Railroad Forums 

  • Amtrak Southwest Chief Discussion

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1551516  by mtuandrew
 
Seems like the Raton route really ought be used more than it is. Obviously I’d like to see a Denver-Albuquerque-El Paso train, I’ve said that before, but aren’t there any trains bound to/from Mexico that could pass via Raton despite the grades? Something that would require undercutting the tunnel?
 #1551529  by WhartonAndNorthern
 
mtuandrew wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:03 am Seems like the Raton route really ought be used more than it is. Obviously I’d like to see a Denver-Albuquerque-El Paso train, I’ve said that before, but aren’t there any trains bound to/from Mexico that could pass via Raton despite the grades? Something that would require undercutting the tunnel?
I'm guessing anything out of Denver runs via Amarillo, TX. I do see Denver/Belen manifest pair symbols in one of the BNSF symbol guides. I also see reference to a baretable intermodal move to San Bernadino ("as needed"). I don't know if they take the Spanish Peaks-Twin-Peaks-Dalhart subs through Trinidad or Boise City sub via La Junta.

Other trains going in/out of Denver to/from points South are a "seabox" stack train ("as needed") between Clovis and Denver, and lower priority manifests from Barstow (CA) to Denver and Slaton (TX)/Denver (pair). For these trains, the connection via Amarillo is much closer.

I'm guessing the grades over Raton and the ability to drop what probably amounts to an entire crew district contributes to such an indirect routing.

Regarding traffic to Mexico (via El Paso): El Paso manifest traffic originates at Belen and Amarillo with vehicle (autorack) trains originating in California or Phoenix.

Considering ATSF dropped Raton and Glorietta subs from their freight main in 1908, it's amazing they've survived this long.
 #1551536  by mtuandrew
 
WhartonAndNorthern wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:43 amConsidering ATSF dropped Raton and Glorietta subs from their freight main in 1908, it's amazing they've survived this long.
It truly is. They kind of had to keep those subdivisions intact until fairly recently I suppose, since the Rio Grande would potentially have filed with the ICC to take over ownership had the Santa Fe abandoned it. Not sure that Union Pacific would care enough today to contest any BNSF abandonment proceedings, not with trackage rights from Pueblo to Amarillo.
 #1551686  by WhartonAndNorthern
 
mtuandrew wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:27 am
WhartonAndNorthern wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:43 amConsidering ATSF dropped Raton and Glorietta subs from their freight main in 1908, it's amazing they've survived this long.
It truly is. They kind of had to keep those subdivisions intact until fairly recently I suppose, since the Rio Grande would potentially have filed with the ICC to take over ownership had the Santa Fe abandoned it. Not sure that Union Pacific would care enough today to contest any BNSF abandonment proceedings, not with trackage rights from Pueblo to Amarillo.
Let the folks who want to "reactivate" Tennessee Pass have it :-D . I've seen quite a few folks claim that UP won't abandon Tenn. Pass since then BNSF can claim it. Not sure why BNSF would want it, they already have trackage rights through Moffat and the grades are so horrendous and the lack of customers wouldn't provide any sustaining income. Notionally it would be easier to clear this line for doublestacks than clearing all the tunnels on the ex-DRGW.
 #1551957  by BandA
 
mtuandrew wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:27 am
WhartonAndNorthern wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:43 amConsidering ATSF dropped Raton and Glorietta subs from their freight main in 1908, it's amazing they've survived this long.
It truly is. They kind of had to keep those subdivisions intact until fairly recently I suppose, since the Rio Grande would potentially have filed with the ICC to take over ownership had the Santa Fe abandoned it. Not sure that Union Pacific would care enough today to contest any BNSF abandonment proceedings, not with trackage rights from Pueblo to Amarillo.
I assume it doesn't require much annual brush cutting.
 #1567029  by David Benton
 
BandA wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:50 pm
mtuandrew wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:27 am
WhartonAndNorthern wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:43 amConsidering ATSF dropped Raton and Glorietta subs from their freight main in 1908, it's amazing they've survived this long.
It truly is. They kind of had to keep those subdivisions intact until fairly recently I suppose, since the Rio Grande would potentially have filed with the ICC to take over ownership had the Santa Fe abandoned it. Not sure that Union Pacific would care enough today to contest any BNSF abandonment proceedings, not with trackage rights from Pueblo to Amarillo.
I assume it doesn't require much annual brush cutting.
I would think it was considered a bad weather (snow) or fire backup route , for the Denver region?? Or at least a detour if the transcon gets snarled up with an accident or such. Has BnSf considered abandoning it , or just mothballing?
 #1567042  by Gilbert B Norman
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again; it is "beyond absurd" that 300 some miles of ROW is being maintained, regardless of who pays for what, for the sole use of six passenger trains per week (OK; set to resume to fourteen).

No wonder when Mr. Anderson arrived on the property, he said this is beyond belief and "started to do something about it".

It was a sound business decision attempting to establish a "busteetoot" La Junta-Albuquerque, absent some kind of reroute for which Warren was "not exactly blessing".
 #1568108  by gokeefe
 
Mr. Norman

My only caveat would be if given the lower level of use (no track breaking freight) that perhaps Amtrak is getting a good deal on maintenance.

Track inspections are potentially the only real expense at this point. Especially given some recent projects.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 #1568715  by frequentflyer
 
Amtrak is the only traffic on the route? How long do we expect this to keep up for the sake of history? Eventually the SWC will move to the Clovis line with a wye in ABQ. It makes the only sense.
 #1568840  by eolesen
 
I've come to the conclusion it's going to take something quasi-catastrophic to close that line e.g. bridge failure/fire, rock slide, extreme washout...

If Amtrak isn't already being hit with the fully allocated costs for maintenance, I'd think BNSF would have to be pushing for it under a high-cost event.
 #1568853  by gokeefe
 
Not necessarily. A lot of this scenarios could be considered as part of the operating agreement. I doubt Amtrak would have signed on without negotiating that ahead of time.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 #1569980  by John_Perkowski
 
Raton is alive only because the Kansas Senators flexed their muscle on the Hill for western Kansas Amtrak service, aka 3/4. 3/4 COULD join the Denver link to the Transcon at Trinidad, and hook up at Dalhart.
  • 1
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55