What is happening to the SWC route?

[the Duck]

According to materials(corporate news of both BNSF and Amtrak back when Amtrak was first offered the Transcon the portion between Newton and Albq. via Amarillo was agreed to be an alternate route for Amtrak. In the time since that agreement Amtrak has used the alternate route several times. So the reroute could happen very quickly if need be.

 

[Ryan]

I don't know that anyone is denying that - the million dollar question (literally) is "Will it be needed? If so, when?"

 

[VentureForth]

Now that we're on page 18, let's restate the positions.

Amtrak wants to stay on the current routing. With established patronage and essentially having the rails to itself, it's the best routing for Amtrak.

However, BNSF owns those rails and doesn't want to maintain them any more because the Transcon has finished double tracking and they don't need that line any more.

BNSF has offered the Transcon to Amtrak so they can allow the current route to fester into a state of disrepair - good enough for the occasional local freight, but no where good enough for passenger ops.

However, BNSF doesn't want Amtrak to join the Transcon for free. Amtrak must pay millions to upgrade the signalling for PTC. Otherwise, Amtrak must pay millions to maintain the track on the existing route.

Amtrak being rerouted on the Transcon could mean a significant schedule hit as it may have difficulty leapfrogging around 60-70 MPH freights on that busy line.

Any shift to the existing schedule could make the wye South of Albuquerque difficult as its current schedule keeps it between the rush hours of the Railrunner express and any delay would put it into the thick of the evening runs, where Railrunner gets priority over Amtrak.

 

[tricia]

Now that we're on page 18, let's restate the positions.

Amtrak wants to stay on the current routing. With established patronage and essentially having the rails to itself, it's the best routing for Amtrak.

However, BNSF owns those rails and doesn't want to maintain them any more because the Transcon has finished double tracking and they don't need that line any more.

BNSF has offered the Transcon to Amtrak so they can allow the current route to fester into a state of disrepair - good enough for the occasional local freight, but no where good enough for passenger ops.

However, BNSF doesn't want Amtrak to join the Transcon for free. Amtrak must pay millions to upgrade the signalling for PTC. Otherwise, Amtrak must pay millions to maintain the track on the existing route.

Amtrak being rerouted on the Transcon could mean a significant schedule hit as it may have difficulty leapfrogging around 60-70 MPH freights on that busy line.

Any shift to the existing schedule could make the wye South of Albuquerque difficult as its current schedule keeps it between the rush hours of the Railrunner express and any delay would put it into the thick of the evening runs, where Railrunner gets priority over Amtrak.

Thanks for the recap! Especially helpful for those of us who don't catch up with this thread every day.

 

[Eric S]

Doesn't BNSF have to install PTC on the Transcon whether or not Amtrak runs on that section?

 

[amtkstn]

PTC has to be installed on the transcon due to the Haz materials on the trains.

 

[neroden]

Now that we're on page 18, let's restate the positions.

Amtrak wants to stay on the current routing. With established patronage and essentially having the rails to itself, it's the best routing for Amtrak.

However, BNSF owns those rails and doesn't want to maintain them any more because the Transcon has finished double tracking and they don't need that line any more.

BNSF has offered the Transcon to Amtrak so they can allow the current route to fester into a state of disrepair - good enough for the occasional local freight, but no where good enough for passenger ops.

So far, this is agreed.

However, BNSF doesn't want Amtrak to join the Transcon for free. Amtrak must pay millions to upgrade the signalling for PTC.

Citation needed. I believe this is *untrue*. Due to the high freight traffic and the existence of Poison-by-Inhalation traffic on the Transcon, I am pretty sure BNSF is obliged to upgrade the Transcon for PTC at BNSF's sole expense according to federal law. Before December 31, 2015, in fact. Any attempt by BNSF to charge Amtrak for that would be unfounded, baseless, without precedent, and would probably get them a fine. I don't believe that BNSF is that stupid and I believe they are not asking for any such thing.
If BNSF is asking for money for Amtrak to move, it is asking for money for something else: station sidings, connecting track for connecting to RailRunner, the wye at Albuquerque, etc.

Otherwise, Amtrak must pay millions to maintain the track on the existing route.

Correct.

Amtrak being rerouted on the Transcon could mean a significant schedule hit as it may have difficulty leapfrogging around 60-70 MPH freights on that busy line.

That's not true either. First of all, Amtrak does pretty well when run at 70 mph (which is much faster than the current Raton Pass speeds). Second, BNSF does very well at leapfrogging Amtrak around its freights on the Empire Builder and California Zephyr routes and the rest of the Southwest Chief route, and would presumably do just as well on this route.

