Southwest Chief-Pueblo update

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is surprising to me in that Amtrak does not like splitting / combining trains en route. Or so I've read. I still think it be would great if it were possible to extend it to Denver.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is surprising to me in that Amtrak does not like splitting / combining trains en route. Or so I've read. I still think it be would great if it were possible to extend it to Denver.
Well they do it on multiple routes already and when the States are putting up money to save the SWC, you really can't say no can you.
 
Old news, I think. The copyright date is 2014 and the comments are from two years ago.
 
This is surprising to me in that Amtrak does not like splitting / combining trains en route. Or so I've read. I still think it be would great if it were possible to extend it to Denver.
Well they do it on multiple routes already and when the States are putting up money to save the SWC, you really can't say no can you.
There should be more splitting/combining than there is now. Hopefully they will fix the split at Albany once and for all and get the through cars running in Pittsburgh that they had suggested in the PRIIA back in 2010.

As for the case out west, Amtrak had suggested in the PRIIA to have through cars off the CZ at SLC to go to LAX via Vegas. I would think you'd get more of a benefit by adding Vegas but I'm guessing it's more expensive and more miles than having through cars off the SWC to Denver as you suggest. But either way to connect Denver and Los Angeles would be welcome.
 
Or....how about re-routing from Topeka over the UP to Denver, then the Joint Line to Pueblo via Colorado Springs, then on to Trinidad and the current route?

I have no clue how much longer that would take, but they sure would hit some big markets..... :)
 
At first glance this looks like a money pit. The numbers quoted are 14000 pax a year which works out to 20 per run if each pax is counted each way, 40 if each pax is counted as a departure from Pueblo only. One loco and one coach 1/3 to 2/3 full. Figuring about 50mph the train would leave La Junta at about 9:15am, arriving Pueblo 10:45am, layover to 5:30pm return to La Junta at 7:00pm. Even if the crew is only an engineer and conductor they likely will end up with a full day pay for only about 3-4 hours work. Then there is equipment utilization. Does the SWC need the extra engine La Junta-Chicago? Is the ridership pattern such that a car can be cut out and not lose ridership west of La Junta? Is there ridership demand to utilize increased capacity La Junta-Chicago? Where does said engine and car come from?

It seems like this would be best served at first by a Thruway bus.

Now after all the rain on the parade, scheduling to Denver really works. La Junta (9:15am:7:00pm), Pueblo (10:45am:5:30pm), Colorado Springs (11:45am:4:30pm), Denver (1:15pm:2:00pm). A tight turn around at Denver but a 15 minute schedule adjustment to the SWC could fix that. We can only dream.
 
Actually in the context of LD trains, the schedule to Denver barely works. If the westbound SWC is an hour late into La Junta that causes the return to get back too La Junta at 8pm, which means the eastbound SWC has to sit around there and wait for the Denver connection. A couple of hours turn seems to be more desirable for avoiding such.
 
At first glance this looks like a money pit. ... 14000 pax a year which works out to ... One loco and one coach 1/3 to 2/3 full. ... Even if the crew is only an engineer and conductor they likely will end up with a full day pay for only about 3-4 hours work. Then there is equipment utilization. ...

... scheduling to Denver works. La Junta (9:15am:7:00pm), Pueblo (10:45am:5:30pm), Colorado Springs (11:45am:4:30pm), Denver (1:15pm:2:00pm). A tight turn around at Denver but a 15 minute schedule adjustment to the SWC could fix that.
I tend to agree. And I take it a step further. Amtrak was asked to look at service to Pueblo, and the mellow citizens of Pueblo paid for it. But the pots of gold are 60 miles up the road at Colorado Springs and then Denver.

Just taking it an hour plus up to Colorado Springs will get a few more hours work out of the crew, and probably gain enuff riders to have 3 coaches instead of one. That way the operating results would be much improved.

Amtrak wasn't paid to study that Colorado Springs extension, much less to Denver. But they need to be studied, and probably need to be implemented. Seems like Amtrak is trying to nudge things along there. Start with a stub and then grow it incrementally.

By the time Colorado gets really serious, more than just study money, Amtrak could have more cars for this kind of add-on service.
 
At first glance this looks like a money pit. The numbers quoted are 14000 pax a year which works out to 20 per run if each pax is counted each way, 40 if each pax is counted as a departure from Pueblo only. One loco and one coach 1/3 to 2/3 full. Figuring about 50mph the train would leave La Junta at about 9:15am, arriving Pueblo 10:45am, layover to 5:30pm return to La Junta at 7:00pm. Even if the crew is only an engineer and conductor they likely will end up with a full day pay for only about 3-4 hours work. Then there is equipment utilization. Does the SWC need the extra engine La Junta-Chicago? Is the ridership pattern such that a car can be cut out and not lose ridership west of La Junta? Is there ridership demand to utilize increased capacity La Junta-Chicago? Where does said engine and car come from?

