Amtrak Having to Pay For Maintenance on Raton Line?

[henryj]

We already disagree on a few things but it seems interesting that on one hand you are complaining that the SWC too long of a schedule but on the other hand you want the SWC to go up the line 40 miles, and back, out of its way in order to serve a town that would have a direct rail transfer? Thats gonna add at least 1.5 hours to the schedule.

The schedule is already padded so what difference does it make. It may not add anything if they can negotiate the transcon faster than Raton. It may go up 40 miles, but it doesn't come back to Belen. It goes out the usual way it does now. I think it all depends on what the state of NM wants. If they want the Raton line retained and provide the money then nothing will change. If they want to abandon the Raton line and still want service to ABQ and provide the funds then it will serve ABQ. If they do nothing then I think Amtrak will just bypass ABQ just like they did Phoenix and passengers will be on their own as to how to get to ABQ.

 

[amtkstn]

To get the SWC to a forty hour schedule it would take restoring the ninty mile an hour running over most of the route.

 

[MattW]

Ok, tonight, I created a map of the SWC between where it would split from its current route in Kansas, to Albuquerque. Unless I've messed up plotting the Transcon route, it does look like a longer route unless BNSF is willing to upgrade the systems to support 90mph running most of the way. The mileage I've come up with for the current route is 760 miles while the Transcon route would be 783 miles give or take a few. You're also still bypassing Wichita unless I've missed some strange routing into the city. I'm not sure how fast the SWC can go now as opposed to using the Transcon so if part of the current route is slow enough, the Transcon might be just as fast as the current route.

Here's the map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=105834203565075167121.00048bc7f3647566d67df&ll=36.791691,-101.623535&spn=9.935145,16.940918&z=6

 

[henryj]

An additional problem to consider is that even if NM will pick up the tab for maintaining the Raton line, BNSF also wants to downgrade the line in western Kansas from Hutchinson west. So the state of Kansas would have to get involved to save that part. I just don't see either state willing to fork over the funds for just one train a day. NM might go for the Raton section if they can partner up with Colorado to run trains to Denver. But I think that is pretty remote in the short term. So unless Amtrak wants to spend the money you can bet the SWC will eventually get rerouted to the transcon. Personally, I think that if Amtrak is going to spend the millions necessary to maintain the current route I can think of some more routes even more deserving. The Sunset through Phoenix comes to mind for starters and I am sure other members can think of more deserving routes also.

 

[printman2000]

Unless I've messed up plotting the Transcon route, it does look like a longer and thus shorter route unless BNSF is willing to upgrade the systems to support 90mph running most of the way.

"Longer and thus shorter"? Either I am not catching what you mean or you mistyped that. :giggle:

Since quite a bit of the transcon west of Albuquerque is 90mph, do we know that the areas between Albuquerque and Wichita are not?

You're also still bypassing Wichita unless I've missed some strange routing into the city.

Here is a link to BNSF division maps (http://www.bnsf.com/customers/where-can-i-ship/additional-maps/)

Check out the Kansas map, you will see there is indeed a route that goes right through Wichita and then would join in on the current route. I do not know which tracks around Wichita are technically the transcon, perhaps someone here knows.

 

[gswager]

Making 90 mph run on Transcon east of ABQ requires CTC control, including boxes along the route. Nothing fancy to add up to 79 mph.

On Raton Line between Trinidad and Lamy, the track is in the mountainous area so the speed is slow. Meanwhile, the longer line which you said on Transcon is pretty consistent, except going through Abo Canyon. So figure the math on time, speed, and distance.

 

[printman2000]

Making 90 mph run on Transcon east of ABQ requires CTC control, including boxes along the route. Nothing fancy to add up to 79 mph.

On Raton Line between Trinidad and Lamy, the track is in the mountainous area so the speed is slow. Meanwhile, the longer line which you said on Transcon is pretty consistent, except going through Abo Canyon. So figure the math on time, speed, and distance.

Greg, do you know for a fact the CTC controls are not already there east of Albuquerque? I figured their installation may have predated that segment of track, but I do not know that for sure.

 

[MikeM]

You're also still bypassing Wichita unless I've missed some strange routing into the city.

I think you muffed it. If the train goes to Newton, then turns down it goes right through downtown, beside the existing but unused passenger train station in Old Town Wichita. From there it would go south to Mulvane where it rejoins the main Transcon line. The line through Wichita to Newton is a regular route getting good train frequency from BNSF, and is used as part of the core Transcon services. So Wichita would pick up a train, albeit it in the middle of night which wouldn't drive a lot of patronage.

