Southwest Chief News & Future Operations

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
fredmcain said:
Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.
Click to expand...
Bluntly, putting PTC on a new (currently inactive) line isn't really that hard. It's much harder to retrofit it on a operating line. So Phoenix service would be easier than Gulf Coast service in this regard. (Yes, I know UP serves Phoenix from the southeast side; if service is restored I'd frankly expect it to be on a separate set of passenger tracks such as have been studied for Phoenix-Tucson commuter service.)
It would be easier if the US had simply adopted ERTMS/ETCS like the *entire rest of the world*, or used ACSES like the Northeast, but it's still not that hard to install "fresh". Retrofitting is always harder.
 
I was mulling over the Senate language, and I realized that Amtrak is probably the sole tenant on a large portion of the Cardinal route, much of which is probably not required to have PTC. Unfortunately there are multiple tenants on some of the other route sections not required to have PTC...
 
If that's really 50 million required to be spent out of Amtrak's general fund and not extra money, then that's a big hit to Amtrak's budget. That's for capital expenses too, not operating expenses.
 
bretton88 said:
If that's really 50 million required to be spent out of Amtrak's general fund and not extra money, then that's a big hit to Amtrak's budget. That's for capital expenses too, not operating expenses.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but my understanding is the $50 million was added into the total big pot and then it was designated for specific use of the SWC route. That is why the overall thing grew from $1.92 billion to $2 billion or so, due to addition of a few Christmas ornaments to the big tree.

These details are kind of hard to figure out without reading the text in minute detail and comparing the final amounts with the draft amounts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone knows what's BNSF stance on this, the "owner" of the line? BNSF will still be on the hook maintaining a line they seem not to want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
frequentflyer said:
Does anyone knows what's BNSF stance on this, the "owner" of the line? BNSF will still be on the hook maintaining a line they seem not to want.
Click to expand...
BNSF continues to state that they will maintain the track for twenty years once it is converted to welded rail and modern signalling (i.e. no semaphores or code lines). I would imagine they have a twofold interest in this: 1) it keeps the Chief off the Transcon; 2) it keeps the line as an ultimate insurance policy should there be an incident in e.g. Abo Canyon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think (1) would be the primary motivator. The few friends that I have who are involved in and understand BNSF plans and dispatching philosophy along the Transcon swear that BNSF will never divert anything to the Raton route from the Transcon if the Transcon is closed due to some incident. They claim it is easier to reroute via UP through cross-traffic agreements they have with UP, than to reconfigure the train to operate over 3% grade.

But what do I know? I am just parroting what has been fed to me by these guys.
 
jis said:
I think (1) would be the primary motivator. The few friends that I have who are involved in and understand BNSF plans and dispatching philosophy along the Transcon swear that BNSF will never divert anything to the Raton route from the Transcon if the Transcon is closed due to some incident. They claim it is easier to reroute via UP through cross-traffic agreements they have with UP, than to reconfigure the train to operate over 3% grade.

But what do I know? I am just parroting what has been fed to me by these guys.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that BNSF does not have many crews qualified for the Raton route and the line has many of its passing sidings out of service. Correcting both those shortcomings would not happen overnight. When tunnels and bridges collapse and lines are restored just a few weeks later, it's hard to imagine a scenario which would make the Raton route am attractive alternative for BNSF detours off the Transcon.
 
PRR 60 said:
jis said:
I think (1) would be the primary motivator. The few friends that I have who are involved in and understand BNSF plans and dispatching philosophy along the Transcon swear that BNSF will never divert anything to the Raton route from the Transcon if the Transcon is closed due to some incident. They claim it is easier to reroute via UP through cross-traffic agreements they have with UP, than to reconfigure the train to operate over 3% grade.

But what do I know? I am just parroting what has been fed to me by these guys.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that BNSF does not have many crews qualified for the Raton route and the line has many of its passing sidings out of service. Correcting both those shortcomings would not happen overnight. When tunnels and bridges collapse and lines are restored just a few weeks later, it's hard to imagine a scenario which would make the Raton route am attractive alternative for BNSF detours off the Transcon.
Click to expand...
Well, at the risk of repeating myself here, I still believe the Raton Pass line COULD be used for very "hot" and relatively short intermodal trains. Indeed the old AT&SF Ry used it for just that in the past. The so-called Super C was routed over this line, I believe.

Also at least one and perhaps more daily double stack trains were routed over Raton Pass in the 1990s, I think, but I cannot remember anymore if BNSF did that or if it was still the Sana Fe at that point.

