Amtrak Having to Pay For Maintenance on Raton Line?

[printman2000]

I have just read some discussions that said Amtrak is having to pay for the recent repairs to the washedout rails and that they will now have to pay all maintenance for the Raton line if they choose to keep using it.

Anyone else heard anything about this? This was on TO which I am not a member so I could not see the full discussion.

 

[PRR 60]

Yes, that is true. Amtrak trains 3 & 4 are now the only trains that use the Raton line. BNSF is telling Amtrak that if they want to continue to use the line, they will have to pay all costs to maintain the line. This plus the cost to retain 79mph operation in western Kansas would cost Amtrak about $10 million per year.

BNSF has offered Amtrak use of the Transcon line through Amarillo at no additional charge, or continued use of the Raton line for an additional $10 million. It is Amtrak's choice.

 

[henryj]

Amtrak has a real political delimma here as New Mexico already has bought the line between Albuquerque and Lamy and wants to buy the rest all the way to Trinidad and eventually run trains all the way to Denver. The last thing they want is for Amtrak to abandon the line in favor of the transcon. Colorado also does not want to loose service to Trinidad and La Junta. Amtrak can ill aford to add another 10 million annual costs to running the SWC as it already looses plenty of money(54 million) and will just become a target of the budget cutters in DC. On the other hand, transferring to the transcon will offer service to Wichita, Amarillo, Clovis and Belen that do not now have it and easily make up for any loss of patronage from Trinidad and Raton. They can still service Albuquerque by running up from Belen and then heading west without adding any substantial time to the schedule. Raton and Trinidad and the cities in between can be serviced with local commuter trains which already run as far as Santa Fe. BNSF has almost completed the double track through Abo Canyon, the last major obstacle on the transcon and has offered the route to Amtrak at no additional cost. From here on the battle is primarily political. Who will win out and who will pay for it? Stay tuned. Where do I stand? Well being from Texas I favor service to Amarillo as I believe NM can service the line to Trinidad with their Rail Runner trains. As for La Junta and western Kansas, it's insignificant and BNSF doesn't want to keep up the line between Hutchinson and La Junta, they want to drop it to class 2, 40 mph max. A similar battle is forming for the Empire Builder between Devils Lake and Churchs Ferry effecting service to Grand Forks. BNSF has ended all freight service on the line and advised Amtrak that they will have to pay for all maintenance if they wish to continue on the line and has offered them a reroute over it's KO sub between Fargo and Minot. To stay where it is could cost Amtrak approx 70 million for new bridges and other improvements. 70 million would buy a lot of superliners.

 

[Railroad Bill]

As much as we enjoy the trip through the Raton Pass, I think the Transcom alternative route via Wichita and Amarillo to Belen would be interesting and certainly cheaper for Amtrak. Might also be quicker into ABQ :unsure:

It doesnt seem likely that Amtrak will pay the additional cost to operate on the present line. Perhaps New Mexico and Colorado will put up the extra funds to maintain the route but state budgets are already taxed enough. A RailRunner trip from ABQ to Santa Fe--Las Vegas would be a nice sideline trip for future AU meeting in ABQ :lol:

 

[MattW]

And this now opens up the can of worms over what to do with Albuquerque. If they route over the Transcon, do they tell people to take RailRunner, provide an Ambus, or run the train into ABQ requiring a short reverse move?

 

[Eric S]

For the Southwest Chief, it would seem the one big question is how Albuquerque would be served (if directly, how much time would it take to divert from the Transcon at Dalies and Belen to travel to/from ABQ and what sort of complications would reversing direction at ABQ entail; if indirectly via a Thruway connection, how much would that hurt ridership). Shifting from the traditional Santa Fe northern passenger route to the southern Transon, the Southwest Chief would lose a number of fairly small stations (La Junta, Lamar, and Trinidad, CO; Dodge City, Garden City, and Hutchinson, KS; and Lamy, Las Vegas, and Raton, NM) but would gain Wichita (city 372,000; metro area 612,000) and Amarillo (city 189,000; metro area 246,000) and whatever other smaller stations it would also serve along the way (I didn't look up to see what stations the San Francisco Chief served up until 1971).