Any shift to the existing schedule could make the wye South of Albuquerque difficult as its current schedule keeps it between the rush hours of the Railrunner express and any delay would put it into the thick of the evening runs, where Railrunner gets priority over Amtrak.

No significant change in schedule would be necessary. The reroute would be so much faster than the existing route that essentially the same schedule could apply; the Transcon route was running passenger trains faster than the existing route in the 1950s with a large number of station stops and worse track conditions. Furthermore, there simply aren't that many RailRunner trains running and so any traffic conflicts there would be minor; this isn't Metro-North.

 

[printman2000]

However, BNSF doesn't want Amtrak to join the Transcon for free. Amtrak must pay millions to upgrade the signalling for PTC.

I am not sure that this has ever been established. I think there have been many assumptions that this is/will be true, but I do not recall any real info that says BNSF will require extra money for the reroute.

Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum

 

[VentureForth]

That's fine. I gladly accept correction. My understanding was that PTC was required only on routes that shared freight and passengers. Therefore, if passengers were sharing with freight on the transcon, PTC would be necessary. But that was just my misunderstanding.

If that is truly the case, I can't understand why BNSF is asking for as much money to join the Transcon if it benefits them.

As for conflict with the Railrunner, it can be a challenge. At least when I lived there, the Northbound tracks from track 2 merged with track 1 north of town by way of a spring loaded switch. In other words, southbound trains could ONLY arrive on Track 1. It's mostly single track outside of the ABQ yard limits. If Amtrak misses it's slot, you can have up to two Amtraks (3 & 4) trying to get into the station and making a WYE turn plus a Railrunner stuck in the tango. On the otherhand, Amtrak can now ALWAYS arrive on Track two. But without a subway to get to platform 2, it's a mess today anyhow.

Again, it's been about 8 years since I lived there, so trackage could have improved.

 

[printman2000]

That's fine. I gladly accept correction. My understanding was that PTC was required only on routes that shared freight and passengers. Therefore, if passengers were sharing with freight on the transcon, PTC would be necessary. But that was just my misunderstanding.

If that is truly the case, I can't understand why BNSF is asking for as much money to join the Transcon if it benefits them.

Again, I cannot recall there ever being anything official as to BNSF asking for any additional money for the reroute. Only speculation.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[jis]

Here is what it says on the FRA website regarding PTC:

With limited exceptions and exclusions as described within Subpart I potentially available, PTC is required to be installed and implemented on Class I railroad main lines (i.e., lines with over 5 million gross tons annually) over which any poisonous- or toxic-by-inhalation (PIH/TIH) hazardous materials are transported; and, on any railroad’s main lines over which regularly scheduled passenger intercity or commuter operations are conducted. It is currently estimated this will equate to approximately 70,000 miles of track and will involve approximately 20,000 locomotives.

 

[VentureForth]

If they aren't asking for any money for Amtrak to join the Transcon, I can't believe that Boardman would be balking. I understand and appreciate his desire to prevent the loss of existing service to existing markets, but to essentially be assured future services on a state of the art trackage for free doesn't snap him into submission, I don't know what else he's balking at.

 

[printman2000]

Well, for Amtrak, it is a lot simpler for the to stay. They don't have to do additional work associated with a reroute. Also, they would have all that trackage without any freight interference. So I understand why they desire to stay.

I also cannot say there will be no costs that BNSF will ask for. Just none that I know of that have been public.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[jis]

And at least the guy who buggered up the Sunset negotiations reportedly does not work for Amtrak anymore, fortunately.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

As far as BNSF is concerned it would be better for Amtrak to stay on the current route. But only if someone else pays to maintain it. Then they have the route to use when they want at better speeds, don't have to deal with Amtrak on the transcontinental, and don't have to pay very much.

 

[George Harris]

As far as BNSF is concerned it would be better for Amtrak to stay on the current route. But only if someone else pays to maintain it. Then they have the route to use when they want at better speeds, don't have to deal with Amtrak on the transcontinental, and don't have to pay very much.

The question is not whether it is or isn't better for Amtrak to stay on its present route, but whether or not BNSF thinks it is. We really have no way of knowing the reality of this. The question is whether or not BNSF has made that conclusion from their studies, and their studies will include a lot of information that are simply not publically available, and much of which would probably be incomprehensible to most people, anyway.

