SW Chief route change?

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
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.
A

ATSFNewton

Train Attendant
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
32
I know this topic has been tossed around before, but I was on the SWC today and had a chat with the conductor. He claimed the word is that the SWC may be permanently rerouted from Newton south to Wichita then on to Belen, skipping Hutchinson, LaJunta, Raton Pass, Lamy and ABQ. The argument, he claims, is that because New Mexico owns the rail over the pass, maintaining the tunnel may be too much for the state to handle. He said the latest "plan" calls for using the RoadRunner system, once it's finished, to get passengers from Belen to ABQ and Santa Fe. Anyone else have insight or info on this?
 
Entirely possible, although I heard rumors that BNSF was looking to electrify and add a track or two to the Transcon. I have a feeling that rumor is a load of BS, because as far as I can figure, thats a $40 billion project. But if they did that, upgraded the signals, and such, I betcha running over the transcon could cut 6 hours off the SWCs schedule. But that would be 15 years down the road anyway.
 
Rumor mill at work.

New Mexico bought the line all the way to Trinidad CO. Admittedly at a price they could hardly refuse. probably very close to what BNSF regarded as teh net scrap value of the line across the pass. But, service to Denver is in the back of their minds, so I really don't see the state letting the ling go cold.
 
The transcon between Belen is way too busy with the bottleneck at Abo Canyon. Staying with the current route is a HUGE time keeping savings because it's 79 mph track most of the way and they don't hardly share it with anyone. Not to mention, in my personal opinion, much more scenic between ABQ and Raton...
 
VentureForth said:
The transcon between Belen is way too busy with the bottleneck at Abo Canyon. Staying with the current route is a HUGE time keeping savings because it's 79 mph track most of the way and they don't hardly share it with anyone. Not to mention, in my personal opinion, much more scenic between ABQ and Raton...
Click to expand...
That, of course, is all true. However, staying on the current route means Amarillo will not be served and therefore makes all those reasons meaningless! :lol:

Seriously though, I am not holding my breath for this change. I do like to hear the rumors though!
 
The transcon between Belen is way too busy with the bottleneck at Abo Canyon. Staying with the current route is a HUGE time keeping savings because it's 79 mph track most of the way and they don't hardly share it with anyone. Not to mention, in my personal opinion, much more scenic between ABQ and Raton...
Click to expand...
No real time saving to present route. Recall that last winter or the one before, whichever, when the Raton Pass line was snowed in the train ran on the freight route for several days. Still managed to normally have on-time arrivals in Albuquerque and Kansas City. Also, did that with a 70 mph limit, not 79 mph. Bot, on the other side of the pciture, there is probably about 2 hours padding in the current schedule on the Raton line.

Construction of the second main through Abo Canyon may be getting under way. The prime objectors seem to have gone away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
VentureForth said:
The transcon between Belen is way too busy with the bottleneck at Abo Canyon. Staying with the current route is a HUGE time keeping savings because it's 79 mph track most of the way and they don't hardly share it with anyone. Not to mention, in my personal opinion, much more scenic between ABQ and Raton...
Click to expand...

and much faster, was on the SWC about a month ago and it had ATC thru there and was going much faster than 79, my GPS recorded it well over 90MPH for quite a stretch after it got over the pass.

Bob
 
I had a brief discussion with a BNSF signal maintainer in Raton a few weeks ago. He said they would be pulling out as soon as the contract was finalized - apparently some loose ends. This would probably happen by year end. He was transferring to the Powder River sub. When asked who would maintain the route, he said the state would just contract out the service - if they chose to keep it open.

I would hate to see the SWC rerouted. It's a very scenic route and the semaphore signals west of Raton looked great. Also saw a BNSF inspection train with geometry car. Many sidings were stuffed with idle empty intermodal cars.
 
