Southwest Chief Re-Route?

[henryj]

Bill to fund Southwest Chief goes to Colorado's governor for his signature.

I would be surprised if this ever happens, but I certainly hope they don't route it through Pueblo. That would add at least a couple of hours to the schedule and the train would become embroiled in all the coal trains navigating the front range. It would never run on time again. Re-route the train via the transcon and forget Raton.

 

[Bus Nut]

Why is Colorado doing this? What a mess. Amtrak shouldn't have laid back and let these states squabble it out. They should have just said BNSF is closing the line and we're going to Amarillo. Now that is a destination (with Witchita) with a coherent business case. If CO feels so strongly about Pueblo, let them fund a bus. This is madness.

 

[greatcats]

I tend to agree with Bus Nut. Running a lengthy detour up lines known to have heavy freight traffic sounds like a really bad idea. Sounds like these legislators are a bunch of do gooders who don't have a clue. If they can manage to keep the train on its present route, then run a bus from Pueblo to La Junta or one of those places. I am not bitterly opposed to re-routing the train through Texas. The important things is that # 3 and #4 are not at risk for being terminated because of stupidity and foot dragging.

 

[railiner]

One could wonder if the whole point of the charade is an excuse to discontinue the Southwest Chief.

I wonder.....

If they did, they could bring back a Desert Wind connection to the CZ.....or extend the Heartland Flyer to Newton and Chicago on the Chief's route....

 

[jis]

Dream on

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[railiner]

Dream on

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

Only time will tell.........

 

[7deuceman]

True enough, the addition of Amtrak service to Pueblo will put a few extra hours on the Southwest Chief schedule. However, besides being the gateway to southern Colorado tourism, a new Pueblo Amtrak service will benefit the residents immediately to the north of the city.

The greater Colorado Springs area has a population of over 600,000 people, essentially living 35-45 minutes from the proposed Amtrak service. Certainly Amtrak at Pueblo would be served by bus feeder services to and from points north to Denver, creating a seamless connection. Also, many Coloradans are no strangers to driving 35-45 minutes to where they need to go. So if Amtrak provides an adequate parking facility at Pueblo, it will create a hassle-free connection for those who prefer to drive to and from the station and the Colorado Springs area.

This is actually a really big deal - having the opportunity to introduce Amtrak service to 600,000 citizens who have not had train service in the area - and riders who have not been able to access the Colorado Springs area from other parts of the Amtrak system. This could be very lucrative for the Southwest Chief revenue.

 

[Anderson]

I'll agree that service to Pueblo would be a good thing. I'm not sure whether the service would be a better move than the possibility of direct service to Amarillo and Wichita, but that is at least debatable. I know it will add some running time, but I rather suspect that will be offset at least in part by the access to bigger markets.

 

[VentureForth]

If they run it up to Pueblo, then it can be routed around the Pueblo Test Track at 200 MPH.

 

[greatcats]

That gave me a good early morning laugh! Breakfast in the diner at 200 mph.

 

[Notelvis]

If they run it up to Pueblo, then it can be routed around the Pueblo Test Track at 200 MPH.

They could really make up some of that lost time at 200mph......... if the test track went anywhere the Southwest Chief was going.

The cynic in me is increasingly beginning to believe that nothing will be resolved until the next big washout on the Raton Pass line somewhere in northern New Mexico.

I can easily imagine a scenario where the existing route goes out of service suddenly and unexpectedly. The 'Southwest Chief' is annulled between Albuquerque and Kansas City for a few days before beginning to detour via the transcon.

In New Mexico the politicians debate whether the cost of repairing the railroad..... something which Amtrak can't afford and BNSF won't afford...... for one passenger train is worth it. The debate drags on for quite some time......

Meanwhile, the SWC continues to detour.

The debate drags on....... most people concede that the money to repair the line is either not there or is not a worthwhile investment.

Passenger stations in the form of mobile waiting rooms and hastily paved platforms begin to spring up along the Transcon and, suddenly, the detour is no longer the detour..... it is the new route.

