Amtrak Southwest Chief Discussion

Believe the"tradition" was a bus connect at Lajunta under ATSF,under Amtrak,the bus connect moved to Raton to
Make Greyhound "happy".
The bus connect to El Paso has gone by-by a few years back,or TNM&O (Greydog contractor)doesn't advertise
the run times.
With Sen Udall of Co. defeated,have no idea if CoDOT is still willing to pursue the "Pueblo Detour".
Trinidad was reduced to "Portable office trailer" with up to date Platforms due to I-25 reconsruction,(elevated road section)
so no bus connect at Trinidad

From where I sit, unable to see a damn thing and so left to imagine
what to see, LOL, seems like BSNF really, Really, REALLY didn't want
the Southwest Chief on its TransCon, and made that emphatically
clear to Amtrak behind closed doors.

I'm pretty much O.K. with Amtrak going along to get along with a big,
and usually friendly, host railroad. And I'm thinking they may have traded,
again behind closed doors, for a couple or three small favors from BSNF
to be taken elsewhere.

As for Wichita, KS, it needs a Heartland Flyer connection to Oklahoma City
and to the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex far to the south, not so much to
Amarillo or Albuquerque. Well, good luck with that with the current
ideologue Governor and the Koch Brothers running the state. But that's
not Amtrak's problem.

So Amarillo is out of luck, not for the first time in its history.

===========================

Didn't I read? -- can't find it now -- that NARP was working on a priorities
list for Amtrak, to supersede its "trains-to-everywhere wish list map"?
I'm putting South of the Lake at the top, then a new Long Bridge over
the Potomac, upgrades Richmond-Petersburg, new line Petersburg-Raleigh,
upgrades Potomac-Richmond, 110-mph corridor Cleveland-Chicago, a
daily Cardinal, a daily Sunset Ltd., at least 50 more assorted Viewliners,
hundreds of new single-level coaches, and much much more … but a
passenger train on the BSNF TransCon is not even in my top 200.

So I'm not worrying about this any more.

Per Amtrak's Chief schedule web page, the entire distance between Chicago and Los Angeles is 2265 miles. The distance between Newton and Alberquerque is 703 miles. So the Chief is already using 69% of their transcon, I really don't think this 31% will make much difference in impact to their trains.

Woody wrote:From where I sit, unable to see a damn thing and so left to imagine
what to see, LOL, seems like BSNF really, Really, REALLY didn't want
the Southwest Chief on its TransCon, and made that emphatically
clear to Amtrak behind closed doors.

Woody,

Based on the long history of this issue that does not appear to be the case. In fact if anything its the opposite. BNSF wanted to shutdown the Raton Pass Route completely and consequently told Amtrak that track improvements would have to take place or they could switch the train over to the Transcon. Had they not wanted the train on the Transcon I think they would never have imposed these conditions on Amtrak. As things stand right now BNSF will be required to operate and maintain a substantial number of track miles which see nothing more than two Amtrak trains each day, one in each direction. The capital improvements will help but they will never defray the labor expenses associated with this line and the continuing need for maintenance.

Overall BNSF may have lost in this case as they could have simply petitioned to abandon the line and likely would have received a favorable ruling from the STB. Politically however its a clear "win" as they forced Amtrak and the local communities to be the torch bearer on this one and left the burden of the service on them. The outcome has been that (much to their surprise I would think) the line is going to see some significant repairs and will remain open.

If anything,BNSF wanted to downgrade Lajunta,Glorieta,and Raton Subs to freight only speeds of 30 mph,
and shutdown the Raton and Glorieta CTC sections,and the ABS signals on Raton and Glorieta subs.
the route would have been TWC and remain as a Backup route to the Transconn.
Remember BNSF had planned to sever the "Devil's Lake" route of the Builder,that changed
real Quick thanks to Balken Crude oil.
As mentioned earlier,Amtrak's "price" to move to the Transconn,would have been trackwork
on the Newton-Wichita-Mulvane segment,PTC/ATS installation,etc......

Backshophoss wrote:Mr Norman,The price could have been part of the cost of a new bridge near Ft Sumner NM,Part of
PTC install and reinstallation of ATS along the route,possibly some grade crossing upgrades and track improvements
in Wellington,Amarillo,Clovis and Belen Yards for starters.
When the SFO Chief ran,Clovis was where passengers(and thru cars)were put on trains to Ft Worth(Dallas),Houston,and
Galveston Tx.
Denver to Texas via the Joint Line, former FW&D/C&S,and the Boise City Sub is a major coal unit train route with directional
running to boot,which the "Pueblo Detour" plan for #3+#4 will have deal with as well.
Due to the Baggage business created by the Scouts,the SWC might be the 1st western LD to get the View II Baggage cars.

"reinstallation of ATS" ? ATS in the form of the old inductor shoes is no longer allowed by the FRA except where it already exists (ie: grandfathered in). PTC, which is now in service on the BNSF Clovis subdivision, is the modern replacement for ATS. Once PTC goes live across the system I expect the remaining ATS installations to be removed.

Double tracking of the Vaughn single track is now under way and will be completed by the end of July this year. This project is driven by heavy freight traffic on the trans-con and has nothing to do with a potential reroute of A3/A4. Planning for a second bridge at Fort Sumner is also on going for the same reason.

Expansion at Belen isn't possible as the yard and fueling tracks (four each way) have been built out to the point where they're isn't any more room ... trust me, I know something about Belen ....