It seems like this would be best served at first by a Thruway bus.

Now after all the rain on the parade, scheduling to Denver really works. La Junta (9:15am:7:00pm), Pueblo (10:45am:5:30pm), Colorado Springs (11:45am:4:30pm), Denver (1:15pm:2:00pm). A tight turn around at Denver but a 15 minute schedule adjustment to the SWC could fix that. We can only dream.
The way things have been going lately, SWC needs a third engine.
 
Seat 38a wrote: "The way things have been going lately, SWC needs a third engine."

There were some aerial photos posted on Trainorders showing Amtrak's shops at Beech Grove, IN. There a quite a few units in there awaiting repairs. No money for it, I guess.
 
TrainOrders has a pages on the Pueblo addition.

Non subscribers can only read page 1 ` I think--started 7/12

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4073539

Page 2 has this long report posted 7/13 by someone who attended the meeting:last week

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4073539,page=2

Notes from the actual meeting in Pueblo - not a reroute
Author: frntinplate

Last week I attended (in person, so I was actually there) the meeting in Pueblo which included an Amtrak, a BNSF/railroad type person, local political representatives, and SW Chief Committee members.

First, this commettee is the main driver responsible for getting 3 states together to fund critical track upgrades (primarily replacing old jonted rail with CWR) on the BNSF route to improve track running speed and elimiante slow orders. Great job, in my opinion, to get this done in less than 3 years of work. Getting 3 states to talk to each other and fund something is a real crown on their record. Something congress has yet to do.

Second, the LONG TERM, that is, 3+ year plan is still to get 3/4 rerouted from LaJunta through Pueblo and then down the old C&S to Trinidad and back on the old ATSF over Raton Pass. HOWEVER, at this time no reroute is planned.

Third....something people have not really understood.....The current study and near term plan is to operate a through coach off the Chief from LaJunta to Pueblo. No rereoute at this time, simply a feeder connection. Although plans are a bit still in the planning stage, the idea is to have a coach(s) disconnected at LaJunta on the WB run in the morning and run this short train to Pueblo. In the afternoon the same train would run back to LaJunta and connect with the EB train. This allows passengers direct access without changing cars, waiting outside platforms for connecting trains, etc. At this stage the plan, as explained by Amtrak at the meeting, is to have coach only, as a thru sleeper would require more crew logistics and not meet costs. What was not clear in the meeting was this is not going to work with passengers from Pueblo headed westbound or coming from the west to Pueblo, only for the folks to and from Chicago or east of LaJunta.

Yes, a bus would be cheaper, but the traveling public would rather use a thru car than transfer. So let the complaining begin about costs....

REMEMBER: This is a first step. The plan is to incrementally increase service, so not all costs are going to be spent up front, but as things change and ridership can be seen to improve new options can be considered. A Pueblo to Colorado Springs extension of the LaJunta to Pueblo service would a a natural, low cost option once the main issues of running against current of traffic are resolved and can be shown to work. Remember, the Pueblo - LaJunta segment is primarily opeated as EB only for loaded coal and other trains. Thus the WB segment would be running against the main flow of traffic with few sidings to make meets work. With lower coal traffc levels than a few years ago this might work. As stated in the meeting, the next steps include getting BNSF to do some traffic flow modeling to see how this all works with operations. (Also, the UP will be involved as they own the track west of NA Jct to Pueblo......)

Also, the stop at Pueblo Union Station, as currently configured, would mean stopping on the BNSF mainline, blocking other traffic while the train boards or discharges passengers. Again, this needs to be worked out with BNSF to limit impacting their freight traffic, but having spent years watching things in Pueblo it should not be a major issue, just needs to be worked out so someone doesn't have an outbound coal load block the main for 30 minutes. Also, traffic flow at Pueblo Jct needs to be adjusted during passener train times to make things work.

SO>>>>> lets hope this first stage works and can be implemented. The possiblities of future extensions to Col Springs, reroute of the entire train via Pueblo, and some sort of front range passenger service, all can work best if this incremental approach is followed.

BTW: Have you tried to find cheap and decent parking near Denver Union Station to ride Amtak? Good luck. A stop at Pueblo would be a real help as parking would be easy and either free or low cost, a big plus for those wanting to take Amtrak for 2 or more weeks.

Re: Notes from the actual meeting in Pueblo - not a reroute
Author: dan
the study said 19 people would ride train each way a day, less if you substitute a van
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TrainOrders has a pages on the Pueblo addition.

Non subscribers can only read page 1 ` I think--started 7/12

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4073539

Page 2 has this long report posted 7/13 by someone who attended the meeting:last week

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4073539,page=2

Notes from the actual meeting in Pueblo - not a reroute

Author: frntinplate

Last week I attended (in person, so I was actually there) the meeting in Pueblo which included an Amtrak, a BNSF/railroad type person, local political representatives, and SW Chief Committee members.

