TVRM610
Conductor
Anyone heard anything at all about Iowa Pacific looking into the line? I haven't heard anything but I can't imagine they wouldn't be interested.
Bill to Save Southwest Chief
- Thread starter Chas
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
BNSFboy
Train Attendant
While most of these stations are very possible I would eliminate Canyon as a stop as it is only 17 miles by road from Amarillo and shorter by rail. Actually if you drive between them you barely can see the transition between the towns. So its safe to say its a small metroplex.
N
Nathanael
Guest
That's the one. It was declared "low priority" in the Colorado state rail plan, which also said that BNSF and UP didn't seem interested in it, so although it could be revived, it doesn't seem to have any backers or any funding.
Amtrak has specifically refused to talk to the cities on the Transcon route while it's still talking to the cities on the Raton Pass route. And Amarillo has asked. BNSF has stated only that it is not discussing a reroute (probably following Amtrak's party line).
I hope that Amtrak does start to plan for the re-route because, well, time's a-wasting. The rejection from New Mexico and Kansas state governments was quite emphatic and final; I suppose Colorado could come up with all the money, but it seems unlikely. The lead time for building new ADA-compliant platforms is generally *more* than a year, so I worry that if Amtrak leaves the discussions too late, we'll end up with no stations between Newton and Albuquerque in January 2016.
Running west from Wichita, we find:~30 mi to Wellington
+ ~90 to Alva
+ ~50 to Woodward
+ ~110 to Pampa
+ ~50 to Amarillo
You could probably justify stops at all of these locations; none are "too close together". And I doubt you'd really want to skip any of them for speed except possibly Wellington. Wellington would probably pick up traffic driving from Winfield, Arkansas City, and points south, and so is probably worthwhile in addition to Wichita.
However, the route would do OK even if it just had Wichita and Amarillo. The other stations would be "gravy".
Amarillo to Canyon is only 15 miles, which is probably too short a stop spacing; even I'd take a connecting bus that far without blinking, and I get motion sick on buses really easily. I'd put a station there only if the university really wanted one.
Amarillo to Clovis is about 100 miles, a totally reasonable distance between stops.
West of Clovis... Clovis to Albuquerque is something like 266 miles. There's something to be said for having an intermediate stop (or even two) in that 3+ hour trip, even with no population to speak of; people might want to drive north or south from somewhere in the middle.
I suggest a stop at Vaughn, which is at the intersection of many US highways (for those driving to Roswell, Carlsbad, Alamogordo, Santa Rosa). Or Fort Sumner would probably work too if Vaughn doesn't work out. In either case you'd probably want a separate station track for the train to get out of the way, since these are both right next to the remaining single-track bridges; that might help the BNSF dispatchers a lot.
I actually think Wichita Union Station is going to be the most trouble to build a platform at. You will need a platform siding here. You will need to displace part of the Great Plains Transportation Museum in order to rebuild a platform siding which can "roll in, roll out" rather than backing in. (And you don't want to stop on the mainline here. Apart from the fact that the old platforms and vertical access are all east of the mainline, the mainline is congested; see below.) You'll need to recheck the integrity of the bridge over Douglas Ave. And you need to construct ADA access to the new platform (which will need to be at a new height above top of rail, as well...) The Wichita station work may be expensive and complicated and involve acquisition of expensive land from multiple parties, and the design for it needs to start ASAP.
Mulvane to Newton (including Wichita) is also the only part of the Transcon where there are real capacity concerns about hosting the SW Chief. This is because it's got a lot of single track, and BNSF uses directional running here, running only its eastbounds along this route. The section through downtown Wichita is double track, but is also carrying the UP traffic through town. BNSF will want to be able to get the SW Chief off the mainline while it's doing station work at Wichita. The 2010 Heartland Flyer extension study indicated that some additional double-tracking was needed between Newton and Wichita for that train, and this will probably be highly desirable for a reroute of the SW Chief, as well.
This will all be expensive, though certainly cheaper than the $200 million necessary just to keep the Raton Pass route in minimal operable condition. It will also have a long lead time, which is what I'm worried about.