Bottom line is BNSF really doesn't want A3 and A4 through Amarillo, Clovis and Belen. All three terminal can be difficult to get through on a good day and a complete Clusterf**k on a bad day. The fact that new color light signals are being installed on the Raton sub should tell you something.

Backshophoss wrote:If anything,BNSF wanted to downgrade Lajunta,Glorieta,and Raton Subs to freight only speeds of 30 mph,
and shutdown the Raton and Glorieta CTC sections,and the ABS signals on Raton and Glorieta subs.
the route would have been TWC and remain as a Backup route to the Transconn.
Remember BNSF had planned to sever the "Devil's Lake" route of the Builder,that changed
real Quick thanks to Balken Crude oil.
As mentioned earlier,Amtrak's "price" to move to the Transconn,would have been trackwork
on the Newton-Wichita-Mulvane segment,PTC/ATS installation,etc......

BNSF didn't really want to shut down the Devils Lake Sub either, it's the most direct route to Duluth & Superior and hosts a lot of online traffic (at least during harvest.) Amtrak and North Dakota were big players in keeping the line open, but BNSF wanted it too.

Wonder if BNSF will consider moving empties and other low-priority trains over Raton and Glorieta, now that they're stuck with it.

Question: when PTC is in place and if remaining ATS is removed, will the SWC (and any other passenger routes with PTC) be able to run at 90 mph, as it does now in a few places, where it meets FRA track requirements for that speed?

palmland wrote:Question: when PTC is in place and if remaining ATS is removed, will the SWC (and any other passenger routes with PTC) be able to run at 90 mph, as it does now in a few places, where it meets FRA track requirements for that speed?

Depends on if BNSF allows it. In theory, I-ETMS is more fail-safe and has a stricter control over trains than ATS, so it should be good for 80 mph and over. I'm not a professional though, so I don't know how suitable it would be.

EDIT: Neither Wabtec's nor the FRA's websites address the speed issue for anything but ITCS, which is only installed on the Michigan line.

mtuandrew wrote: Wonder if BNSF will consider moving empties and other low-priority trains over Raton and Glorieta, now that they're stuck with it.

Very doubtful. The BNSF crew base at Raton has been eliminated and it's just not cost effective to haul anything up and over the 3.5 percent grade over Raton Pass. BNSF spent a huge amount of money to double track Abo Canyon and is spending an equally large amount to double track Vaughn. With that in mind it's just quicker and cheaper to keep everything on the Trans-con.

In an effort to keep the Southwest Chief rolling thru Colorado, state Senators Larry Crowder and Leroy Garcia have introduced a bill that would fund the balance of Colorado's costs to save the SWC. The next step would be full Senate approval and on to the Gov. for his signature. This action already has the backing of other rural sections of the southwest.

ladder2 wrote:In an effort to keep the Southwest Chief rolling thru Colorado, state Senators Larry Crowder and Leroy Garcia have introduced a bill that would fund the balance of Colorado's costs to save the SWC. The next step would be full Senate approval and on to the Gov. for his signature. This action already has the backing of other rural sections of the southwest.

I will be hard pressed to believe that if Kansas and Colorado can fund this that New Mexico won't.

gokeefe wrote:

ladder2 wrote:In an effort to keep the Southwest Chief rolling thru Colorado, state Senators Larry Crowder and Leroy Garcia have introduced a bill that would fund the balance of Colorado's costs to save the SWC. The next step would be full Senate approval and on to the Gov. for his signature. This action already has the backing of other rural sections of the southwest.

I will be hard pressed to believe that if Kansas and Colorado can fund this that New Mexico won't.

Somehow anyway - maybe in-kind, maybe by funding improvements on the BNSF elsewhere in the state, maybe even by choosing BNSF to operate RailRunner next time it comes up for bid.

Around Feb 1st Amtrak and the state of NM announced they will persue a TIGER grant for the state line to Lamy section,
as was done in Ks and Co. Due to the change in makeup of critters in the state house chamber,and the drop in
production of oil and natural gas in the state(and less tax $$$),it was not a good time to get capital funding from the state.
The 60 day session ended last sat,the budget was passed,but the "Public Works" capital spending bill didn't.
Last year BNSF got the same tax break on diesel Fuel that UP got for building Santa Teresa yard,
BNSF is in the process to build the 2 main track over the UP at Vaughn, and start the 2nd main near
Ft Sumner.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/l ... a7b9d.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Santa Fe New Mexican wrote:Amtrak: Chief will keep rolling through New Mexico
Posted Saturday, March 28
By Milan Simonich

As early spring softens into the tourist season, one of New Mexico’s prized connections to the Midwest and Pacific Coast appears safe at last.

Amtrak will stick with its existing route of the Southwest Chief passenger train that makes stops in the New Mexico towns of Raton, Las Vegas, Lamy and Albuquerque, a company spokesman said in an interview. This ends more than two years of fear and uncertainty in Northern New Mexico’s smaller communities about whether Amtrak would alter the route and leave them without a stream of visitors with money to spend.

...

But now, even without New Mexico obtaining a grant or allocating funding directly for the Southwest Chief line, Amtrak is convinced that all three states have a sound plan in place for upkeep of the tracks.

Just as important, a Jan. 1, 2016, deadline for funding the project has been lifted, Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said in a telephone interview.

Guess that answers that question. Good for Raton Pass' future as a passenger line, good for northern New Mexico, good for western Kansas, ok for Colorado, meh for New Mexico, not fantastic for BNSF, and kind of rotten for the folks in Amarillo and WIchita trying to get a train. All in all, about what we all suspected - BNSF offloads most of the track maintenance cost, and the Feds take up the slack through grants.