On the flip side, if the train did stay on the Newton alignment, that might add more miles to your calculation, which would make the train slower. If it did stick to the southern route, it'd come through Mulvane, about 20 minutes south of Wichita, where there is an existing small depot, in great shape but long ago converted into a local museum.

Personally, I like the SWC on the current alignment myself, but the track charges to maintain all that mainline starts to add up quickly. Particularly when so much of the Amtrak fleet is wearing out around us, and we're not making any progress getting new cars ordered. I would almost rather see us take the $10M and plow it into refurbishing more Superliners more frequently. The bathrooms in the superliner II's are getting rather depressing, not to mention stinky when they don't work with increasing regularity.

 

[Hoosier]

On the Amarillo detours, when they have occurred, there was quite a lot of sitting so as not to screw up the mid-point arrival/departure times once 3 and 4 returned to their original routes. Changing to the Amarillo route permanently would require a total overhaul of the schedule from Chicago to Los Angeles. Then you would see 6-10 hours shaved off the schedule.

Comparing the present single jointed rail track route across Kansas to the Amarillo double track is like comparing US 50 to I-44/40 (old Rt 66, which more or less followed the old Santa Fe). Sure, you can drive that way (thru western Kansas) if you want to see Raton and Glorieta scenery, but if it is speed you are looking for, take the low road.

Amtrak could easily run 90 now across the entire Santa Fe if it wanted to. So in addition to being shorter in mileage, it is also faster due to existing track conditions and elimination of the mountain running.

Someday HSR will run between Chicago and Los Angeles in 6 hours, not stopping anywhere in between. And yes indeed, it will be faster than the airline trip if you take into account the maddening hassle of getting from downtown to downtown, having to spend two hours getting through security, and then losing two more hours by having to stop and change planes in Denver, DFW, and/or Atlanta.

So, get used to the idea of skipping western Kansas...it's gonna happen anyway.

 

[zephyr17]

Amtrak could easily run 90 now across the entire Santa Fe if it wanted to. So in addition to being shorter in mileage, it is also faster due to existing track conditions and elimination of the mountain running.

How could they run 90? The Transcon east of Belen is not ATS equipped to my knowledge, so the top speed would be 79. Doubt Amtrak would pay for installation of ATS.

 

[Boswash]

If you are just talking about the Kansas City to Albuquerque segment of the route, it is about the same distance-wise to follow the old Route 66 alignment. Agreed, it would be much faster. If you plan a trip by car on the basis of speed, your mapquest will route you through Des Moines, then down to KC. A little more mileage, but a lot faster.

In terms of potential for HSR, fastest would be to use the Illinois line from Chicago to St. Louis, which is being upgraded now to 110 mph. Then you are REALLY following Rt. 66! More population along that line, hence more need. But bypassing Kansas City in addition to the entire poor state of Kansas!

 

[Hoosier]

Amtrak used to run 90-100 out west all the time, as did the Santa Fe run passenger trains at these speeds long before Amtrak. All you need is a FRA waiver, and most of the route has that already. BNSF will be required by law to install ATC on all of its lines anyway by 2015, unless of course an FRA waiver is issued the other way, for them NOT to do it. That's an unfortunate afterthought of Congress and its knee-jerk reaction to Chattsworth.

So, the 79 MPH "roadblock" thing is just a red herring.

Amtrak's fastest route between Chicago and the wast coast, even as it is now, is the Chief. Yet it isn't coming close to 79 on the existing Chief route though the mountains now, so what's this big deal about lack 'o speed? It's already faster than any alternative.

 

[TVRM610]

So, the 79 MPH "roadblock" thing is just a red herring.

Looks like a great blue heron to me. :unsure:

It will be quite interesting to see what happens when CTC goes nation wide.

 

[zephyr17]

Amtrak used to run 90-100 out west all the time, as did the Santa Fe run passenger trains at these speeds long before Amtrak. All you need is a FRA waiver, and most of the route has that already. BNSF will be required by law to install ATC on all of its lines anyway by 2015, unless of course an FRA waiver is issued the other way, for them NOT to do it. That's an unfortunate afterthought of Congress and its knee-jerk reaction to Chattsworth.

So, the 79 MPH "roadblock" thing is just a red herring.

