Southwest Chief Reroute News

[printman2000]

Since NM now wants their money back from BNSF, they are certainly not going to put any money into the maintenance of those rails.

Let's be clear on this point. This was not a case of split personality disorder. One party moved to purchase this line and take over the maintenance. Plans were drawn up. Agreements made. Money changed hands. All looked well and good. Then another party was voted into power and immediately began work on reversing the decision and dismantling the previous agreements, including demanding a refund from one of the few freight railroads that does not typically screw with Amtrak.

I am sorry, but did something I say conflict with what you said?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I am sorry, but did something I say conflict with what you said?

Nope, I'm just trying to explain what happened so folks who may not be aware of the situation don't think it was just some random unexplained flip-flop. ^_^

 

[sechs]

Because few people like riding backwards, or being disturbed to have their seats rotated. Not to mention, the crew doesn't want to turn 150 seat sets around and won't let the pax do it.

But that's just my guess.

I'd say that it's not a very good guess. They turn the seats on the through coaches on the Texas Eagle three times a week. Albuquerque is usually in the middle of the day, so they don't even have to do it while the train is moving. The TE passengers have to travel backwards until the morning.
It is going to make the stop even longer, since it seems that they need most of the currently allotted time to fuel the engines.

I disagree. I do not think they will be turning the seats to keep from turning the train.

Remember, you don't have to come to the station, take the train back to the wye, then come back to the station. The wye can be done on the way in or out of Albuquerque. It would add time, but I don't believe it would be enough for them to reverse the train instead.

I'm not sure with what you're disagreeing.
Your "disagreement" seems to have something to do with how long it takes to wye the train. I honestly don't know enough about how long it would take to either run the engines around *or* wye the train to make a determination as to which one is faster. I simply stated that your assertion that running the engines around the train was problematic because of issues with the facing of the seats was not a good guess, and gave a counterexample. I went on to say that this process (running the engines around the train) would make the stop longer, which seems to me like it would be a much bigger issue.

 

[sechs]

The Transcon is probably the fastest freight line in the country - double track with hotshot intermodals doing all of the 70 mph speed limit. While it's true that BNSF would probably not run the SWC around hotshot trains, running at 70 mph will not incur much in the way of delays.

I'm not so sure of that. Given that passenger trains should be able to go 79 or faster on most of the line, if there's passing room, they'll surely do it.

 

[jis]

Your "disagreement" seems to have something to do with how long it takes to wye the train. I honestly don't know enough about how long it would take to either run the engines around *or* wye the train to make a determination as to which one is faster. I simply stated that your assertion that running the engines around the train was problematic because of issues with the facing of the seats was not a good guess, and gave a counterexample. I went on to say that this process (running the engines around the train) would make the stop longer, which seems to me like it would be a much bigger issue.

It would appear that trains like to Crescent are given may be 15 additional minutes in the schedule to back into NOL. So that is probably a reasonable ballpark figure for how long it takes. The advantage of wye-ing is that you don't have to unhook the engine and all its HEP and other stuff and hook up everything at the other end and test everything all over again. This could be quite a chore specially in the winter. Also, engines running back to back are a problem if the front facing engine fails in some way that makes it impossible for it to continue as the first engine. Since the other engine is facing back it cannot be switched to the front position to carry on. So any operation that requires engines to be back to back would probably be undesirable.

My guess is that since the net running time on the transcon will be considerably shorter the additional time taken to wye would be a wash and still the net running time of the train end to end would probably be shorter.

 

[henryj]

Your "disagreement" seems to have something to do with how long it takes to wye the train. I honestly don't know enough about how long it would take to either run the engines around *or* wye the train to make a determination as to which one is faster. I simply stated that your assertion that running the engines around the train was problematic because of issues with the facing of the seats was not a good guess, and gave a counterexample. I went on to say that this process (running the engines around the train) would make the stop longer, which seems to me like it would be a much bigger issue.

I don't know where all this stuff about switching engines and rotating seats comes from, but the wye is just south of the station in albuquerque. The train will(and does now)just back into the wye and go back out in the opposite direction. There is no switching or turning seats involved. The whole affair would not take more than 15 minutes.

 

[printman2000]

I'm not sure with what you're disagreeing.

Your "disagreement" seems to have something to do with how long it takes to wye the train. I honestly don't know enough about how long it would take to either run the engines around *or* wye the train to make a determination as to which one is faster. I simply stated that your assertion that running the engines around the train was problematic because of issues with the facing of the seats was not a good guess, and gave a counterexample. I went on to say that this process (running the engines around the train) would make the stop longer, which seems to me like it would be a much bigger issue.

Sorry about that, I took your reply to someone else post as an argument FOR running the engines around. Obvious to me now, that is not what you were saying.

 

[printman2000]

Has anybody mentioned the fact that Amtrak has taken the Devil's Lake approach to the matter and said that they will pay for whatever maintenance is needed to keep the line with what it's at currently if BNSF decides to abandon?

No one has mentioned it because Amtrak has not mentioned it. From everything I have read, Amtrak has stated they do not have the money.

Of course, that could just be a bluff to try and get states to pay for it.

 

[printman2000]

Why are they so eager to reduce capacity by dumping Raton? I thought they were starving for capacity already?

Not sure what you are saying. Who is trying to reduce what capacity?

Are you talking about BNSF? If so, they have not used this line for years. The transcon seems to be plenty of capacity for them.

 

[MikeM]

The Raton Pass line could just be banked and not abandoned until such time as the states see fit to fix it up and use it for something similar to what has been done with the Tennessee Pass line.

Whoa doggies! Last I knew, Tennessee Pass was predominately out of service, except for a gravel train and Royal Gorge tourist train on the eastern side. Otherwise, some cars were being stored at one time on the western slope, but no through trains, signal systems abandoned in place, etc.

 

[zephyr17]

The Raton Pass line could just be banked and not abandoned until such time as the states see fit to fix it up and use it for something similar to what has been done with the Tennessee Pass line.

Whoa doggies! Last I knew, Tennessee Pass was predominately out of service, except for a gravel train and Royal Gorge tourist train on the eastern side. Otherwise, some cars were being stored at one time on the western slope, but no through trains, signal systems abandoned in place, etc.

Tennessee Pass still has rail down, but it is in terrible shape, unused, and would require major work to put back into service. Technically, it is not abandoned, and is still owned by UP, but it is embargoed.

 

[MikeM]

That's what I was thinking. There really isn't any local industry on the line, and the rock trains only use part of the eastern side of the route. When SP had it, they used the routing in conjunction with trackage rights on a MoPac line east from the front range to create a shipping corridor to Kansas City. UP severed the MoPac route shortly after they bought up SP, and now I don't see anyone being interested in Tennessee Pass. Had hopes at some point BNSF might try to get it as a way to take their overhead traffic off central corridor trackage rights, but that would really be a long shot. Plus getting UP to sell anything that could be used by anyone else successfully... hah!

Let's hope Raton has better luck. Depressing part about being a rail fan is looking back at all the rail lines, passenger trains, and infrastructure that is no longer there.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Depressing part about being a rail fan is looking back at all the rail lines, passenger trains, and infrastructure that is no longer there.

Yeah, here in North America rail fans don't have much to cheer about over the last forty years or so of unchecked consolidation and abandonment. South America has it even worse from what I understand. But in Europe and Asia they seem to be building and upgrading lines on a regular basis, so all is not lost!

 

[George Harris]

Because few people like riding backwards, or being disturbed to have their seats rotated. Not to mention, the crew doesn't want to turn 150 seat sets around and won't let the pax do it.

But that's just my guess.

I'd say that it's not a very good guess. They turn the seats on the through coaches on the Texas Eagle three times a week. Albuquerque is usually in the middle of the day, so they don't even have to do it while the train is moving. The TE passengers have to travel backwards until the morning.
It is going to make the stop even longer, since it seems that they need most of the currently allotted time to fuel the engines.

I disagree. I do not think they will be turning the seats to keep from turning the train.

Remember, you don't have to come to the station, take the train back to the wye, then come back to the station. The wye can be done on the way in or out of Albuquerque. It would add time, but I don't believe it would be enough for them to reverse the train instead.

I'm not sure with what you're disagreeing.
Your "disagreement" seems to have something to do with how long it takes to wye the train. I honestly don't know enough about how long it would take to either run the engines around *or* wye the train to make a determination as to which one is faster. I simply stated that your assertion that running the engines around the train was problematic because of issues with the facing of the seats was not a good guess, and gave a counterexample. I went on to say that this process (running the engines around the train) would make the stop longer, which seems to me like it would be a much bigger issue.

Wyeing the train would probably be faster than running the engines around it. Plus, you do not need to shut down train poiwer to wey it. In order to disconnect the engines from the train and reconnec them to it, the electric system of the train has to be shut down.

Where the time comes in with the engine runaround is the time it takes to diconnect the power, air lines, set brakes, etc, uncouple, run power around, recouple, connect air lines, connect electrical lines, brake test. You have to throw two switches to do the run around. You have to throw three switches to make a wye move. I see no real saving in labor or time by doing the wye move. In fat, I see the labor in making the power run around as being significantly larger than the labor in making the wye move.

As to the distance involved:

Here are the distance figures taken from an employee timetable of a few years back. (At that time they were available on a US DOT web site.)

Belen ot Dailies: 11.1 miles. This is the route that bypasses Albuquerque

Belen to Albuquerque: 30.7 miles

Albuquerque to Dailies: 27.7 miles

Total going through Albuq.: 58.4 miles.

Therefore going through Albuquerque requires 47.3 more miles of running than bypassing it. This would probably represent about 40 minutes of extra run time over bypassing Albuquerque.

The line from Dailies to Albuquerque meets the line from Belen at East Isleta which is 12.6 miles south of Albuquerque.

 

[sechs]

Why are they so eager to reduce capacity by dumping Raton? I thought they were starving for capacity already?

Not sure what you are saying. Who is trying to reduce what capacity?

Are you talking about BNSF? If so, they have not used this line for years. The transcon seems to be plenty of capacity for them.

Well, two transcons, connected in the west via trackage rights on UP on the Inside Gateway.

 

[printman2000]

Let me ask a new question...

If BNSF did not want Amtrak on this portion of the transcon, do they have to let them on? Or can they go the UP route and say they have to pay a bunch of money to upgrade the lines if they want to use them?

If they do not have to, then that would mean the whole route would be at risk.

 

[George Harris]

Let me ask a new question...

If BNSF did not want Amtrak on this portion of the transcon, do they have to let them on? Or can they go the UP route and say they have to pay a bunch of money to upgrade the lines if they want to use them?

If they do not have to, then that would mean the whole route would be at risk.

This is not a question that anyone here could answer with any sort of certainty. In fact it would probably take a good deal of discussion, arguing between lawyers adn various andsundry government agencies before a conclusion would be reached.

It could be argued that this change would be much like the change from going through Phoenix to taking the primary freight route through Maricopa, except on a much larger scale. Did Amtrak have to kick in any moey to UP for that to happen?

But, that is just one of many points of discussion that could go on for multiple pages.

 

[Karl1459]

Perhaps a soulution would be a Denver-El Paso corridor service, connectiong to the CZ at Denver, the SWC at Belen, and the SL at El Paso. Getting NM and Colorado to play will, of course, be IFFY. As well with BNSF/UP on the joint use lines between Pueblo and Denver.

 

[Mackensen]

I don't have my books in front of me but I'm pretty sure the move to get Amtrak off the Raton Pass and on to the Transcon started back in the 1970s with the old Santa Fe. To the best of my knowledge this remains the goal of the BNSF and far from making trouble would welcome the move. Compared to the UP and CSX BNSF has always been pretty accommodating toward Amtrak. Does anyone have any actual evidence that this is not so with regards to the Transcon move?

I also doubt that Amtrak would balk at a backup move to Albuquerque if the alternative was skipping the largest city in New Mexico (pop 545,000). In FY 2010 there were 72,000 boardings alone, and you have to figure in the event of a re-route at least some of the ridership from northern New Mexico would board there as well. The wye is only three miles from the station; compare this with the 2-mile (or so) backup move the City of New Orleans makes every day to get from ex-Illinois Central (St. Charles Air Line) to Union Station. What's the big deal?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

My guess is that Amtrak WILL move to the BNSF Transcon, even though they have not acknowledged that as of yet. My guess is that Amtrak WILL also continue to serve ABQ, even if it requires a slightly more tedious approach and/or departure. I do not see any serious operational problems coming from BNSF regardless if Amtrak stays or moves. Remember, even if Amtrak is eventually forced to move it's not a result of Amtrak's fault or BNSF's fault in this case. Only the New Mexican state government had the power to write this ending.

 

[MikeM]

Perhaps a soulution would be a Denver-El Paso corridor service, connectiong to the CZ at Denver, the SWC at Belen, and the SL at El Paso. Getting NM and Colorado to play will, of course, be IFFY. As well with BNSF/UP on the joint use lines between Pueblo and Denver.

Has anyone looked at how much traffic the Joint Line is currently getting these days? In days of old, it was totally jammed up with coal trains off the Power River Basin competing with Rio Grande traffic off the Mopac and Tennessee Pass lines. With one line gone, and the other effectively gone on the UP side, all they'd have left is traffic to Pueblo / Colorado Springs. Is it that busy now that a Passenger Train couldn't fit.

Of course, even if it could there's still the small issue of no spare Amtrak equipment, Management's desire to avoid any new trains at all costs, the unwillingness of the states to subsidize the route, etc... Hey, at least a boy can dream.

 

[AlanB]

Let me ask a new question...

If BNSF did not want Amtrak on this portion of the transcon, do they have to let them on? Or can they go the UP route and say they have to pay a bunch of money to upgrade the lines if they want to use them?

If they do not have to, then that would mean the whole route would be at risk.

My understanding of things is that they only reason that BNSF is allowed to let maintenance go on the current route is because they are offering to accommodate Amtrak on the Transcon. If BNSF were to withdraw the offer, then they would have to pay for the upkeep on the current line.

Now if Amtrak was requesting either to change the current routing on their own, or if they wanted a new service that used the Transcon, then that would be a horse of a different color and BNSF could demand major bucks for improvements. BNSF couldn't however out and out refuse either, as then the FRA would step in and order the change. This is why UP didn't say no to Amtrak's request for a daily Sunset. Instead they set a ridiculous price tag.

If Amtrak decides to pursue things further to force UP to agree, the odds favor that UP will still get a decent chunk of money to allow Amtrak to make the change. They won't get what they're asking for, but it wouldn't surprise me that the settlement gets close to half of what they're asking.

 

[MontanaJim]

Here's another article on the subject, not sure if folks here saw it:

http://www.hutchnews.com/Todaystop/colo-seeks-SW-Chief-working-group

 

[The Chief]

Here's another article on the subject, not sure if folks here saw it:

http://www.hutchnews.com/Todaystop/colo-seeks-SW-Chief-working-group

Thanks, Jim, this article has a lot of facts, including:

● "Our understanding is we have about a two-year window before they (
Amtrak
) can actually move it," said La Junta (Colo.) City Manager Rick Klein.
and

● The line, which was laid between 1940 and 1951, is composed of 39-foot segments of 132-pound jointed rail. As the rail ages, the ends of each piece begin to wear down and bend. So when a train car passes over, it hits a dip at each joint. The older the rail, the more pronounced the dip and rougher the ride so the slower the train has to go.

 

[railiner]

Let me ask a new question...

If BNSF did not want Amtrak on this portion of the transcon, do they have to let them on? Or can they go the UP route and say they have to pay a bunch of money to upgrade the lines if they want to use them?

If they do not have to, then that would mean the whole route would be at risk.

This is not a question that anyone here could answer with any sort of certainty. In fact it would probably take a good deal of discussion, arguing between lawyers adn various andsundry government agencies before a conclusion would be reached.

It could be argued that this change would be much like the change from going through Phoenix to taking the primary freight route through Maricopa, except on a much larger scale. Did Amtrak have to kick in any moey to UP for that to happen?

But, that is just one of many points of discussion that could go on for multiple pages.

This is an interesting subject in of itself. Through the years, how many times has Amtrak rerouted for operational convenience for itself, or its host railroad?

Remember when the SFZ ceased the 100 mile backwards running from Denver to serve Cheyenne, and built a new 'station' platform at Borie in the middle of nowhere with a Greyhound bus as the waiting room for passengers going in and out of Cheyenne? I believe Amtrak initiated that and paid for it, but more than made up the cost with the saving in time and crew expense.