First, this commettee is the main driver responsible for getting 3 states together to fund critical track upgrades (primarily replacing old jonted rail with CWR) on the BNSF route to improve track running speed and elimiante slow orders. Great job, in my opinion, to get this done in less than 3 years of work. Getting 3 states to talk to each other and fund something is a real crown on their record. Something congress has yet to do.

Second, the LONG TERM, that is, 3+ year plan is still to get 3/4 rerouted from LaJunta through Pueblo and then down the old C&S to Trinidad and back on the old ATSF over Raton Pass. HOWEVER, at this time no reroute is planned.

Third....something people have not really understood.....The current study and near term plan is to operate a through coach off the Chief from LaJunta to Pueblo. No rereoute at this time, simply a feeder connection. Although plans are a bit still in the planning stage, the idea is to have a coach(s) disconnected at LaJunta on the WB run in the morning and run this short train to Pueblo. In the afternoon the same train would run back to LaJunta and connect with the EB train. This allows passengers direct access without changing cars, waiting outside platforms for connecting trains, etc. At this stage the plan, as explained by Amtrak at the meeting, is to have coach only, as a thru sleeper would require more crew logistics and not meet costs. What was not clear in the meeting was this is not going to work with passengers from Pueblo headed westbound or coming from the west to Pueblo, only for the folks to and from Chicago or east of LaJunta.

Yes, a bus would be cheaper, but the traveling public would rather use a thru car than transfer. So let the complaining begin about costs....

REMEMBER: This is a first step. The plan is to incrementally increase service, so not all costs are going to be spent up front, but as things change and ridership can be seen to improve new options can be considered. A Pueblo to Colorado Springs extension of the LaJunta to Pueblo service would a a natural, low cost option once the main issues of running against current of traffic are resolved and can be shown to work. Remember, the Pueblo - LaJunta segment is primarily opeated as EB only for loaded coal and other trains. Thus the WB segment would be running against the main flow of traffic with few sidings to make meets work. With lower coal traffc levels than a few years ago this might work. As stated in the meeting, the next steps include getting BNSF to do some traffic flow modeling to see how this all works with operations. (Also, the UP will be involved as they own the track west of NA Jct to Pueblo......)

Also, the stop at Pueblo Union Station, as currently configured, would mean stopping on the BNSF mainline, blocking other traffic while the train boards or discharges passengers. Again, this needs to be worked out with BNSF to limit impacting their freight traffic, but having spent years watching things in Pueblo it should not be a major issue, just needs to be worked out so someone doesn't have an outbound coal load block the main for 30 minutes. Also, traffic flow at Pueblo Jct needs to be adjusted during passener train times to make things work.

SO>>>>> lets hope this first stage works and can be implemented. The possiblities of future extensions to Col Springs, reroute of the entire train via Pueblo, and some sort of front range passenger service, all can work best if this incremental approach is followed.

BTW: Have you tried to find cheap and decent parking near Denver Union Station to ride Amtak? Good luck. A stop at Pueblo would be a real help as parking would be easy and either free or low cost, a big plus for those wanting to take Amtrak for 2 or more weeks.

Re: Notes from the actual meeting in Pueblo - not a reroute

Author: dan

the study said 19 people would ride train each way a day, less if you substitute a van
I think the best long term plan would be to have two independent corridor trains begin in Denver and run thru Colorado Springs and Pueblo before diverging with one going to Trinidad and one to La Junta. The schedule would require two sets. Southbound trains would have to depart Denver at about 5:30 AM and 3:30 PM. They would arrive Pueblo about 7:45 AM and 5:45 PM. Northbound trains would travel thru Pueblo at 10:15 AM and 8:15 PM. They would arrive Denver at 12:30 PM and 10:30 PM.
 
At first glance this looks like a money pit. The numbers quoted are 14000 pax a year which works out to 20 per run if each pax is counted each way, 40 if each pax is counted as a departure from Pueblo only. One loco and one coach 1/3 to 2/3 full. Figuring about 50mph the train would leave La Junta at about 9:15am, arriving Pueblo 10:45am, layover to 5:30pm return to La Junta at 7:00pm. Even if the crew is only an engineer and conductor they likely will end up with a full day pay for only about 3-4 hours work.
That's an issue.
Then there is equipment utilization. Does the SWC need the extra engine La Junta-Chicago?
Probably not...
Is the ridership pattern such that a car can be cut out and not lose ridership west of La Junta? Is there ridership demand to utilize increased capacity La Junta-Chicago?
This I can answer: YES. The ridership on the SWC is heaviest from Chicago to Kansas City, still pretty strong but trickling off as you head further west in Kansas, and then quite thin over Raton Pass. Splitting a car off east of Raton to head to Pueblo is suitable from a ridership standpoint. If it could be continued up to Colorado Springs (pop. 439,000), it would be even better.
Cutoff cars from Chicago to Kansas City have been used on occasion to deal with the load imbalances.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top