Amtrak's fastest route between Chicago and the wast coast, even as it is now, is the Chief. Yet it isn't coming close to 79 on the existing Chief route though the mountains now, so what's this big deal about lack 'o speed? It's already faster than any alternative.

Where Amtrak runs 90 mph, there is an operational ATS system, per FRA requirements. Cab signalling works, too, but AT&SF never used cab signalling as far as I know. No waiver is involved.

Until about 1948 the FRA didn't really have speed limits and the RRs ran as fast they felt was safe. After 1948, sure AT&SF ran 90 -- they installed ATS so they could exceed 79 mph, per FRA regs. Well, they took out the maintenance intensive (and old) ATS system most places where Amtrak did NOT run after 1971, so they didn't have to maintain it. That includes the Transcon/Belen Cutoff east of Dalies. FRA isn't going to let them run 90 without some kind of ATS.

The PTC (Positive Train Control) system required by 2015 may well fulfill that requirement, but it isn't there yet -- and until then, the speed restriction holding maximum allowed speed to 79 without ATS stands.

And I wasn't actually arguing about using the Transcon/Belen Cutoff or the time required. Even though ATS remains on much of the line through Kansas, BNSF and Amtrak agreed to drop the maximum speed to 79 there anyway. Most of the 90 mph running is west of Dalies, NM, with some in Missouri, neither part of the potential re-route. What I was arguing was the assertion that Amtrak could run 90 without the FRA required signalling infrastructure to run that speed. They can't and don't.

BTW, TVRM60 - CTC is "Centralized Traffic Control" -- dispatcher controlled signals and switches. Many, many mainlines have CTC. Having CTC still limits you to 79 mph without some kind of automatic train stop or cab signalling in addition to CTC.

 

[George Harris]

79 mph is not a Red Herring in any sense of the word. A large factor in reduction of the speed limit from 90 mph to 79 mph was the relaxation in track standards, as to run 90 mph requires the track to be maintained to FRA Class 5 standards, but if the speed is limited to 80 mph, then the track need be maintained to Class 4, which is less costly. By setting the speed limit at 79 mph, the presence or absence of ATS is of no significance.

There is a lot more to being allowed to run at 90 mph or 110 mph than simply signal issues.

BNSF has been far more cooperative with Amtrak than any other company. I am a regular rider of the San Joquin trains, which run in push mode southbound. Sit near the cab end southbound, and listen in to the converstion between the Engineer and the Dispatcher, and you would think they are the Super Chief.

 

[zephyr17]

79 mph is not a Red Herring in any sense of the word. A large factor in reduction of the speed limit from 90 mph to 79 mph was the relaxation in track standards, as to run 90 mph requires the track to be maintained to FRA Class 5 standards, but if the speed is limited to 80 mph, then the track need be maintained to Class 4, which is less costly. By setting the speed limit at 79 mph, the presence or absence of ATS is of no significance.

There is a lot more to being allowed to run at 90 mph or 110 mph than simply signal issues.

BNSF has been far more cooperative with Amtrak than any other company. I am a regular rider of the San Joquin trains, which run in push mode southbound. Sit near the cab end southbound, and listen in to the converstion between the Engineer and the Dispatcher, and you would think they are the Super Chief.

True, that is why they dropped the speed to 79 in Kansas, even though the ATS there is still in place and operational, because they didn't want to maintain that secondary line to Class 5. But signalling is one of the criteria, and the most obvious and easily understood one. They kept the ATS in Kansas because no one thought that the FRA would approve removal of ATS on a line carrying passengers, since it was already in place.

Fully agree with BNSF's cooperation with Amtrak. Listening to the scanner on the Southwest Chief, I heard the same thing. They handled the train like it was their own AT&SF 17, the Super Chief.

 

[printman2000]

On the Amarillo detours, when they have occurred, there was quite a lot of sitting so as not to screw up the mid-point arrival/departure times once 3 and 4 returned to their original routes. Changing to the Amarillo route permanently would require a total overhaul of the schedule from Chicago to Los Angeles. Then you would see 6-10 hours shaved off the schedule.

Again, I do not see 6-10 hours saved by going the new route. I am unsure if ANY time would be saved. Course, we will never know for sure unless the reroute actually happens.

 

[gswager]

Making 90 mph run on Transcon east of ABQ requires CTC control, including boxes along the route. Nothing fancy to add up to 79 mph.

On Raton Line between Trinidad and Lamy, the track is in the mountainous area so the speed is slow. Meanwhile, the longer line which you said on Transcon is pretty consistent, except going through Abo Canyon. So figure the math on time, speed, and distance.