So, we're looking at something like this (and, yes, I realize we are getting ahead of ourselves here):
Newton, KS
Wichita, KS
Wellington, KS
Alva, OK
Woodward, OK
Pampa, TX
Amarillo, TX
Clovis, NM
potentially another stop (Vaughn, NM?)
Albuquerque, NM
I agree with Nathanael that none of the stops other than Wichita and Amarillo is critical, but they do seem like reasonable additions, assuming there is adequate local support. And, as he mentions, given how long station and platform work takes, there is not all that much time. I wonder if plans were put in motion today if Wichita, with its more complicated urban situation (as opposed to most of the other smaller town locations, at least other than Amarillo), could even be ready in 2016. At least in that situation, having a relatively-supportive city government might help things somewhat.
Newton, KS
Wichita, KS
Wellington, KS
Alva, OK
Woodward, OK
Pampa, TX
Amarillo, TX
Clovis, NM
potentially another stop (Vaughn, NM?)
Albuquerque, NM
I agree with Nathanael that none of the stops other than Wichita and Amarillo is critical, but they do seem like reasonable additions, assuming there is adequate local support. And, as he mentions, given how long station and platform work takes, there is not all that much time. I wonder if plans were put in motion today if Wichita, with its more complicated urban situation (as opposed to most of the other smaller town locations, at least other than Amarillo), could even be ready in 2016. At least in that situation, having a relatively-supportive city government might help things somewhat.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Several points another advocate has been blasting through my ear so loud my drums are ringing.
Point 1: The Koch brothers will probably not be pleased with the idea of a train stopping in their hometown (Wichita), and may attempt to stop this from happening.
Point 2: The culture of the stops along the transcon are such that they are unlikely to ride the train even if it was provided. Therefore, perhaps, despite the population density, there may be less ridership.
Point 3: The Transcon line is very over crowded, and BNSF may refuse to run the train reliably over it. Remember that Amtrak is no longer legally entitled to priority on the tracks, and that BNSF is not legally required to run any train at all, on either line, after the end of that 2016 contract.
Point 4: Under the terms of PRIIA, the only routes Amtrak is required to run as funded with regards to the so-called National System are the precise trains that were operating on effect of that act. Technically, a rerouted Southwest Chief might be legally seen as not being part of that system, and can be discontinued easily.
I am not agreeing with any of the above points- or even supporting their legal legitimacy. I honestly have no idea. But they come from somebody who is reliably informed, if a little, uh, angry. I have enough respect for his sources (and the guy himself, actually) that I wanted to dump his thoughts in here and see what y'all make of them.
Point 1: The Koch brothers will probably not be pleased with the idea of a train stopping in their hometown (Wichita), and may attempt to stop this from happening.
Point 2: The culture of the stops along the transcon are such that they are unlikely to ride the train even if it was provided. Therefore, perhaps, despite the population density, there may be less ridership.
Point 3: The Transcon line is very over crowded, and BNSF may refuse to run the train reliably over it. Remember that Amtrak is no longer legally entitled to priority on the tracks, and that BNSF is not legally required to run any train at all, on either line, after the end of that 2016 contract.
Point 4: Under the terms of PRIIA, the only routes Amtrak is required to run as funded with regards to the so-called National System are the precise trains that were operating on effect of that act. Technically, a rerouted Southwest Chief might be legally seen as not being part of that system, and can be discontinued easily.
I am not agreeing with any of the above points- or even supporting their legal legitimacy. I honestly have no idea. But they come from somebody who is reliably informed, if a little, uh, angry. I have enough respect for his sources (and the guy himself, actually) that I wanted to dump his thoughts in here and see what y'all make of them.
rrdude
Engineer
Why on earth would they give a rat's patootie?
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
Near Amarillo is Palo Duro Canyon State Park, an overlooked scenic treasure, that coulda, woulda, shoulda, still could be a major stop attracting many rides.
Soon after FDR took office at the bottom of the Great Depression, the National Park Service sent a guy to Texas prospecting. One stop was to look at Palo Duro Canyon, the second largest canyon in the US, which stretches into several counties. But the local guy who'd taken the role of guide, was strongly opposed to the idea of letting the feds come into his area. He steered the Parks guy to talk to other owners of big ranches who were also opposed -- but drove past any encounters with the many local supporters. As a result of the Parks guy's survey trip, he recommended new National Parks in Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, and the National Seashore on Padre Island. He didn't recommend Palo Duro, due to the local opposition. So we got three fine and expansive National Parks -- and one very small, but glorious, Texas State Park at Palo Duro.