For the Empire Builder, shifting routes would mean the loss of Devils Lake, Grand Forks (metro area 97,000), and Rugby. In this case, it would seem to be largely a state issue (North Dakota to determine whether the cost of keeping service to Grand Forks is worth it).

 

[MikefromCrete]

It is quite a dilemma. The added cost would seem to indicate the trans con route to be the most cost effective, but would end service to Lamy (Santa Fe) and Albuquere, both major tourist draws, as well as all those Boy Scouts going to Philmont. Wichita and Amarillo aren't exactly on anybody's tourist agenda, although obviously residents of those communities would now be served by Amtrak. The ABQ problem would probably have to be resolved by an Ambus, since any kind of back up move would be quite lengthy. I'm not that familiar with the local geography, but wouldn't that be about 30 miles each way? On other boards, it's been suggested that there is a wye in the ABQ that could be used to turn the train, but that would also add time to the trip and, the chance of a derailment would be rather high, I would imagine. Santa Fe would be reached via a ride on the RailRunner, but that's a commuter train without any checked baggage or other amenities.

It's interesting that New Mexico, which has put its money where its mouth is in terms of passenger rail, gets screwed, while Texas, which doesn't give a much of a damn about passenger trains gets new service. Just like Phoenix lost direct train service thanks to a UP decision, ABQ will lose direct service due to a BNSF decision.

 

[railiner]

Just like Phoenix lost direct train service thanks to a UP decision, ABQ will lose direct service due to a BNSF decision.

True, but it would be unfair to blame either UP or BNSF for making what is for them a sound business decision.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Plan B run the Southwest Chief on the transcon.

Run an new train Kansas City to Denver. State of Kansas is talking about spending money on rail. Wichita KS has or still may spend local tax funds on air service to/from Denver, CO. Yes the current SWC does not service Wichita. New train would run during daylite hours. Same towns ++ could be serviced, with an turn at La Junta, CO up to Denver.

Sure we lose service to some stops. But some of the other poster got ideas about keep Albuquerque in the mix. You going to have fun trying to get Kansas to pay for an night time service (to keep SWC) but to get day time service to Denver should be an bit less hard.

Also Greyhound pull out of place like Garden City an few years back, and only Amtrak service remains.

Only problem is this takes time, and some will power to set up, but it is an plan.

 

[varnish]

Re; EB & BNSF & Rugby...

The tracks in the segment described in an earlier post are already pretty substandard as BNSF passenger service roadbeds go....The downgrade WILL happen, like it or ont, has already started. A/ Amtrak pays up and avoids re-routing B/ The state(s) pay up, everything stays the same C/ Amtrak reroutes over what BNSF considers '' its'' main line acrros to Rugby, no cost involved ( nett-nett).

Problem with C/ : how to pacify those communities thus losing the service....

Excatly the same scenario re; SWC in Kansas/NM.....Plan C/ appears the most practical, all round ( or perhaps the lesser of all evils...), with the same dilmena thus created: how to pacify communities now devoid of service....

One thing for sure: the trackage earmarked by BNSF for downgrade WILL BE downgraded, whether we , Amtrak or the states like it or not.That's reality, and has to be dealt with ( ignoring it is NOT an option ).

Having ''enjoyed'' the ride on EB sometimes back over the trackage discussed, I can certainly vouch for the fact a solution is needed, and soon....it was already r o u g h ,,,,

Cheers

 

[jphjaxfl]

Grand Forks is the home of the University of North Dakota plus an AirForce Base so it generally has a good number of passengers. Grand Forks is served by bus service to Winnepeg, but does have Air Service. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[saxman]

Grand Forks is the home of the University of North Dakota plus an AirForce Base so it generally has a good number of passengers. Grand Forks is served by bus service to Winnepeg, but does have Air Service. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

I would hate it if service was lost in GFK. It was a life saver for me when I was in college there at UND, especially when I didn't have a car. I know many other college students used it too. Even though I don't live there, I still try and visit and having the train there is a nice option.

