Southwest Chief Re-Route?

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
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.
Could this be answer for passenger train service for Amarillo. That area could just build its own train service and blow away Amtrak. Amtrak not like it--- tough, they had their chance.
 
The arguments of going onto the Trans con compared to the Raton route needs rethinking. Why not have a coach(s) split from the Chief and go on the Trans con to Albuquerque and rejoin the chief there ? That would be a train 403 & 404 for reservations. That would require 2 operating crews each way every day + a coach attendant / snack seller.. The Trans con is faster so almost all the time this split section connecting train would wait at Newton and ABQ for the main train to arrive. Also in case the Raton route was blocked in any way the Chief could detour on the Trans con without any delay for a pilot.

Realize that BNSF will balk at such an idea but who knows if the Texas & Oklahoma congressional delegation's could find the money ?.

Right now the main problem would be equipment as 2 additional operational locos would be needed with 2 - 1/4 allocated. At least the locos could get TLC at ABQ and NEW. The present spare loco kept at ABQ also helps. Depending on the number of originating and terminating passengers the number of coaches needed could be substantial with 5 train sets now used.

A study of additional revenue and costs would need careful evaluation.
 
Great idea, just as simple as 123. Guaranteed to be a 90 day wonder. In my last several times through ABQ I have not seen any spare loco, which used to be obvious. If one is around, maybe they hide it down on the yard by the eye.
 
Money quote

Chas said:
But under the leadership of Mr. Pace, the Southwest Chief Commission negotiated with BNSF Railway and convinced the railroad to cover the costs of maintaining the line.
Click to expand...
This is the first real news and explains Amtrak's decision to stay on the Raton route.
 
According to posting in Trainorders.com titled "SW Chief funding failing in Colorado" from article by Jeff Tucker published in Pueblo Chieftian April 16,2015, the funding for bill 176 (Amtrak funding) did not pass the Joint Budget Committee.. New Mexico is out, Colorado is out, The cities that won the grant have yet to put their money on the table. Well, looks like La junta to Hutchinson might make a good oil route
 
The news is that BNSF is now volunteering to maintain the line on its own dime. Which pretty much eliminates the original motivation for the reroute. For now.
 
neroden said:
The news is that BNSF is now volunteering to maintain the line on its own dime. Which pretty much eliminates the original motivation for the reroute. For now.
Click to expand...
Could you point us to a source for that info? It's quite interesting to learn.
 
BNSF has never to this day said in printed form that they would repair or maintain the line from Lamy to La Junta. And you know legally if not in print, it did not happen. What BNSF has said from the very start was it would maintain from La Junta eastward to Newton. So has pot taken Colorado so much they can not understand English?
 
We don't have anything direct from BNSF, but we have several statements from various government agencies saying that BNSF has agreed to maintain the line. Yes, the whole thing.

Maybe BNSF will back out on that commitment; maybe they never made it. But as long as this is the impression of the government officials, then there's no pressure for a reroute. If BNSF decides to stop maintaining the line, the reroute plans will come back very very quickly.
 
Maybe BNSF is slowly coming to the conclusion that maintaining the Raton route as a safety valve for empties/deadheads from the Amarillo route during heavy congestion there, is cheaper than trying to add a third track, or even a zillion sidings to the transcon.
 
While BNSF is starting to come around to maintaining the Raton route, the big question is if it will be at passenger speeds. That's really where the debate still is.
 
So who first proposed the reroute through Amarillo? Not Amtrak!

BNSF has a commitment to allow the SWC on the Raton route until 12/31/16. Now if the route becomes impassable for any reason bridge/washout and no one comes up with money to fix it, then the SWC will not roll again until the route is repaired (if ever).

I asked Mark Murphy (Sr. VP Amtrak LD routes) about coming through Amarillo and he indicated that it would never happen. He was on his way to Los Angeles for a 3/27 annual meeting of rail users.

The SWC rolled into LAX about an hour late but I had plenty of time to connect to the CS. I am glad that we got breakfast on the SWC starting at 5:30AM PT since I would not have had the time to go to Phillipes.
 
tomfuller said:
I asked Mark Murphy (Sr. VP Amtrak LD routes) about coming through Amarillo and he indicated that it would never happen.
Click to expand...
Did he say why? That's a curious "never". What if the current route became impassable? Would Amtrak throw out the whole route just to avoid Wichita/OKC/Amarillo? Is the chief just a prolonged tour of the Raton Pass? I thought it was a transportation service.