Guess it's off topic of me to conclude, Rot in Hell.
Soon after FDR took office at the bottom of the Great Depression, the National Park Service sent a guy to Texas prospecting. One stop was to look at Palo Duro Canyon, the second largest canyon in the US, which stretches into several counties. But the local guy who'd taken the role of guide, was strongly opposed to the idea of letting the feds come into his area. He steered the Parks guy to talk to other owners of big ranches who were also opposed -- but drove past any encounters with the many local supporters. As a result of the Parks guy's survey trip, he recommended new National Parks in Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, and the National Seashore on Padre Island. He didn't recommend Palo Duro, due to the local opposition. So we got three fine and expansive National Parks -- and one very small, but glorious, Texas State Park at Palo Duro.
Guess it's off topic of me to conclude, Rot in Hell.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Again, speaking from his mouth, the Koch brothers are Tea Party people, and are also in the oil business, and therefore opposed to funding public transportation.
I doubt if the re-route happens that we would see anywhere near that number of stops in the first decade of operation over the new route. Some have populations that are too small to support building a new station stop. I agree that the lead time for building new stations, given the many examples of taking years and years to build even a small station stop these days, is a concern.
It is possible that the re-route would start with no stops at all over the 600+ mile segment while Amtrak is working with the larger towns and cities to locate and build new stations. BNSF may want stations to be on pull-over tracks which could drive up the cost considerably, if there is not an active pull-over track at a suitable location for a station.
Since these stations will have to be ADA compliant, one source of funding that Amtrak can tap into to help defray the station costs is the ADA compliant funding which is $50 million for FY14. It won't pay for the whole station, but the ADA compliance funds could be used to pay for the platforms, access ramps, curb cuts, rest rooms in the station (if the stop gets a station with rest rooms).
The major unknown is what BNSF might demand to allow the SWC to run over that segment of their tracks. If BNSF wants $100 million in track upgrades over the 5 years of SWC operations, what does Amtrak do? Go to the states again and ask for them to chip in? Since Texas and Oklahoma are paying for the Heartland Flyer, at least their DOTs are used to providing funding for station and track projects.
I'm aware of who the Koch Brothers are and I doubt that they would get involved in trying to block the SWC to re-route through Wichita. Really minor item at the political levels they are funding. But I could be wrong on that. Local Tea party types in Wichita who get funded by the Koch brothers might jump in and try to block spending any city funds on a train station.
On point 2, none of the stops on the current section that is threatened has that many passengers to begin with. The busiest is Raton with 15,733 passengers in FY13. Even if people in Wichita and Armarillo are not used to taking the train, even a tiny percentage of the population would be enough to exceed the current numbers. After a year or two, the numbers should grow.
A question for Armarillo is how many people who live there travel to Albuquerque, Wichita, Kansas City on a regular basis? The alternate route offers some new city pairs.
Last edited by a moderator:
greatcats
Engineer
A few years ago when this matter came up, I recall the BNSF position was "Come on over to the other route , Amtrak, no extra charge ". Amtrak chose to remain on the Raton route. The matter is undoubtedly a little more complicated than that, but it would seem that some may be imagining more problems with this than May be the case. If a course of action is not decided upon until the end of this year it would be likely that some station facilities are going to be makeshift for awhile, as design and construction projects seem to take forever.
E
Eugene Small
Guest
In response to WoodyinNYC--In the summer in the canyon there is a musical at the Ampitheater " Texas". People come from all over the World to see it. In the winter--well??? It is like Carl Sandburg said in one of his poems as he stepped off train in Amarillo. "There is nothing between Amarillo and NorthPole except for a barb wire fence and somebody left it down."
A
Andy
Guest
I was referring to the fact that on Saturday and Sunday, the first Railrunner from Santa Fe does not arrive at ABQ until 12:16 PM, 6 minutes after the eastbound SWC is scheduled to depart ABQ at 12:10. So that would be an overnight connection...
Take care.