My own opinion is that if they truly want to keep the SWC on its current route, then there needs to be the decision to get out there and relay the thing completely with new or truly good relay CWR and reinstate the ATC/ATS whatever they had and replace the essentially musuem quality signal system.

There is a precedent to shifting the train. The City of New Orleans between Memphis and Jacdson MS being it. The train was on the traditional passenger route through Grenada and Winona MS and did a fairly good business at these and other stops. However, the route had a severe arrears in maintenance, needing a near complete rail relay among other things. The traditional freight route was given signals and a 79 mph speed limit and the CNO shifted. The Grenada route had the signal system turned off and has deteriorated since. It may have by now been partly sold or abandoned. In this casse there was only one town of any significance on the replacement route, Yazoo City. What is being discussed for the Southwest Chief is the same sort of thing, exactly, only on a larger scale.

 

[William W.]

I just wanted something clarified: Does BNSF want to completely abandon the current route that the SWC uses, or just downgrade it heavily?

 

[henryj]

I just wanted something clarified: Does BNSF want to completely abandon the current route that the SWC uses, or just downgrade it heavily?

The route between Newton and Pueblo is used for freight trains to Colorado. The route between Pueblo and Las Animas is used for coal trains going to Texas through Amarillo. The track between La Junta and Trinidad is probably going to be abandoned. The track between Trinidad and Lamy would most likely be 'banked' like UP's Tennessee Pass line, for possible future use. I don't see a problem using the Transcon as it's already used between Albuquerque and Los Angeles and KC and Newton(or something like that). BNSF has tried to get Amtrak to move the train for years. Now they are forcing the issue by just not maintaining it any more. Amtrak is being very stubborn about this move for reasons that escape me. It should have been done years ago. I don't see that it's going to cost Amtrak much to move as they already use the Transcon in emergencies including the wye south of Albuquerque. Each city that wants the train to stop there will have to furnish station facilities and Albuquerque will probably find the money to beef up the wye. The transcon should be smoother and faster than Raton.

BNSF tried several ways to utilize the Raton line in the past by routing it's fastest intermodal trains on the route, etc. But the 3% ruling grade is just too steep and requires helpers. Now that the transcon is pretty much double tracked and the big Abo Canyon bottle neck is fixed, they just don't need the Raton route for anything. In an emergency they route trains via the UP, joining up with the Transcon at Vaughn, NM. And there or other routings they can use also.

 

[the Duck]

In the early years of this conflab ( about time of BN/SF merger there was on the internet several articles dealing with this subject) BNSF or (SF) had a statement telling their plan and it has not publicly changed, Their plan was 1. move Amtrak to the Transcon 2. abandon rail between La Junta and Trinidad. 3.Sell off portion between Lamy and Trinidad Since Amtrak would not move (contract) they chose to let line go bad because Amtrak had already agreed Trans con as alternate route.

 

[railiner]

The mention, alternate of using the UP route, that crosses the Transcon at Vaughn caught my interest. That was the route of the joint Rock Island-Southern Pacific "Golden State" and other trains...I wonder how that line would do as a substitute? I don't think it serves any larger cities, but I guess it's in pretty fair shape as a freight line.....

 

[ehbowen]

As far as BNSF is concerned it would be better for Amtrak to stay on the current route. But only if someone else pays to maintain it. Then they have the route to use when they want at better speeds, don't have to deal with Amtrak on the transcontinental, and don't have to pay very much.

The question is not whether it is or isn't better for Amtrak to stay on its present route, but whether or not BNSF thinks it is. We really have no way of knowing the reality of this. The question is whether or not BNSF has made that conclusion from their studies, and their studies will include a lot of information that are simply not publically available, and much of which would probably be incomprehensible to most people, anyway.

My own opinion is that if they truly want to keep the SWC on its current route, then there needs to be the decision to get out there and relay the thing completely with new or truly good relay CWR and reinstate the ATC/ATS whatever they had and replace the essentially musuem quality signal system.

There is a precedent to shifting the train. The City of New Orleans between Memphis and Jacdson MS being it. The train was on the traditional passenger route through Grenada and Winona MS and did a fairly good business at these and other stops. However, the route had a severe arrears in maintenance, needing a near complete rail relay among other things. The traditional freight route was given signals and a 79 mph speed limit and the CNO shifted. The Grenada route had the signal system turned off and has deteriorated since. It may have by now been partly sold or abandoned. In this casse there was only one town of any significance on the replacement route, Yazoo City. What is being discussed for the Southwest Chief is the same sort of thing, exactly, only on a larger scale.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of an enthusiast and neophyte, not an industry insider. But I've heard that for years BNSF has had a standing offer open to reroute the SWC, if only Amtrak would assume the costs of required passenger infrastructure such as stations and platforms. (Or push them off onto the locals.) Amtrak preferred the present route, and BNSF did not object because a) it kept the line open as an alternate; b) kept the SWC out of the way of freights in what used to be single track or directional running territory, and c) the infrastructure was adequate without requiring major maintenance.