Or is there some underlying issue like track unsuitable for passenger speeds? (BNSF was the one who suggested the route, so I figure they would no know if it was passenger-legal).
 
The Transcon is all Class 4 70 mph intermodal, so it is not an issue with the track. It is passenger legal, but of course everything that isn't FRA-excepted, like industrial spurs, is passenger legal, the question is speed, but that isn't a question on the Transcon.

I think BNSF is the one blocking using the Transcon now. BNSF was throwing out arguments like having to increase the timing circuits, which is bogus because you could easily operate the SWC at 70 mph instead of 79 and the grade crossing timing circuits are already there for 70. BNSF simply doesn't want it on the Transcon, I think.

Amtrak is just putting the best face on what is likely a BNSF decision, although if BNSF is willing to maintain the Raton and Glorietta subdivisions to keep Amtrak off the Transcon and maintain a secondary line just in case, I am fine with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the route becomes impassable before 12/31/16 the SWC will die a death similar to the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans. After 1/1/17 it's anybodies guess what happens to the SWC.

At one point in Western Kansas, we were a little over 2 hours behind schedule (before we got to Raton).

Over the route from Galesburg to Los Angeles we averaged 50.5mph which is 5 better than the CZ from SAC to Galesburg.

While I was having lunch with Mark I happened to see one of the few remaining semaphore signals left in the US. I don't know if anyone is still maintaining the signals in NM
 
I cannot understand why the freight railroads seem to be so against running one daily passenger train on their multiple-main railways....how can just the one train each way impede their operations so bad?

They do get compensation for running it, don't they? Doesn't it earn them revenue equal to some of the freight trains they operate? What are they afraid of?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The revenue that they get for running a passenger train is not even close to the revenue from a typical intermodal. That is part of the problem. They run passenger trains more as an obligation like kid having to eat his veggies :)
 
So they do earn some revenue from them. I guess they have a short memory of the losses they had to endure before Amtrak began, and they had to bear the losses of running passenger trains "for the public good and necessity'...

Perhaps railroads should look at passenger trains as another way to promote their railways and earn revenue at the same time, rather than spend a fortune on those "touchy-feely", "image" advertisements they run on certain national television...
 
zephyr17 said:
The Transcon is all Class 4 70 mph intermodal, so it is not an issue with the track. It is passenger legal, but of course everything that isn't FRA-excepted, like industrial spurs, is passenger legal, the question is speed, but that isn't a question on the Transcon.

I think BNSF is the one blocking using the Transcon now. BNSF was throwing out arguments like having to increase the timing circuits, which is bogus because you could easily operate the SWC at 70 mph instead of 79 and the grade crossing timing circuits are already there for 70. BNSF simply doesn't want it on the Transcon, I think.

Amtrak is just putting the best face on what is likely a BNSF decision, although if BNSF is willing to maintain the Raton and Glorietta subdivisions to keep Amtrak off the Transcon and maintain a secondary line just in case, I am fine with that.
Click to expand...
Didn't BNSF offer the TRANSCON to Amtrak in the first place (as an alternative to the current route)? Perhaps, I read/remember wrong!
 
yes , Transcon route was first offered to Amtrack in 1998 when it was still Santa Fe. It was Santa Fe's position to 1. get Amtrak off current route between Newton and Lamy 2. abandon line between la Junta and Trinidad. 3. sell line between Lamy and Trinidad. When Bn bought Santa Fe this agreement was acknowledge and agreed to by BN. Now today Bn is still acknowledging this agreement by not announcing a change in time and circumstance. Amtrak is playing the role of a bad tenant who won't move when ask-- BNSF is playing role of "Good Guy" by telling Amtralk if they can come up with funds to fund maintaince and repairs they can use it. WE now know that 1. Amtrak has no funds to put toward project. New Mexico is probhited by its constution from giving any monies to any private railroad and Colorado"s t attempt last week is now "Postponed indefinitely" The "never" is politics-- goes back to when Johnson was elected. Democrat bureaucrats have forgotten who is in charge now
 
I support maintaining the tracks and keeping the SWC on it's current route in order to 1) maintain service to communities that rely on the SWC for long-distance travel 2) maintain service to downtown ABQ and 3) make it theoretically possible to someday have passenger rail service from Denver to ABQ.

That being said, I think there is a strong case to move the SWC to the Transcon simply for the fact it would serve Amarillo. With a metro area of a quarter million people and an airport that has limited commercial flights (with no direct flights to LA, ABQ, Kansas City or Chicago), Amarillo seems like a perfect candidate to be situated in the middle of the SWC route.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top