Greg, do you know for a fact the CTC controls are not already there east of Albuquerque? I figured their installation may have predated that segment of track, but I do not know that for sure.

My apologize for confusion between CTC and ATS terminology. The correct one is ATS, not CTC. ATS, or similar one, is required to use if go faster than 79 mph.

 

[henryj]

On the Amarillo detours, when they have occurred, there was quite a lot of sitting so as not to screw up the mid-point arrival/departure times once 3 and 4 returned to their original routes. Changing to the Amarillo route permanently would require a total overhaul of the schedule from Chicago to Los Angeles. Then you would see 6-10 hours shaved off the schedule.

Again, I do not see 6-10 hours saved by going the new route. I am unsure if ANY time would be saved. Course, we will never know for sure unless the reroute actually happens.

I don't either. Historically the fastest the Santa Fe ran these trains was 39 1/2 hours. Timings now are around 43 hours. Between Newton and ABQ the Super Chief took 12hrs25min, 702 miles. The SF Chief which took the transcon through Wichita and Amarillo took 12hrs45min Newton to Belen, 718 miles. Currently Amtrak takes 13hrs30min from Newton to ABQ. So I don't see where the 6-10 hours is coming from. Since the route is the same except for the 718 miles between Newton and Belen, all the gain would have to come there so you are talking about shaving the time in half. Lets see you would have to average around 100mph to shave off just the 6 hours. To shave off 10 you would have to cover the 718 miles in 3hrs30min or around 205mph. That would be some fast running. lol. hboy:

 

[Tennessee Traveler]

Someday HSR will run between Chicago and Los Angeles in 6 hours, not stopping anywhere in between.

WOW! I am sure I don't want to ride any "ground" transportation that gets from Chicago to Los Angeles in just SIX hours!

 

[Chris J.]

Someday HSR will run between Chicago and Los Angeles in 6 hours, not stopping anywhere in between.

WOW! I am sure I don't want to ride any "ground" transportation that gets from Chicago to Los Angeles in just SIX hours!

Would that really be any better than flying? One of the plus points of rail is you can make multiple stops. Maybe not all the stops, but I'd expect it to make the major ones!

 

[Gratt]

I wonder, if the line is rerouted does that mean Kansas and Oklahoma are going to change their plans about extending the flyer? With the new route it would only need to go to Wichita.

Then again I think a train from SAS or FTW to Amarillo and onto DEN would be a hit

but then again I am also insane :giggle:

 

[sechs]

You're also still bypassing Wichita unless I've missed some strange routing into the city.

I think you muffed it. If the train goes to Newton, then turns down it goes right through downtown, beside the existing but unused passenger train station in Old Town Wichita. From there it would go south to Mulvane where it rejoins the main Transcon line. The line through Wichita to Newton is a regular route getting good train frequency from BNSF, and is used as part of the core Transcon services. So Wichita would pick up a train, albeit it in the middle of night which wouldn't drive a lot of patronage.

IIRC, BNSF runs directional on the two lines between Ellinor and Mulvane. Both are single track.
In any case, Amtrak would surely take the longer route via Wichita in order to pick up the passengers there. They might, however, in turn, drop Newton.

 

[henryj]

Someday HSR will run between Chicago and Los Angeles in 6 hours, not stopping anywhere in between.

WOW! I am sure I don't want to ride any "ground" transportation that gets from Chicago to Los Angeles in just SIX hours!

Would that really be any better than flying? One of the plus points of rail is you can make multiple stops. Maybe not all the stops, but I'd expect it to make the major ones!

To go the 2,265 miles in 6hrs you would have to AVERAGE 377mph. You must be talking maglev here. You won't see that in your lifetime or anyone now living's lifetime. Come back in maybe 1,000 years.

 

[George Harris]

To go the 2,265 miles in 6hrs you would have to AVERAGE 377mph. You must be talking maglev here. You won't see that in your lifetime or anyone now living's lifetime. Come back in maybe 1,000 years.

If this world is still here.

Maglev is a solution looking for a problem to solve. Building a Maglev line between Chicago and LA would probqbly cost more than a high speed rail line. Why? the tolerances on the guideway need to be very tight, the alignment will have to be as straight as a high speed railroad for the same speed. No one really knows what the practical maximum speed on rails is yet. But it is above 25o mph, and probably above 300 mph.