Obviously c) no longer applies. B) is less of a consideration due to increased capacity on the line, which is now almost fully double-tracked. However, it appears that BNSF management has crunched the numbers on a) and determined that it is worth $10 million a year to them to keep Raton Pass open as a viable alternate route as long as other parties pick up the rest of the tab. Should that happen Raton can stay open for the foreseeable future. Otherwise, either the SWC gets rerouted through Amarillo or else it goes to join the Texas Chief/Lone Star in that great railyard in the sky....

 

[neroden]

There is a precedent to shifting the train. The City of New Orleans between Memphis and Jacdson MS being it. The train was on the traditional passenger route through Grenada and Winona MS and did a fairly good business at these and other stops. However, the route had a severe arrears in maintenance, needing a near complete rail relay among other things. The traditional freight route was given signals and a 79 mph speed limit and the CNO shifted. The Grenada route had the signal system turned off and has deteriorated since. It may have by now been partly sold or abandoned.

It's been sold (I think, maybe leased) to a shortline.
http://affiliatedrailroads.com/affiliated-railroads/grenada-railway-llc

At least none of the track was lifted.

In this casse there was only one town of any significance on the replacement route, Yazoo City.

Well, also Greenwood. But the population is definitely larger on the Grenada route than on the Yazoo route. (The Yazoo route has Yazoo and Greenwood; the Grenada route has Grenada, Winona, Canton, Batesville, and some smaller towns.) Both routes have really low population, though.

What is being discussed for the Southwest Chief is the same sort of thing, exactly, only on a larger scale.

Yes. Except that for the SWC, the population is larger on the Transcon route than on the Raton route, so it's a shift *to* population rather than a shift *away from* population. Which I tend to think makes a difference commercially.
I suppose the remaining areas of single-tracking on the Transcon could pose some problems.

1. There's still a section near the flyover at Vaughn NM, but that's quite short.

2. There's a section in Oklahoma from northeast of Avard OK to roughly the state line with Kansas

3. There's a short section west of Wellington KS

4. There's the "directional running" section from Mulvane to Newton, where the westbounds might have trouble because BNSF runs mostly eastbounds

5. There's the single-tracking on RailRunner from Belen to Albuquerque. But there are a lot of sidings there.

I don't know what BNSF's plans are but I would expect them to have plans to double-track from Avard OK to Mulvane KS

 

[the Duck]

The beginning question to this topic was "do we know if the reroute is going to take place and if so when? All of the evidence points to a reroute, but Amtrak will announce its answer near the end of this year. The funding scheme fell flat when found New Mexico constitution forbade state giving any monies to private railroads. BNSF double track projects are in process, Appears the only thing to stop the reroute would be for BNSF to fund their own upgrades. So it is now a wait on Amtrak.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

What is being discussed for the Southwest Chief is the same sort of thing, exactly, only on a larger scale.

Yes. Except that for the SWC, the population is larger on the Transcon route than on the Raton route, so it's a shift *to* population rather than a shift *away from* population. Which I tend to think makes a difference commercially.

While that might benefit Amtrak ridership numbers, I agree with George that the 'reroute ball' is in BNSF's court, and Amtrak looks to be a bystander in this decision. I don't think BNSF gives a hoot about Amtrak's ridership numbers, unless they borrow a page from UP's old 'operating manual' and try to make service so late and unreliable that ridership numbers go so low that the SWC becomes 'low hanging fruit' and easily knocked off.

Afterall, BNSF ALWAYS has done a good job of ensuring Amtrak has reasonable OTP. :lol:

 

[sechs]

That'd be tough to do, given that they've got a contract (through the end of 2015, it seems).

I wouldn't call I-135 an "unlighted, rural highway."

I would

I don't know of what that's a picture.

After passing the interchange with I-235/K-254, I-135 runs through Park City and the outer reaches of Valley Center, and, then, past the remnants of the Hartman Arena and Kansas Colliseum complex, before running about thirteen miles to Newton.