Palmland said:
I had a brief discussion with a BNSF signal maintainer in Raton a few weeks ago. He said they would be pulling out as soon as the contract was finalized - apparently some loose ends. This would probably happen by year end. He was transferring to the Powder River sub. When asked who would maintain the route, he said the state would just contract out the service - if they chose to keep it open.
I would hate to see the SWC rerouted. It's a very scenic route and the semaphore signals west of Raton looked great. Also saw a BNSF inspection train with geometry car. Many sidings were stuffed with idle empty intermodal cars.
Click to expand...
After all the work that went into the Albuquerque station recently, I would be shocked if they discontinue service to Albuquerque so soon. Not to mention that they couldn't actually pull out by year's end--they have to give 180 days notice, in which communities who would lose service have the opportunity to appeal. (Yes, ABQ would still have a connection to Amtrak via Railrunner, but that's hardly the same.)

I too have heard that the state of New Mexico doesn't intend to maintain the line east of Lamy (since Railrunner will terminate there or in Santa Fe proper), which strikes me as really odd since so doing would cause several cities and towns in the state (not to mention Philmont Ranch) to lose long distance rail service. Couldn't New Mexico ask for federal transportation money (matching state funds) to support the existing right-of-way for Amtrak? It's a different situation than the typical state-corridor trains, but it strikes me as a project which would benefit both the state and the country, and as such ought to (by the spirit of the law, if not the letter) qualify for funding at both levels....

I've never heard of the "service to Denver ... in the back of their minds" which George Harris mentioned. I'm very intrigued ... but see it as right up there with the Sunset East in likelihood of ever getting beyond "studies". What tracks would this run on in Colorado to get from, um, Trinidad to Denver? Who owns those tracks, and what condition are they in? Who would run this--would it be a multi-state corridor Amtrak-operated service (like the Cascades)? An extension of Railrunner? Maybe the rumor doesn't address these at all, but hey, let's speculate!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Palmland said:
I had a brief discussion with a BNSF signal maintainer in Raton a few weeks ago. He said they would be pulling out as soon as the contract was finalized - apparently some loose ends. This would probably happen by year end. He was transferring to the Powder River sub. When asked who would maintain the route, he said the state would just contract out the service - if they chose to keep it open.
Click to expand...
What contract? The state and BNSF put the purchase agreement to bed a long time. There is nothing to finalize.
 
AlanB said:
Palmland said:
I had a brief discussion with a BNSF signal maintainer in Raton a few weeks ago. He said they would be pulling out as soon as the contract was finalized - apparently some loose ends. This would probably happen by year end. He was transferring to the Powder River sub. When asked who would maintain the route, he said the state would just contract out the service - if they chose to keep it open.
Click to expand...
What contract? The state and BNSF put the purchase agreement to bed a long time. There is nothing to finalize.
Click to expand...

Don't know. Maybe he was referring to some related union contract issues for those displaced.
 
The line from Denver to Trinidad are the former Burlington Colorado and Southern tracks used by the Texas Zephyr. I have no idea what condition they are in. I think the area from Denver to Pueblo has been ripe for passenger service for many years. Even back in in the 1960s, C&S, DRG&W and Santa Fe had 5 trains each way on this route. There were two paralleling rail lines. All southbound trains used the DRG&W route and stopped at their stations and all northbound trains used the joint C&S and Santa Fe route and stopped at their stations. Rio Grande trains were the Colorado Eagle that continued beyond Pueblo on the Mopac to Kansas City and St. Louis and The Royal Gorge which continued west at Pueblo via the beautiful Royal Gorge route to Salt Lake City. The C&S Trains were the Texas Zephyr and train 7 & 8 which continued beyond Pueblo to Trinidad, Amarillo and Ft Worth-Dallas. The Santa Fe train 27 & 28 continued to and from LaJunta with through cars to eastbound and westbound Santa Fe mainline trains. The Santa Fe train was the only one that made it to April 30, 1971. I took the Santa Fe train from Denver to Lajunta in November, 1970 and it was well patronized by local passengers between Denver and Pueblo. I think the state of Colorado has some sort of rail plan that may include service from Denver south so if they coordinate with New Mexico, through service from Albuquerque may happen.
 
