Both Clovis and Amarillo have multiple tracks and yards for through trains and are service stops. There is no need nor room for an additional 'siding' for Amtrak. There is no room for a passenger siding at Amarillo. The station is on the curve trending south and the platform is angled. Both stations are fenced off so an access gate would need to be installed along with a shelter between the station and the track. Wichita would probably need a passenger track re-installed next to the platform. The San Francisco Chief used to stop at Wellington, Waynoka and Pampa with some additional flag stops in between. If you are going up to Albuquerque the Belen station is not accessible and the Rail Runner station is not connected so a stop in Belen would be hard to manage.
Just wondering, but what are the minumum standards / requirements a station must have before Amtrak will agree to stop there? Just because there was a station once and the building is still there does not make it automatically suitable for today's trains. Not just because standards and requirements have evolved but because the tracks are maybe no longer in the same location and facilities may have been removed or become unusable. And even if the station is owned by the town in question, the tracks will still be owned by BNSF and presmuably a strip of land either side of those tracks as well, meaning the platforms (if indeed they still exist) are no longer part of the station. In terms of facilities provided, there seems to be quite a disparity in standards between different stations that cannot be explained away by their significance alone. I guess the expalanations must be more historical. Also, if the train must stop on the main line, BNSF would have to agree to that and might have reason to object. This might be a reason to build some sort of siding so freight trains can overtake, but again this hasn't been done everywhere so it seems to be done on a case by case basis. So from Amtrak's point of view, what sort of station does there have to be before they will stop. Is a bit of hard standing and a sort of shelter and a station sign good enough? Or does soembody have to spend millions before Amtrak will even consider it a station?
They'd have to build a new platform to current standards in any case, since Waynoka was not been in constant passenger use. If it is on the mainline, the standards are different than if it is dedicated siding(level boarding required), IIRC.
LOL, apparently not much. Beaumont had just a concrete slab. Benson, AZ has a bus shelter. In Lordsburg last time I rode the Sunset they just let people off at a road crossing. Of course, since the route has not had passenger service for 40 years, all kinds of onerous bureaucratic rules may come into play. The Eagle just added a stop at Hope, AR. What did they have to do?
Actually Henry Hope had to Rebuild the Platform after the Station and Platform were Refurbished/Built due to Incompetence of the Contractor/Designer/Engineers/Government Officials and Amtrak itself! And now that Beaumomt has its Million Dollar Homeless Persons Bathroom Station I guess Sanderson and Williams Junction,AZ could also be on your List of Sunset Stops where there is No There There! :lol:
:blush: Forgot to include "And Williams Junction on the SWC Route"! :giggle:
I strongly suspect the platform will be moved south off the angle. That's been the trend.
Plus seeing they're a developer and no doubt want a return on their investment, I expect somebody will have to pay them rent for the space set aside. Will Wichita foot that bill? Or Amtrak?
Just as a ballpark figure, how much would a second daily service cost? Are we talking about the same sort of money here, or a different ballpark entirely?
This is a bit complicated. Amtrak has different standards depending on expected ridership.
Entirely historical. Any station which has been in continuous operation is grandfathered to a certain extent, causing results like Sanderson, TX, where the station was demolished before Amtrak. And of course even in cases where Amtrak would like to enhance station facilities, it often can't get the money or legal agreements together to do so.
Basically, it's a matter of whether the host railroad demands it at that location. For existing stations, the host railroad is stuck dealing with whatever currently exists, but when major renovations are planned or new stations are built, sometimes the host railroad demands trackwork changes. CSX demanded a *pair* of sidings at Rochester, NY, for example. There's really nothing to be done other than agreeing to such requests. The only way to know whether BNSF will demand a passenger siding at a given location is to ask them.
From Amtrak's point of view, anything which passes muster with the FRA, the DOJ, and the host railroad is good enough. Though they'd prefer to have something which matches up with their service standards based on ridership. For a low-ridership stop this means a flat platform of a legal height with a yellow tactile "watch out" strip at the edge. Amtrak only asks for any sort of shelter or building at fairly busy stops, and even then Amtrak will still serve the stop if it doesn't have one.
You might want to look again. I have been there. BNSF just adjusted the existing tracks a little bit away from the platform.
Not news, I know, but at least the issue is getting some play in the local media... Personally I like Skeezix's comment, which is below the article itself...
There's a vast empty space on the west side of the tracks, from south of the station (5th Ave) to 10th Ave, behind the buildings. Looks like it used to be a freight yard or a team track or something, but right now there is NOTHING there. Like I said, plenty of room for a passenger siding. Oodles.
Historically, developers who are using stations for *retail commercial* purposes frequently offer their stations at minimal rent, with the expectation that people travelling through the station will patronize the stores. Someone (Amtrak or the city) still has to pay to actually refurbish the station and make it functional as a station though.
That attitude is wildly uncalled for, Henry.
Assuming the same consist as currently and two locomotives per set, about $160M in capital costs for equipment and unknown amount, probably around three hundred million, for track capacity additions by BNSF and others. From FY09 data, adjusting for inflation, avoidable costs of a second Southwest Chief would be about 64 million per year, possibly higher.