 

[Ispolkom]

Grand Forks is the home of the University of North Dakota plus an AirForce Base so it generally has a good number of passengers. Grand Forks is served by bus service to Winnepeg, but does have Air Service. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

I would hate it if service was lost in GFK. It was a life saver for me when I was in college there at UND, especially when I didn't have a car. I know many other college students used it too. Even though I don't live there, I still try and visit and having the train there is a nice option.

A key issue here is the stretch between Devils Lake and Church's Ferry. Devil's Lake is rising, and has been for years. The BNSF has had to raise the tracks in this area, and when they asked for financial help from the state were rebuffed. If they have to do it again, I can certainly see that they wouldn't want to maintain it to Amtrak standards.

 

[printman2000]

Someone on here said they asked Boardman straight up about the reroute on the transcon and he said he had not heard anything. Surely when that question was asked of him this discussion with BNSF had already started. Seems that was not too long ago.

So either he was not being truthful, the talks had not gotten to his level yet, or they were actually not happening(doubtful).

 

[printman2000]

And this now opens up the can of worms over what to do with Albuquerque. If they route over the Transcon, do they tell people to take RailRunner, provide an Ambus, or run the train into ABQ requiring a short reverse move?

I was riding #4 into Albuquerque yesterday and made a point to look at the wye that has been used in the past to turn trains for the reroute. It was surprising how bad it looked. If you did not know it was there, you would not see it. Looks very un-used. It is also 2.5 miles from the station.

 

[Notelvis]

And aside from sound business decisions, you have politics entering the picture...

To me purely from a business sense, the EB reroute in North Dakota is a no-brainer. The lake is rising (has to do with something about it being dammed on the Canadian side I think) and it is going to swallow the tracks sooner rather than later. Freight service has been removed and this section of the line....between Grand Forks and Minot..... has been an after-thought for at least two decades already. It's easily the roughest riding segment of the entire Empire Builder route.

BUT - there are politicians representing this corner of North Dakota who are comitted to keeping the Amtrak service to Grand Forks at any cost. Reroute the Empire Builder away from Grand Forks and you've just lost a vote the next time Amtrak funding is on the floor..... and maybe that's the one vote you need next time.

Similar situation in New Mexico, where rerouting the train will likely happen eventually unless there is a significant change in the status quo. Rerouting the Southwest Chief would strand thousands of Boy Scouts each summer and make enemies of some otherwise friendly and influential New Mexico politicians. Maybe avoiding bad PR and keeping those politicos in your corner is worth $10 million a year after all.

 

[printman2000]

Is it just me or does $10 million seem like too small a number for the yearly maintenance? We are talking like 300 miles of track to be kept up to at least 79mph standards.

It is also reported by TRAINS that BNSF wants to downgrade La Junta to Hutchinson to Class 2 which would mean 40 mph passenger speed so Amtrak would have to pay to keep it up as well.

 

[battalion51]

I would not be too terribly worried about the condition of the wyes. If BNSF says its ok to go, then you kind of just have to go with it. There are many places I have seen first hand that look like passenger trains shouldn't be moving on, but they go over it on a daily basis. Inside the wye you're going to be moving at 10-15 MPH tops, it's not like you're going to be flying through there at 79 MPH. As for the length from wye to station, it's not the end of the world to do a 2.5 mile reverse move. IIRC the reverse move into Tampa is about 3 miles long and that's been done for many many years.

 

[Guest]

As a previous poster said, $10 Million will buy/fix lots of cars! Also printman is correct, $10 million is a low ball figure for this mileage, and if BNSF (now run by the second richest man in America who didnt get there by being non-profit driven)decides to downgrade the Kansas tracks which are already in poor shape the Chiefs might star rivaling the Sunset East or the CS from the bad old days of OTP!! A no brainer, take the reroute on the trans con for no additional cost over what Amtrak pays now! :excl: :excl: :excl:

 

[henryj]