When does this happen? Whenever we see the next major washout or landslide on the existing route. Next week. Next month. Sometime.

 

[greatcats]

Your scenario sounds about right. The bureaucrats will hash it out and stall and order umpteen environmental impact studies. Then nature will resolve the problem in one fell swoop.

 

[CHamilton]

To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such, and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states). So it seems like the re-route is definitely not a done deal, but it's too soon to tell.

 

[Eric S]

To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such, and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states). So it seems like the re-route is definitely not a done deal, but it's too soon to tell.

I find that to be a bit worrisome, frankly. If the cost of moving the SWC is higher than the cost of it staying where it is, and so far the numbers tossed around for how much it would cost to stay on its current route have seemed much higher than the states/communities/railroads in question have been willing to cover, that could spell trouble for the SWC's existence at some point in the next few years.

Did you hear any sort of updates on the estimated costs of each option? Or just that generally it would be more to reroute it to the Transcon?

 

[zephyr17]

If they run it up to Pueblo, then it can be routed around the Pueblo Test Track at 200 MPH.

They could really make up some of that lost time at 200mph......... if the test track went anywhere the Southwest Chief was going.

Probably not, the 200mph test track is a big, closed loop. Of course, you may be able to turn back time with it like the first Superman movie.

 

[CHamilton]

There were some numbers, but unfortunately I didn't write them down. I'll see if I can update you when I get a chance.

 

[printman2000]

To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such, and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states). So it seems like the re-route is definitely not a done deal, but it's too soon to tell.

What signals would be needed? Doesn't Amtrak use the same signals freights use?

There would be some cost to build platforms and improve stations, but I have assumed they would require local communities to pay for that.

Anyway, even if that is true, in the long run, it would be cheaper on the transcon as you would not have the ongoing maintenance that would be required on the current route.

 

[neroden]

To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such,

This is nonsense. Who's lying to you?* BNSF has to have a fully signalized Transcon for its freight

* Because this is fast freight, it has to be signalized for 60 mph +

* The Transcon is legally obligated to have a full PTC system by the end of 2015; although this may be delivered a bit late, with associated federal fines applied to BNSF, there is no way Amtrak will be charged for any of it;

So there is no way in hell that the cost (to Amtrak/states) of moving the SWC to the Transcon is higher than staying where it is -- unless BNSF has simply decided to pay to keep Amtrak off this part of the Transcon.

I would like to know who's spreading this obvious disinformation. Is it BNSF? Amtrak? Who?

Perhaps what is meant is that BNSF is pulling the usual Class I blackmail tactics, throwing out insane and unreasonable monetary demands because they think they can. I really hope this isn't the case.

and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states).

Sounds nice. But, unless there's a billionaire train-lover in one of these cities who I don't know about, they simply don't have the money, so it won't happen. This is the problem with trying to preserve a route which runs through a bunch of small, poor cities.

 

[neroden]

There were some numbers, but unfortunately I didn't write them down. I'll see if I can update you when I get a chance.

I would very much appreciate seeing the detailed numbers which you were given. Because if they claimed it was more expensive to run on the already-maintained Transcon than maintain the Raton Pass route (including an entirely new signalling system), there's something fundamentally dishonest in the numbers you were shown, and I'll like the opportunity to figure out where the scam is.

OK... thinking about it, and trying to bend over backwards to dislike the Transcon reroute, I can think of the following major possible sources of "bad numbers" for a Transcon reroute.

(1) Station construction at Amarillo. This is unlikely to be exceptionally expensive, and it's Amarillo's problem anyway, so it shouldn't be relevant.

(2) Station construction at Wichita. This needs to be done anyway for the long-planned Heartland Flyer extension. It should be done anyway. Even if this raises the "cost", the train should still move to the Transcon, because of the added benefits. If this cost is included, then the *benefits* should be included.

(3) Station construction anywhere else (Clovis, etc.). If necessary, don't stop.

