Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Southwest Chief reroute via Wichita and Amarillo?


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#21 Anthony V

Anthony V

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2018 - 12:29 PM

 

The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.

 

How many of the communities that would lose intercity rail service (between Hutchinson and Lamy) do not have commercial air service or intercity bus service? Off the top of my head, Dodge City, Garden City, Hutchinson, Raton, and Trinidad do. Not sure about La Junta, Lamar, Lamy, and Las Vegas.

 

They may have commercial air service, but due to limited competition in those markets, it is VERY expensive compared to flights out of major cities. Having train service allows those in those small towns to have an affordable way, without the hassle of driving hundreds of miles, to get to the nearest major city airport so they can take advantage of the bigger city's lower airfares.



#22 Eric S

Eric S

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,394 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milwaukee

Posted 15 January 2018 - 01:02 PM

 

 

The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.

 

How many of the communities that would lose intercity rail service (between Hutchinson and Lamy) do not have commercial air service or intercity bus service? Off the top of my head, Dodge City, Garden City, Hutchinson, Raton, and Trinidad do. Not sure about La Junta, Lamar, Lamy, and Las Vegas.

 

They may have commercial air service, but due to limited competition in those markets, it is VERY expensive compared to flights out of major cities. Having train service allows those in those small towns to have an affordable way, without the hassle of driving hundreds of miles, to get to the nearest major city airport so they can take advantage of the bigger city's lower airfares.

 

Yes, commercial air service to Dodge City and Garden City may well usually (or always) be rather expensive. Intercity bus service to those cities, as well as to Hutchinson, Raton, and Trinidad, generally is not. So the only communities "cut off" by re-routing the SWC would be La Junta, Lamar, Lamy, and Las Vegas (although Las Vegas does have regional bus service on weekdays).

 

And I'd be rather surprised if there's a nontrivial number of passengers boarding in, say, Lamar, and riding the SWC to Albuquerque or Kansas City to connect with commercial air service. Amtrak's LD service is not particularly conducive to air/rail multimodal journeys. If linking these communities with commercial air service in, what?, Albuquerque, Denver, and perhaps Wichita is a major concern, intercity bus service that directly connects to airports and is timed to facilitate an air/bus journey would probably be a much better goal to work toward rather than opposing a move of the SWC to the southern route.

 

Of course, having said all that, I can't really see the SWC moving from the northern route to the southern route anytime remotely soon.



#23 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,512 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 15 January 2018 - 07:46 PM

The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.

 
How many of the communities that would lose intercity rail service (between Hutchinson and Lamy) do not have commercial air service or intercity bus service? Off the top of my head, Dodge City, Garden City, Hutchinson, Raton, and Trinidad do. Not sure about La Junta, Lamar, Lamy, and Las Vegas.

They may have commercial air service, but due to limited competition in those markets, it is VERY expensive compared to flights out of major cities. Having train service allows those in those small towns to have an affordable way, without the hassle of driving hundreds of miles, to get to the nearest major city airport so they can take advantage of the bigger city's lower airfares.

 
So?  The same is true of Ithaca, NY.  Ever looked up airfare out here? By your NON-argument, we should reroute the Lake Shore Limited through Ithaca. Stop making non-arguments.

And the same is true of the cities which are currently bypassed because they're on the route via Amarillo. Really, Anthony, you're *not making an argument*.

Edited by neroden, 15 January 2018 - 07:51 PM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#24 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,512 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 15 January 2018 - 07:48 PM

Of course, having said all that, I can't really see the SWC moving from the northern route to the southern route anytime remotely soon.


It'll happen as soon as the refurbished tracks deteriorate again.  How long is the patch-up job good for?

Next time it starts falling apart, all these "cities" will have even smaller populations, less money, less support from their state governments (because smaller populations), and fewer Boy Scouts going to Philmont. They barely scraped together the money this time.

Do you see a trend which might reverse this? I don't. There are no signs of any growth on the horizon for anything on the northern route.

Edited by neroden, 15 January 2018 - 07:49 PM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#25 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,512 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 15 January 2018 - 07:55 PM

Don't get me wrong:  I'd like to see another train on the Transcon.  Neroden:  do you have inside info that BNSF is more willing now than in the past to let Amtrak onto the Transcon east of Dalies?  As it is, BTW, the Southwest Chief is on the Transcon for about 750 miles between Dalies and Los Angeles.


And it's also on the Transcon from Emporia, KS to Galesburg!

It's not inside info, it's public info. The main BNSF objection was always due to the single-track sections on the Transcon, which is a legitimate objection. It wasn't like the bogus objections we hear from CSX.

Double-tracking Vaughn (a huge project completed in 2015) is one of the changes which would make them more amenable now; double tracking Fort Sumner, done next, was another. The remaining single-track bridge near Alva, OK sees less traffic (due to freights heading from Amarillo towards the rest of Texas), but if they wanted that double-tracked too before they'd consider a passenger train, I wouldn't be surprised.

And again, to be clear, I *would* expect them to demand passenger sidings and platforms on both sides for each station; this has become the standard demand of both NS and CSX for all new stations on mainline, and it's actually a very reasonable demand in dispatching terms. Those stations with platforms on one side, of which there are many, create a headache for the dispatchers. (I expect BNSF is glad to get rid of Williams Junction.)

Edited by neroden, 15 January 2018 - 08:01 PM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#26 ainamkartma

ainamkartma

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 16 January 2018 - 01:34 PM

 

The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.

 

How many of the communities that would lose intercity rail service (between Hutchinson and Lamy) do not have commercial air service or intercity bus service? Off the top of my head, Dodge City, Garden City, Hutchinson, Raton, and Trinidad do. Not sure about La Junta, Lamar, Lamy, and Las Vegas.

 

 

Lamy is the train station for Santa Fe, which does have (very expensive) air service.

 

Santa Fe also has a commuter train connection to ABQ, but it is not coordinated at all with the SWC and is not practical for making reliable connections due to its limited hours of service.

 

Ainamkartma



#27 west point

west point

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 20 January 2018 - 12:37 PM

This proposal does acknowledge the lack of equipment problems.  A second train would be too much demand for equipment.  A reroute does seem to neglect the present route.  Instead if equipment can be allocated why not run a separate sections Newton <> ABQ ?  Make it trains 23 and 24.  That would be similar to the Builders 27 & 28.  Just split off enough equipment to run on the southern transcon from Newton and ABQ and combine trains at ABQ & Newton ? 

 

You would probably get enough additional revenue for the southern intermediate stations to beyond ABQ & NEW stations to at least break even.  Only additional operating costs would then be track charges, 2 additional T&E per trip based at ABQ and NEW,  The southern transcon route is quicker so the 23 & 24 would be waiting for regular Chief to recombine.  

 

Agree  that multiple platforms would be necessary. As the cities on the southern route get their platforms stops could be instituted.  Another advantage is if either route becomes blocked for any reason the whole train could use the other route.



#28 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 20 January 2018 - 06:12 PM

So trains splitting and re-merging? We have the LSL and EB splits but no trains splitting off and then coming together but it is intriguing. Is there any precedent for doing so? Interesting concept. Could it be applied to other routes?


Trains Traveled: Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA), Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI), Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS), Lake Shore Limited (NYP-CHI), , Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL), Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX), California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY), City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL), Texas Eagle (CHI-DAL)
Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
https://www.facebook...roadwayLimited/


#29 CCC1007

CCC1007

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 January 2018 - 08:16 PM

So trains splitting and re-merging? We have the LSL and EB splits but no trains splitting off and then coming together but it is intriguing. Is there any precedent for doing so? Interesting concept. Could it be applied to other routes?

Technically the Empire Builder and North Coast Limited worked in a similar way to this, running combined from Chicago to Minneapolis and Spokane to Portland. This is also how it worked for the Mainstreeter and the Western Star, the secondary streamliners on the NP and GN.

As far as I know, this practice continued into BN days.

#30 dlagrua

dlagrua

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,910 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hillsborough, NJ
  • Interests:Car collecting, Train Travel, Model RR, Visiting Historical sights, Cooking, Antiques, but above all love for friends and family.

Posted 21 January 2018 - 09:38 AM

 

The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.

 

Well, to hell with them, bluntly.  What's so special about them that they get special treatment?

 

They're already depopulating.  There are plenty of other larger cities with no other transportation options other than driving, such as:

 

Woodward, OK

Pampa, TX

Hereford, TX

Friona, TX

Clovis, NM

 

In short, *you have not made an argument*.  The cities I listed are just as deserving as the ones on the existing route.

 

"Boy Scouts go to Raton so it punches above its weight" is a valid argument. 

"North Dakota High Line cities punch above their weight because the roads close in the winter, unlike in other areas" is a valid argument.

 

What you said is NOT an argument, because it doesn't explain why these particular cities should get better treatment than Ithaca, NY (population >100,000) or Emporia KS (actually *on* the existing line and with no station) which have the same problems with sky-high airfare and long drives.

 

I believe that the argument being made is that the many of the smaller towns have little or no public transportation options especially during winter. . People in the larger cities do



#31 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,512 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 21 January 2018 - 12:18 PM

The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.

 
Well, to hell with them, bluntly.  What's so special about them that they get special treatment?
 
They're already depopulating.  There are plenty of other larger cities with no other transportation options other than driving, such as:
 
Woodward, OK
Pampa, TX
Hereford, TX
Friona, TX
Clovis, NM
 
In short, *you have not made an argument*.  The cities I listed are just as deserving as the ones on the existing route.
 
"Boy Scouts go to Raton so it punches above its weight" is a valid argument. 
"North Dakota High Line cities punch above their weight because the roads close in the winter, unlike in other areas" is a valid argument.
 
What you said is NOT an argument, because it doesn't explain why these particular cities should get better treatment than Ithaca, NY (population >100,000) or Emporia KS (actually *on* the existing line and with no station) which have the same problems with sky-high airfare and long drives.

I believe that the argument being made is that the many of the smaller towns have little or no public transportation options especially during winter. . People in the larger cities do


Sure, and AS I WROTE IN THE QUOTED MESSAGE, the smaller towns which I listed on the Amarillo route have the same problem.

Again, I repeat, *this is not an argument* for one route over the other.

Edited by neroden, 21 January 2018 - 12:18 PM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#32 Palmetto

Palmetto

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southmost Texas

Posted 21 January 2018 - 05:02 PM

It would be nice to have "both/and" rather than "either/or", for sure.  But as I stated before, the host railroad--BNSF--doesn't want Amtrak on their Southern Transcon.  They tolerate Amtrak on it now because there's really no alternative like the one through Glorieta Pass.  [A pretty ride, BTW.] Now, I have not seen this stance in any official BNSF document; but there's been a lot of talk about the matter elsewhere.



#33 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 877 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Largo, Florida

Posted 21 January 2018 - 10:31 PM

The small towns you want the SWC to bypass don't have very many alternative transportation options other than driving, so if they lost the Chief, their economies would severely suffer because the train is their only affordable public transportation option, and is their only alternative to driving hundreds of miles to the nearest interstate highway or airport. Even in the towns that do have commercial air service, flights out of those towns are very expensive. Train service allows those in these small towns to ride to the nearest major city and fly out of the airport in that city with much lower airfares without having to drive hundreds of miles to get there.

 
Well, to hell with them, bluntly.  What's so special about them that they get special treatment?
 
They're already depopulating.  There are plenty of other larger cities with no other transportation options other than driving, such as:
 
Woodward, OK
Pampa, TX
Hereford, TX
Friona, TX
Clovis, NM
 
In short, *you have not made an argument*.  The cities I listed are just as deserving as the ones on the existing route.
 
"Boy Scouts go to Raton so it punches above its weight" is a valid argument. 
"North Dakota High Line cities punch above their weight because the roads close in the winter, unlike in other areas" is a valid argument.
 
What you said is NOT an argument, because it doesn't explain why these particular cities should get better treatment than Ithaca, NY (population >100,000) or Emporia KS (actually *on* the existing line and with no station) which have the same problems with sky-high airfare and long drives.
I believe that the argument being made is that the many of the smaller towns have little or no public transportation options especially during winter. . People in the larger cities do
Sure, and AS I WROTE IN THE QUOTED MESSAGE, the smaller towns which I listed on the Amarillo route have the same problem.

Again, I repeat, *this is not an argument* for one route over the other.
However, people living in the communities along the current route have come to expect to have Amtrak as a transportation option. Anyone living in the towns along the proposed routing chooses to live there knowing that train service is not available. If ridership along the other route would be significantly higher, I could understand moving the train over, but if it is not a large difference I think the current route should be retained. Another consideration is that the Raton Pass route would likely be abandoned if the Southwest Chief was moved away, essentially eliminating any possibility of restored service or a new route such as Denver-Albuquerque.
<p>Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SEA-LAX, CZ CHI-RIC, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB SEA-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS/NYP-CHI, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-CLT, SM ORL-NYP, SS FTL-NYP

#34 Rover

Rover

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N. Texas

Posted 22 January 2018 - 04:43 AM

 

 

In short, *you have not made an argument*.  The cities I listed are just as deserving as the ones on the existing route.

 

"Boy Scouts go to Raton so it punches above its weight" is a valid argument. 

"North Dakota High Line cities punch above their weight because the roads close in the winter, unlike in other areas" is a valid argument.

 

What you said is NOT an argument, because it doesn't explain why these particular cities should get better treatment than Ithaca, NY (population >100,000) or Emporia KS (actually *on* the existing line and with no station) which have the same problems with sky-high airfare and long drives.

 

 

I don't think you can make a rule and say, every city above a given size should get Amtrak service, or every city below a certain size should be denied it. The real situation is much more complex than that. People don't just ride a train for the sake of riding a train and you don't satisfy a need just by providing a train - any train. Rather, you have to look at what other cities people living in a given city actually need to travel to the most, and ask whether the proposed train makes any meaningful contribution towards that. 

 

Often travel patterns develop for a reason. Somebody may live or have parents in city A but go to college or have a job in city B, precisely because they can actually get from one of those cities to the other. So in other words people use a train and have become reliant on the train because the train has been there for long enough to support those patterns.

 

This isn't always the case of course, and you can't always just assume things, but have to look at and survey the actual passengers and potential passengers. But saying the city has this number of inhabitants and is therefore more deserving of a train servive than a city with fewer inhabitants may be simplifying the situation too far.

 

 

Nothing is guaranteed with Amtrak service.

 

Sh*t happens. Hurricanes happen. Long service interruptions happen.

 

But freight comes before passengers. In the USA.


I've ridden: ~ The Empire Builder 1981 ~ The Coast Starlight 1981 ~ The Texas Eagle ~ The Sunset Limited ~
Books: ~ Time-Life - The Old West ~ The Railroaders * Rail Ventures - 4th Edition

 

I think it is absolute mythology that there's any national system that is profitable. And I think the naysayers just have to get over it. ~ Amtrak President Alex Kummant ~ June 2008

 


#35 E60JPC

E60JPC

    Train Attendant

  • Training
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:trains, what else?

Posted 22 January 2018 - 04:08 PM

A hypothetical compromise could be to run the Southwest Chief on the current route between Holliday Jct., KS and Dailies Jct., NM via La Junta, CO and Albuquerque, NM 4 days/week (e.g. Su, Mo, We, Fr) and over the Transcon between Holliday Jct., KS and Dailies Jct., NM via Amarillo, TX and Belen, NM the remaining 3 days/week (e.g. Tu, Th, Sa). This assumes, of course, that BNSF Railway would be more amenable to a compromise train via Amarillo 3 days/week rather than daily. Passengers bound for Santa Fe, NM and Albuquerque, NM the 3 days/week the train would operate via Amarillo could change to a New Mexico Rail Runner train at Belen, NM.



#36 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 877 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Largo, Florida

Posted 22 January 2018 - 07:43 PM

A hypothetical compromise could be to run the Southwest Chief on the current route between Holliday Jct., KS and Dailies Jct., NM via La Junta, CO and Albuquerque, NM 4 days/week (e.g. Su, Mo, We, Fr) and over the Transcon between Holliday Jct., KS and Dailies Jct., NM via Amarillo, TX and Belen, NM the remaining 3 days/week (e.g. Tu, Th, Sa). This assumes, of course, that BNSF Railway would be more amenable to a compromise train via Amarillo 3 days/week rather than daily. Passengers bound for Santa Fe, NM and Albuquerque, NM the 3 days/week the train would operate via Amarillo could change to a New Mexico Rail Runner train at Belen, NM.

Even if the train was rerouted it would likely still stop in Albuquerque due to the high volume of passengers as well as the need to service the train there.
<p>Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SEA-LAX, CZ CHI-RIC, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB SEA-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS/NYP-CHI, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-CLT, SM ORL-NYP, SS FTL-NYP

#37 Palmetto

Palmetto

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southmost Texas

Posted 23 January 2018 - 08:20 AM

Currently, there is no connection in Belen to allow for a run up to ABQ.  Nor is there one for the train to continue west on the Transcon from the current Belen station.  There's room for one though, it seems, so not an insurmountable logistics problem, and I assume in the ATSF days, there used to be a connection from a Belen station track to the main line.



#38 The 3 Ducks Quacking

The 3 Ducks Quacking

    Train Attendant

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 25 January 2018 - 11:59 PM

It would be nice to have "both/and" rather than "either/or", for sure.  But as I stated before, the host railroad--BNSF--doesn't want Amtrak on their Southern Transcon.  They tolerate Amtrak on it now because there's really no alternative like the one through Glorieta Pass.  [A pretty ride, BTW.] Now, I have not seen this stance in any official BNSF document; but there's been a lot of talk about the matter elsewhere.

I would like to clear up misconception on population that has been expressed.  The population of Amarillo is 200,000 proper and the metro area is almost another 200,000.  Lubbock population is 225,000 and its metro is another 200,000.  That is a total over 800,000. Facts you may not be aware of-- 1.The state of New Mexico has done nothing to install PTC regarding the rails and signaling. No monies budgeted for this year or next. 2. Their operational contract ends in September of 2018.    After Dec. 31.2018 Amtrak will travel only on Fully Compliant PTC rails--  the wreck in Washington state settled that.  I ask you a question--  Where does that leave Amtrak?



#39 Palmetto

Palmetto

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southmost Texas

Posted 26 January 2018 - 06:47 AM

Terminate in La Junta westbound, and Winslow eastbound?



#40 The 3 Ducks Quacking

The 3 Ducks Quacking

    Train Attendant

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 26 January 2018 - 11:42 AM

Terminate in La Junta westbound, and Winslow eastbound?

WHY?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users