Oh! I was looking at northbound, as in passengers departing at ABQ to head to Santa Fe. I completely forgot about the southbound passengers coming to board the SWC.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2013
- Messages
- 6
Howdy folks;
Did anyone else see this? Perhaps if NM drops the ball on this one ICT can get the Amtrak service it has been wanting.
Take it EZ;
Airjunkie
http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/New-Mexico-legislature-takes-no-action-of-Amtrak-Southwest-Chief-line-246782981.html
http://ksn.com/2013/09/04/trio-to-join-talks-on-future-of-amtrak-line/
Did anyone else see this? Perhaps if NM drops the ball on this one ICT can get the Amtrak service it has been wanting.
Take it EZ;
Airjunkie
http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/New-Mexico-legislature-takes-no-action-of-Amtrak-Southwest-Chief-line-246782981.html
http://ksn.com/2013/09/04/trio-to-join-talks-on-future-of-amtrak-line/
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nathanael
Guest
There's strong train boosterism from the Wichita City Council, who have pushed to spend money on the station before (in the context of an extended Heartland Flyer), and the station is owned by a developer (Gary Oborny) who wants trains to stop there and might even spend some of his own money. I doubt this will be an problem.
The same is arguably true of the existing route, with the exception of the Boy Scout ranch. I doubt this will be a problem, especially for stops in college towns (which tend to have better-than-normal train ridership). There are several college towns on the new route -- not on the old route.
Even with low ridership as a percentage of population, Wichita and Amarillo alone have *much* higher populations than the existing route. As I said, if they have the same percentage level of ridership as Hutchinson (which is poor), Wichita and Amarillo alone will provide about as much ridership as the whole existing route.
Yes, actually, Amtrak is still legally entitled to priority on the tracks. It's been made harder to *enforce* by some court rulings from the corrupt DC Circuit, but the legal priority entitlement is still there. Amtrak can still file STB complaints and can still sue, it's just a bit harder to prove the case.
Incorrect. Amtrak still has the right of "track access", which is the right to run trains on any route in the US. The only question is how much Amtrak will be charged for it (admittedly a huge question).
BNSF was pretty friendly about offering to host the SWC on the Transcon in the past. And it's not really that big a deal for them; they can run it right along with their "hot" intermodals at the same speed, which is a perfectly acceptable speed. There isn't so much congestion that there's an outright too-many-trains problem; these tracks are simply not used intensively the way tracks in Europe or even the Empire Corridor upstate NY are. (If they were used that intensively, a lot of cities along the route would be grade-separating their railroad crossings due to the gates basically *never opening*.)
Any serious disruption for BNSF comes, rather, from more specific sources:
- running the passenger train at a different average speed to the intermodals.
- the train being seriously off-schedule -- but BNSF can't really blame anyone else for that on this route, because it's all-BNSF except for RailRunner, Chicago station, LA station, and KC Terminal Railway (which is under partial BNSF control)
- the train criss-crossing both mainlines and blocking one in order to make a station stop
The ideal operating plan involves the SWC running slightly faster than the intermodals, getting ahead of them, then stopping for a station stop and getting "back in slot", rinse and repeat, giving the same *average* speed. This would, mind you, call for platforms on both tracks at most stations (to avoid blocking the opposing track), and it would call for station sidings at some stations in places where the railroad traffic is more complicated and multidirectional, like Wichita.
There's a reason I'm worried about the train running non-stop from Newton to Albuquerque; because this is an easy thing for BNSF to offer, while station stops cause BNSF a lot more trouble. BNSF might demand rather extensive station trackwork in order to make sure that the station stops didn't mess up its scheduling.
Wrong again! The national system is, officially, trains between the ENDPOINTS which were in use as of that date. Funny little distinction, eh? So pretty much any reroute is fair game -- and also a Chicago to Miami train would count as part of the national system, for instance. Also, Amtrak isn't actually required to run any of those trains specifically (as we see from the Chicago to Miami or New Orleans to Florida examples) -- Amtrak is merely told that running a "national system" is its mission. This leaves enough wiggle room to cancel any one route, unfortunately.