For the SWC I think the solution is this. Run the transcon to Belen and then up the BNSF to Albuquerque station. It's only 40 minutes for the rail runner trains and they make three stops. The wye is just south of the ABQ station. It can easily be upgraded to turn the train. Make that upgrade part of the deal with BNSF to reroute the train. Back down to the wye and turn the train and then head west the usual route from Isleta through Dalies. Eastbound just do the reverse. That way ABQ does not loose service. Santa Fe is already served by several rail runner trains everyday. I have ridden them and they are very nice and it's a scenic route that takes only an hour. Raton and Trinidad could be served by bus. Since Colorado and NM are broke and have little money to spend on the rest just have BNSF bank the Raton line similar to what UP has done with the Tennessee Pass line until such time as money and demand make it a feasible route. Right now the joint line between Trinidad and Denver is at capacity with a parade of coal trains. There is no way a passenger train could operate reliably on that line until capacity is increased and it would cost hundreds of millions. It's just not worth it right now. As for western Kansas........well just run a bus if there is even a demand for that.

Personally, I don't think there is any loss of scenery as the Abo Canyon area is quite nice. Since the transcon is now double track almost all the way it should actually be a faster route plus it is maintained to perfection by the BNSF vs the Raton line which will only deteriorate with time. I know we are loosing tradition and an interesting route here but I think the costs and practicality outweigh any nostalgia factors.

 

[railiner]

When the EB is rerouted, (actually back to its former pre-Amtrak routing(, how about running a connecting train from Fargo up through Grand Forks to Winnipeg?

That might open up the potential for a lot more traffic than the loss of service to Devil's Lake and Rugby. And those towns could be served with a state supported bus or van service, as many midwestern cities are since the loss of mainline bus service.

 

[Tennessee Traveler]

Of course, being from Amtrak-less Nashville, both the SWC and EB route changes are a no brainer. Dollars and cents wins out over sentimental loyalties. Amtrak not owning the tracks should ALWAYS travel over the best track available and the BNSF Transcon will be a Win Win situation for both BNSF and Amtrak. I am not familiar with the North Dakota situation but if the track will eventually be underwater, Amtrak should be thankful the alternate route is available.

As long as we have a two party(Dems and Reps) Congress, Amtrak should not expect any great increase in capital funds for new equipment. Unfortunately, Amtrak has been a victim of a split Congress and that will continue especially if more Republicans are elected. They and their party seem to be the most anti-Amtrak. Heck they are the most anti anything.

 

[lthanlon]

How soon are these changes likely to happen? I'm taking the SWC next month.

 

[MattW]

How soon are these changes likely to happen? I'm taking the SWC next month.

To terminate service requires a 180 day notice for the affected stations. Hence why the Sunset East has been "suspended" since 2005 So a trip 7 months out runs the mathematical probability of being at risk, but unless I'm very wrong, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

[saxman]

Of course, being from Amtrak-less Nashville, both the SWC and EB route changes are a no brainer. Dollars and cents wins out over sentimental loyalties. Amtrak not owning the tracks should ALWAYS travel over the best track available and the BNSF Transcon will be a Win Win situation for both BNSF and Amtrak. I am not familiar with the North Dakota situation but if the track will eventually be underwater, Amtrak should be thankful the alternate route is available.

I think it's a lot more than just sentimental loyalties. Amtrak ALWAYS taking the best track available isn't necessarily what's best for Amtrak passengers. While taking top notch freight lines is a good thing, going where passengers want or need to go is also needed. Take for example when the Sunset Limited was forced to reroute over the other UP line and now has to skip Phoenix. Not too many want to travel to Maricopa, a small town 30 miles away.

As long as the SWC can directly serve ABQ, I think the reroute would be a good thing. Hopefully train service can be added between ABQ and DEN, one day.

As far as North Dakota, not serving GFK, DVL, and RUG means of about 30,000 passengers a year not being able to ride anymore. There are few towns of any significant size between MOT and FAR, so you won't make that up. Although North Dakota has very rail friendly legislators I don't think ND adding state supported train service is ND's top priority. Now I don't think the loss of 30,000 passenger revenue will even come close to equalling the price required to keep the line up to standards.

While Amtrak should strive to do everything they can to maximize revenue and run like a business where possible, they still have a duty to serve American's and serve destinations where they would want to go.