I think the big problem with the Denver-Pueblo line from a passenger-train perspective is that it's now a very busy freight route. The railroads would certainly balk at adding passenger service there, and routinely getting passenger trains over the route in a timely fashion would be close to impossible. The State of Colorado has been throwing around the idea of converting the line to a passenger-only route, and constructing an entirely-new freight line out in the prairies to the east -- but of course that would be years in the future.

I'm wondering, too, if New Mexico's enthusiasm for passenger rail in general and the Raton line in particular is going to fade if the rumors are true and Bill Richardson resigns the state governorship to become Obama's Secretary of Commerce.
 
Montanan said:
I think the big problem with the Denver-Pueblo line from a passenger-train perspective is that it's now a very busy freight route. The railroads would certainly balk at adding passenger service there, and routinely getting passenger trains over the route in a timely fashion would be close to impossible. The State of Colorado has been throwing around the idea of converting the line to a passenger-only route, and constructing an entirely-new freight line out in the prairies to the east -- but of course that would be years in the future.
I'm wondering, too, if New Mexico's enthusiasm for passenger rail in general and the Raton line in particular is going to fade if the rumors are true and Bill Richardson resigns the state governorship to become Obama's Secretary of Commerce.
Click to expand...
For some reason while reading your post, the thought came to me (or should I say question) that is it possible that with the new administration being more favorable to Amtrak or rail roads in general, could this be the beginning of states attempting to shift the balance of any shared rail road financing more towards the feds to help relieve states of their own fiscal problems?
 
sky12065 said:
For some reason while reading your post, the thought came to me (or should I say question) that is it possible that with the new administration being more favorable to Amtrak or rail roads in general, could this be the beginning of states attempting to shift the balance of any shared rail road financing more towards the feds to help relieve states of their own fiscal problems?
Click to expand...
That's an interesting question, and it's going to be fascinating to see how this all plays out. My personal guess would be that increased federal support of mass transit might actually cause some states to become more active in that arena, too. At the very least it will help level the playing field some, which will be a very good thing -- if we rely too heavily on the individual states, America's rail system will be a very piecemeal one, indeed.
 
sky12065 said:
printman2000 said:
Came across this article today...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...ag=artBody;col1

Okay, I am idiot. That article is dated 2002. Never mind.
Click to expand...
It takes charactor for one to admit that they're an idiot, it takes courage to put it in the form of a poll on this forum! :p

Seriously, anyone could have made that kind of oversite. I know I have?
Click to expand...
Well, as recently as last year (maybe even this year) Amtrak station staff out there and maybe train crews as well are still talking about this route change like it's a done deal just waiting to be announced. But station staff and train crews are not always up to date with the current political and railroad policy decisions on these things either, and any time a plausible rumor would greatly affect one's livelihood it's a pretty hard thing to dismiss. But I agree with printman, I think we won't see this change being seriously and formally proposed anytime soon.
 
Update.

KDOT study "The study will consider proposed Kansas stops in Lawrence, Topeka and Newton, with new stations in Emporia, Strong City, Wichita and Winfield or Arkansas City."

This route proposal seems to be independent of the SWC.

Dated today (I checked!).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PetalumaLoco said:
Update.
KDOT study "The study will consider proposed Kansas stops in Lawrence, Topeka and Newton, with new stations in Emporia, Strong City, Wichita and Winfield or Arkansas City."

This route proposal seems to be independent of the SWC.

Dated today (I checked!).
Click to expand...
Yes, this is unrelated to the SWC (aside from the fact that it will be a connecting service); it's the long-hoped-for extension of the Heartland Flyer. And remember, it's just a study. Seems to me they've done this study before, haven't they? Ah well...

Rafi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top