Most people don't look up any of the legal details. They're weird and they're not what people think they are (for instance, did you know that Amtrak can run a train of <750 mi as long as it is NOT on a designated HSR corridor? which obviously excludes most of the good routes, of course) -- and I think they have little relevance to this current situation.
Regarding the political details -- like, how much money is BNSF going to ask for various operating scenarios on the Transcon? -- I think most of us are guessing. Unless someone has an "in" with the exact correct department at BNSF, we can't really know what they'll ask for, though we know that they offered the Transcon reroute "for the same price as the current route" in the past -- though AFAIK the offer didn't include any station stops! We know what we read in the newspapers about the views of Wichita City and Amarillo City government, or about developer Gary Oborny (who owns Wichita Union Station).
My guesses are based on compiling an awful lot of different newspaper reports and press releases. I think it seems *very* unlikely that the SW Chief would be discontinued completely -- Amtrak management really doesn't want to lose the train, refusing to accomodate Amtrak would be a declaration of war by BNSF against Amtrak, and I don't think they're going to do that.
But it does seem to me like we are at risk of getting a nonstop from Newton to ABQ if there isn't some effort put into stations pretty quickly.
Unfortunately, I suspect the compliance funds can only be used to retrofit existing stations, not to build brand-new ones (which are supposed to be ADA-compliant from the getgo). Amtrak might possibly be able to apply some to stations like Wichita Union or Amarillo, which actually are old stations, but I'm not sure about that even.
I would expect Amtrak to offer some kind of "We'll pay some, you pay some" deal to cities along the route, as Amtrak has done this elsewhere, but Amtrak is always so money-constrained that the bulk of funding will have to come from other sources, probably mostly cities.
BNSF really shouldn't be asking for that. In order to run the SWC at the same average speed as the intermodals on this route (which is fast enough for passenger service, though not ideal obviously), BNSF should need essentially no track upgrades -- maybe a little tiny bit of double-tracking near Wichita. This is probably within BNSF's level of generosity.
The request I'm expecting from BNSF is, indeed, pull-over tracks at every station. Possibly one on each side. This makes their dispatching a *lot* simpler. This also permits Amtrak to comply with the level-boarding regulation and therefore saves a lot of paperwork, so Amtrak would probably at this point also want that.
But it means that the stations are going to be rather expensive -- a pair of switches, track, and an 18" platform, maybe totalling $1 million per side... so maybe $2 million per station, *without* a shelter and assuming a grade crossing between tracks. Such a grade crossing will be no problem at most of the smaller cities which already have lots of road grade crossings. But shelters would be extra-cost.
Station renovations at Wichita would probably be much more expensive (I can see how to do it, but my ballpark estimates are already around $10 million and there's probably problems I haven't noticed) and Amarillo could be rather expensive too.
E
Eugene Small
Guest
Amarillo will probably be expensive-- probably a new station. The old station (Santa Fe) has about 8-10 feet between the fence and actual rail. The platform is ground level. The top of rail (in the past was below the platform.such as one short step from train car to platform) now is about 30 inches above platform. Any platform higher than current will probable cause rainwater to flood station floor. The old Burlington station under the Pierce ST. bridge has an old side track with a missing switch (was cut to install switch for connection to Transcon) That siding if finished could be 1500-1600 ft long. Before city of Amarillo bought Santa Fe station, BNSF had ties on car parked on siding. That has been moved and is parkes else where in yard. BNSF is not talking until Amtrak does. My guess is Amarillo will build a new station but will probablely have a tempory station to begin with. Track can be ready in less than a week and a modular building set in. --a good excerise use google earth map and determine best place for rail station with above facts in mind.
E
Eugene Small
Guest
Amarillo will probably be expensive-- probably a new station. The old station (Santa Fe) has about 8-10 feet between the fence and actual rail. The platform is ground level. The top of rail (in the past was below the platform.such as one short step from train car to platform) now is about 30 inches above platform. Any platform higher than current will probable cause rainwater to flood station floor. The old Burlington station under the Pierce ST. bridge has an old side track with a missing switch (was cut to install switch for connection to Transcon) That siding if finished could be 1500-1600 ft long. Before city of Amarillo bought Santa Fe station, BNSF had ties on car parked on siding. That has been moved and is parkes else where in yard. BNSF is not talking until Amtrak does. My guess is Amarillo will build a new station but will probablely have a tempory station to begin with. Track can be ready in less than a week and a modular building set in. --a good excerise use google earth map and determine best place for rail station with above facts in mind.
BNSFboy
Train Attendant
They can use the station building and just put in a passenger siding and platform that conforms to the passenger requirements directly south of the station building.
N
Nathanael
Guest
Amarillo. If I were to guess, I'd expect
1) the demolition of the smaller building to the south of the Santa Fe station(2) the construction of a "passenger siding" with its own compliant platform south of the station
(3) a walkway (rising up as needed) from the south end of the station building to the platform
It's the only design which makes sense to me. I'm not clear on who's using that southern building, but it will probably be necessary to buy it. And the adjacent empty lot. (They may have been part of the purchase of the Santa Fe station, I don't know.)
The Burlington station under the Pierce St. bridge is in some ways a better location, but it's a less attractive building and there's more freight activity....it's also on the wrong route, requiring backtracking.
Amarillo already bought the Santa Fe station building. But the station building is next to a sharp curve, which is undesirable for a passenger platform... but there's a long straight section just south of the station building. With lots of empty space on the west side.
Crossover
Train Attendant
Then again ,there maybe light at the end of the tunnel . Amtrak is coming back to Denver Union Station . Here is another possibility Denver could open a line to La Junta . Making Denver a diamond hub . Raton could see much traffic and may gain few or many customers on the business side . On the passenger side , Raton/Trinidad can be a major Amtrak hub being so close they have the ability to grow around the pass .Albuquerque can be a hub destination on the south end connecting to Phoenix/Maricopa and El Paso that could also be two hub destinations two connecting routes including the Sunset route . Giving customers for connections to other destinations as Denver being a hub destination on the north end .
Amarillo is south east of Raton/Trinidad . If possible it would be a east/west connection from Albuquerque to Tulsa . Because Amarillo is a major diamond , A best bet , It would be a good idea to find a huge or moderate size building abandoned but in great shape to be renovated that is directly near a major active diamond with several good abandoned lots with a couple of smaller buildings , one with a warehouse with a refrigerator And a private lavatory for engineers that has good plumbing A plus would be near a major interstate . That would be a ideal location for passenger traffic mainly near downtown . It would be the size of a greyhound station . Constructing a new one would be expensive unless there is an offer or opportunity to share space with other tenant carriers ie Greyhound or Megabus or other travel option or ammenties such as auto rental ie Enterprise , Budget , Hertz , Penske , Avis or Dollars . Another idea would be next door to a motel ie Motel 6 , Super 8 , Best Western , Days inn , etc .
Amarillo is south east of Raton/Trinidad . If possible it would be a east/west connection from Albuquerque to Tulsa . Because Amarillo is a major diamond , A best bet , It would be a good idea to find a huge or moderate size building abandoned but in great shape to be renovated that is directly near a major active diamond with several good abandoned lots with a couple of smaller buildings , one with a warehouse with a refrigerator And a private lavatory for engineers that has good plumbing A plus would be near a major interstate . That would be a ideal location for passenger traffic mainly near downtown . It would be the size of a greyhound station . Constructing a new one would be expensive unless there is an offer or opportunity to share space with other tenant carriers ie Greyhound or Megabus or other travel option or ammenties such as auto rental ie Enterprise , Budget , Hertz , Penske , Avis or Dollars . Another idea would be next door to a motel ie Motel 6 , Super 8 , Best Western , Days inn , etc .
Ryan
Court Jester
If the money to keep the SWC on the current route can't be found, fantasy money like that is out of the question.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Yeah. The thought that kept passing my mind is "and pigs will fly too!"
That is a tad harsh. I can see Colorado pursuing intercity train service as the Denver transit system expands and is built out, but only to other cities in CO initially. To Fort Collins, Colorado Springs-Pueblo, Grand Junction. But CO has to work its way through the HSR ($$$$) vs several trains a day conventional service ($$) options first. That could take a decade. or longer. Then expansion of corridor train service outside the state, but it will be a long tedious series of studies, well after the Raton Pass route issue is settled one way or the other.Yeah. The thought that kept passing my mind is "and pigs will fly too!"
- Status
