There is literally one train/day/direction, so FRA ought to be able to approve an exemption La Junta-Raton-Lamy even for a Class 1 moving a passenger train at 79 mph.

As far as I know the law does exempt this stretch, but Amtrak as a matter of policy (for now) says it won't operate on track without PTC once the deadline expires. This is either Amtrak getting out in front of its perceived safety problems or Amtrak killing its long-distance trains by stealth.

[RRspatch]

As far as I know the law does exempt this stretch, but Amtrak as a matter of policy (for now) says it won't operate on track without PTC once the deadline expires. This is either Amtrak getting out in front of its perceived safety problems or Amtrak killing its long-distance trains by stealth.

Correct. PTC is NOT required on the stretch of line between Trinidad and CP Madrid (NMRX) account NO hazmats and only two passenger trains (1 each way).

Positive Train Control is required on lines that handle hazardous materials (hazmats) and exceed a certain number of passenger trains. As far as I know the segment between Trinidad and CP Madrid already has an FRA exemption for PTC. I'm not sure about the La Junta to Trinidad segment. The La Junta to Newton segment probably needs PTC as the BNSF Denver to Kansas City Argentine freight most likely carries hazmats.

The lack of PTC west of Trinidad is simply an excuse to kill off one of the western long haul trains despite the fact that PTC is NOT required. I'm guessing the Coast Starlight between Sacramento and Portland will be next. Drop the $leepers and diner$ and run with coaches only. Everyone at Sacramento gets to pile into a bus for the ride up I-5 to Portland. There they get to squeeze into a state supported Talgo to Seattle. Anderson will be quick to point out that the bus is much faster than the train and therefor Amtrak will be providing a "better" service at lower co$t. Gee, I hope Anderson doesn't read this group ....

[Noel Weaver]

I second the motion.
Noel Weaver