(4) Trackwork in the vicinity of Wichita, where BNSF only runs trains one direction and there's UP to contend with too. This needs to be done anyway for the long-planned Heartland Flyer extension. It should be done anyway. Even if this raises the "cost", the train should still move to the Transcon, because of the added benefits. If this cost is included, then the *benefits* should be included.

(5) Anticipated drop in revenue due to replacing a bunch of little stations with two big stations. Revenue modeling is hard. I strongly believe that hitting two big cities is better. This is, however, a matter on which opinions can differ, and there are no objective numbers until you actually do the move.

(6) It is possible that BNSF would want to run the SW Chief at "cruising speed" with its fast freights (60 mph, perhaps even as slow as 50 mph?) rather than at 79 mph. This could slow the route down. It is possible that Amtrak anticipates that this would lead to higher costs and lower revenues. This is potentially legitimate. *However*, given that Amtrak has happily run the SWC at 40 mph on long stretches the existing track due to track conditions, I really find this argument unlikely; effectively, the costs and lost revenue from slowing the train down are already being applied to the current route.

 

[trainman74]

Probably not, the 200mph test track is a big, closed loop. Of course, you may be able to turn back time with it like the first Superman movie.

Nah, just keep running the Southwest Chief around and around, faster and faster, until centrifugal force makes it fly off the loop -- hopefully in the direction it's supposed to be going.

 

[henryj]

To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such, and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states). So it seems like the re-route is definitely not a done deal, but it's too soon to tell.

This is totally bogus and if someone at NARP told you this they are sadly misinformed or perhaps it's just wishful thinking on their part.

 

[George Harris]

To my surprise, we were told at the NARP meeting that 1. the cost of moving the SWC to the transcon is actually higher than staying where it is, due to the need for signals and such, and 2. the cities along the current route actually seem to be getting their acts together to keep the train (this is the cities, mind you, not the states). So it seems like the re-route is definitely not a done deal, but it's too soon to tell.

This is totally bogus and if someone at NARP told you this they are sadly misinformed or perhaps it's just wishful thinking on their part.

It continually amazes me the amount of pure nonsence that gets spouted with absolute assurance by people that know just enough to be dangerous..

The BNSF freight route is mostly double tracked and CTC signaled throughout with a speed limit of 70 mph for the premium freights.

There may be an issue with circuit lengths for grade crossing signals, and then maybe not. There should be no issue with the signals governing the trains. Compared to freights, even top freights, passenger trains are sports cars with much faster acceleration and braking rates. There is no need for track improvements to permit higher speeds for the passenger train. Track meeting the FRA standards required for 70 mph freight operation will permit passenger operations up to 90 mph. It is only the problem of traffic flow and signal requirements that would keep the speed lower.

I get the general feeling that the BNSF passenger line is approaching the condition that the ICRR passenger line between Memphis and Jackson MS had reached by the time the City of New Orleans was moved to their freight route through Yazoo City. That is, it had gone as long as it could on string and duct tape and had to have major money spent to keep it going as a high speed or even medium speed piece of railroad. I would suspect that by now BNSF is facing

1. The need for a near complete relay of rail.

2. Replacement of much of the signal system. (Isn't some of this still in Semaphores? These things are museum pieces and can be unreliable in below freezing weather.)

That is just for starts. It is not counting such things as major tie renewals, ditching, drainage, ballasting work, etc.

 

[CHamilton]

I may well have misunderstood parts of the discussion. I have not been following the SWC issue closely, what with the EB mess in my part of the world. I will follow up and get more information.

 

[CHamilton]

Not a lot of details on their website, but much of what I heard was from ColoRail. The purpose of the presentation was to talk about how they put together local support, not about the technical details being discussed here. Their website is at http://www.colorail.org/

 

[printman2000]

I may well have misunderstood parts of the discussion. I have not been following the SWC issue closely, what with the EB mess in my part of the world. I will follow up and get more information.

Not the first time I have heard what you did. I just do not think it is true. At least not in the long run.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum