Perhaps BNSF wants to keep Amtrak off their Transcom line and is willing to pay up to keep Amtrak out of their hair??
Southwest Chief Re-Route?
- Thread starter NETrainfan
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
T
the DUCK
Guest
I have said it before and I'll say it again. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link---in like manner a rail route is only as good and usable as its worst part. The worst and most un useable part of the Southwest Chief route is thru New Mexico. Do you agree? The current speed according to "Track a Train" on west side of Glorita pass is 19 mph. You can NOT blame the Governor of New Mexico for the contents of the Constitution of New Mexico because the contents being referred to was part of constitution when New Mexico became a state. The NM Constitution says no part of the government ( state. county,city, etc) may donate monies to a private railroad. As long as Santa FE has been in New Mexico some one still around at BNSF had to know this when BNSF threw Amrtak the Bone.-- no meat on it. From Lamy to north state Line there are about 200 to 250 miles of railroad track--this includes all double tracking and sidings as well as Main line. In 2009 the cost of just rails and ties was 1 million per mile The dollars Amtrak is requesting of the states is what Amtrak share of Total rehab. In the end The states would have the their initial part (100million+10 Million for10 years) plus Amtrak part (4 million yearly for 10 years/ Each state on hook for total of 240 Million dollars, That is why New Mexico said lets study this. Their Study is to be finished by OCT. 1 2014. There is a meeting of Transportation Committees to be held on Oct.2,2014. WE await those findings.
The normal pattern for announcing TIGER grant awards is for Senators, Members of the House, local and state politicians to announce or tell the local press and media first about getting the award. I did a quick search and Senator Warner of VA has a press release touting 2 TIGER grants for VA, Maine got 1 for a bridge, and so on. Then US DOT will likely post the complete list of FY2014 TIGER grant awards on Thursday, giving Congress and state politicos 2 days to take credit for their local news cycles.
So this appears to be a legit announcement. So the re-route may indeed be off the table, but I would wait for more reliable reporting on the details from the railroad industry press or a press release than over interpret a mainstream press article wording, which all too often are sloppily written these days.
T
the DUCK
Guest
Are we forgetting something? The Bill that Colorado passed supporting the track upgrade contains a clause in it that requires both New Mexico and Kansas agree to contribute monies to the cause before theirs can be released. Now how is that going to effect the track upgrade effort?
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
Or maybe BNSF envisioned this result all along. Otherwise why would they suddenly change their tune for a fraction of the money?
printman2000
Engineer
$12.5 million is a far cry from the $100 million that is needed. I do not see how a $12.5 million Tiger grant saves the line. Not to mention the $10 million a year to maintain.
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
It probably gets some politicians past the November elections.
Then worry about the next year next year.
I'd have sent $12.5 million TIGER money to other more worthy
projects, but this puny amount won't break the program.
The match from Colorado and Kansas states and communities is $9.3 million. So the total from the various government sources is $21.3 million. For a project such as this, that is going to be funded in pieces anyway, that is a reasonably good start.
I have to wonder if there is a parallel to the Devils Lake line rebuild. If BNSF were to get enough of a significant increase of freight traffic to stress the transcon having an alternate (first class) line available might come in handy. Running some empty coal trains might make sense with a shorter route Alberquerque-Pueblo via Raton even with steeper grades vs the longer routes via Amarillio with the line upgraded and less fragile.
Especially if someone else pays for it.
Especially if someone else pays for it.
TVRM610
Conductor
Yes Karl... this is what I think too. BNSF gets a secondary line in case anything happens to the Transcon (huge increase in traffic, incident, etc.)... Amtrak keeps their line and stays out of the Transcon traffic, and BNSF basically gets the upgrade costs paid for, but will have to continue maintenance. Seems pretty logical and clever to me!
T
the DUCK
Guest
Hutchinson to La Junta to become a an Oil tank Route then down to Davenport. OK via Wichita. KS. This is where Bnsf is building a Oil Terminal to pump into under ground pipeline. Makes good business sense, esp on someone else dollar. This is my guess. This new Terminal was announced during time BNSF we trying to acquire the line from OKC to Tulsa. My thoughts is if this grant is used to fix line for Southwest Chief and Chief is rerouted then BNSF should have to reimburse every penny of the grant.
neroden
Engineer
Well, exactly. If this $12.5 million really comes with an agreement from BNSF to maintain the line to passenger standards for 20 years, then BNSF just agreed to pay the other $178.2 to $187.5 million (depending on whether the $9.3 million "from Colorado communities" is real). That's what sounds so odd about this.
If BNSF is willing to pay $180 million to keep the SW Chief on the Raton Pass route (perhaps because their changed business plans now call for the use of Raton Pass), then fine! But I would have expected to see that as the lede.
If, on the other hand, Amtrak is *stupid* enough to commit to staying on the line for 20 years *without* getting a commitment from others (such as BNSF) to provide the money, than Amtrak just dug a giant hole in their own budget for no reason (given that the reroute would be better for revenue and ridership). So I hope that isn't the case.
I hope the situation is the former, not the latter.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
I'm getting hungry for some Mexican food in La Junta! :hi:How about: The SWC does get rerouted: I'll buy you both lunch in Amarillo? If not: you both buy me lunch in La Junta?
:lol: :unsure: :unsure:
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
printman2000
Engineer
printman2000
Engineer
So here is what I understand from this article... http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26499265/12-5-million-federal-funds-slated-southwest-chief
In the grant request, Amtrak promised to run the train on this route for 20 years if they received the Tiger grant.
What i do not understand is how Amtrak could make that promise if all $100 million was not found somewhere to pay for the repairs. How could they make that promise if only a small fraction of the money was provided in a Tiger grant? I would have though that Amtrak's guarantee would have had some stipulations in there about finding the other 85% of the money before they had to uphold their promise.
In the grant request, Amtrak promised to run the train on this route for 20 years if they received the Tiger grant.
What i do not understand is how Amtrak could make that promise if all $100 million was not found somewhere to pay for the repairs. How could they make that promise if only a small fraction of the money was provided in a Tiger grant? I would have though that Amtrak's guarantee would have had some stipulations in there about finding the other 85% of the money before they had to uphold their promise.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Also they got only $12.5 million of the $15 million they asked for.
neroden
Engineer
Exactly. That would be, bluntly, extremely stupid on Amtrak's part.
However, if BNSF promised to maintain the route for 20 years -- at BNSF's own expense -- then that would account for most of the costs.
If not, Boardman committed a gross error which will cost as much as some of the Warrington-era debt deals. So I hope the answer is "BNSF is paying for nearly all of it".
Last edited by a moderator:
printman2000
Engineer
Here is another article...
http://sangrechronicle.com/raton_comet/article_755eae3a-3901-11e4-8439-001a4bcf887a.html
Where it says...
Apparently this money only saves the train through Kansas and Eastern Colorado. None of this is making any sense to me.
http://sangrechronicle.com/raton_comet/article_755eae3a-3901-11e4-8439-001a4bcf887a.html
Where it says...
Say what?
Apparently this money only saves the train through Kansas and Eastern Colorado. None of this is making any sense to me.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2013
- Messages
- 6
neroden
Engineer
The plot thickens!
Actually, that would make a lot of sense to me. Maybe Amtrak only committed to using the section of track from Newton to Lamar for the next 20 years? That's what the Sangre Chronicle article says.
Here's why it would make sense.
(1) The section of track through Kansas continues to be used for freight, including local freight; the incremental cost of keeping it up to passenger standards is relatively low. By contrast, Raton Pass itself is unused by freight, has problematically high grades, and needs a complete resignalling.
(2) BNSF's double-tracking of the Transcon runs out somewhere north of Amarillo, and the area through Wichita is particularly problematic in terms of traffic, with directional running and criss-crossing UP traffic. By contrast, the Transcon west of Amarillo has what, two single-track sections, one of which is being replaced as we speak (Vaughn) -- that just leaves Ft. Sumner.
(3) There is actual population in the Kansas towns (Hutchinson, Dodge City, Garden City), and the towns have ponied up money to try to keep the train running. By contrast, the New Mexico & Colorado section is pretty much ghost towns, with just the Boy Scout traffic, and they've come up with no money.
It is unsurprising that BNSF would commit to maintaining the Kansas track (which BNSF actually uses). The amount in the TIGER grant is probably actually enough to get this track back to 79 mph. With the option to turn south at Las Animas, I can see why Amtrak might commit to this segment even if the money never comes through for Raton Pass itself.
Newton-Las Animas-Amarillo-Clovis-Albuquerque would be a slower route, but it would be tolerable, and it would retain the population centers along the existing route while adding Amarillo. (No, the Boy Scouts are not a population center.) The politics and the economics may point to this.
Because I don't believe the money is going to be found for Raton, unless BNSF decides to put the money up.
printman2000
Engineer
Another article from our local paper...
http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2014-09-10/grants-could-keep-southwest-chief-amarillo
http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2014-09-10/grants-could-keep-southwest-chief-amarillo
VentureForth
Engineer
Just out of curiosity, and I'm sure no one here can probably answer this, but I wonder how Scout ridership to Philmount via Raton has been affected by the children's rate max age change from 17 to 12? The cost has doubled for the majority of the scouts... Wonder if that's been reflected in revenue, or if ridership has dropped...
Devil's Advocate
⠀⠀⠀
How did you determine that the majority of scouts are older than twelve? In any case I'd imagine that most scout troupes are handled through group sales rather than general reservations.
- Status