I fully agree that scrounging for and finding qualified staff would be a be issue. But none of us really know for sure what BNSF's intentions might be or if they might change.

I'd like to see the line saved and improved first. i.e., welded rail, CTC, PTC and longer sidings then sit back and see what happens.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain
 
I guess anyone can believe whatever they choose to, and also keep repeating it as many times as they want. That does not mean that the people who actually operate the railroad and are responsible for it will necessarily agree.
default_wink.png


I was merely sharing what folks who actually dispatch that railroad told me. but what would they know?
default_biggrin.png
 
BNSF's use of the Raton Line for through freights ended with the double-tracking of the Southern Transcon. It would take a real disaster for the railroad to resume use of the Raton line with its steeper grades.
 
MikefromCrete said:
BNSF's use of the Raton Line for through freights ended with the double-tracking of the Southern Transcon. It would take a real disaster for the railroad to resume use of the Raton line with its steeper grades.
Click to expand...
Actually, if traffic levels rise, capacity will start to get tight on the Abo Canyon line again in spite of the DT. So, it might happen one day. But not if the Ration Line doesn't see improvements.

Another possibility is also the Denver-El Paso corridor. I know that BNSF has another route that they can use to bypass the Raton Pass line but it might be a bit more circuitous. If the Raton line were improved, that traffic might shift back, too.

Regards,

FMC
 
So the Raton route is being used by one train, the SWC and maybe a couple of rare locals. What is the long term prospect of such an arrangement? Even after a one time cash infusion.
 
jis said:
I think the State(s) will have to pick up a substantial portion of the tab on an ongoing basis or strike some kind of a deal at the Federal Level to have it funded as a quid-pro-quo for something else.
Click to expand...
Well, BNSF has repeatedly stated that if the line is brought up to modern standards (welded rail, LED signals) they (BNSF) will maintain it for twenty years. If you think about it, this basically boils down to ballast regulation, signal and grade crossing inspection and a bit of switch machine maintenance - they ain't going to be replacing rail on a line that sees two trains a day! I imagine it would NOT include repairing washouts, tunnel collapse, etc. - that would indeed be up to some government entities.
 
I still think the Raton Line's days are numbered. While we have some resolution right now, the bills will just keep on coming and then who's paying for them? To RPC's point, if there comes a point where there requires a major maintenance item, BNSF may not be on the hook for those repairs, then who pays? As long as there's very little traffic on this line, it will be harder and harder in the future to justify paying the continuous bills. Raton feels like a short line waiting to happen, which while bad for Amtrak might be better for the region, short lines are usually better at getting local business so they could probably generate some traffic on the line.
 
A Shortline kept up to basic passenger standards would be a win for everybody I think. (Obviously someone other than the shortline would fit the "passenger standards" part of the bill)
 
crescent-zephyr said:
A Shortline kept up to basic passenger standards would be a win for everybody I think. (Obviously someone other than the shortline would fit the "passenger standards" part of the bill)
Click to expand...
Obviously that would be the ideal, just shortlines aren't known for keeping up class V track. Most likely they would be like what BNSF initially proposed, reduce the track to class 2/3, which would be more in line with what they would need.
 
jis said:
I guess anyone can believe whatever they choose to, and also keep repeating it as many times as they want. That does not mean that the people who actually operate the railroad and are responsible for it will necessarily agree.
default_wink.png


I was merely sharing what folks who actually dispatch that railroad told me. but what would they know?
default_biggrin.png
Click to expand...
JIS,

Well, I guess I have to add that if your hunch (and your source) is correct and there is no chance that BNSF would make more use of the Raton line if it were rebuilt, then I guess I have to begin questioning the wisdom of rebuilding it at all. I mean, as a rail advocate I’d really HATE to lose it but what if, just what if, Anderson might turn out to have a point here?

I thought Anderson threw a number out like $300 million to really get this line up to snuff. (I don’t have his statement in front of me.) He may be right that it is simply not worth that much money for a single daily passenger train. That money could perhaps be put to better use somewhere else. How ‘bout 100+ new “Superliners”?

You know, his whole idea of a “bus bridge” might turn out to be a worthy concept *IF* it just got tweaked a bit. If only BNSF would go along and allow Amtrak to move the Chief to the south line through Amarillo, then an Amtrak “Throughway Bus” could serve those stops that get missed. Plus, a rather large city (Amarillo) would get a daily passenger train.

But here is a truly radical idea: What if the Chief were to stay on the current North Line as far west as Trinidad then head south over BNSF’s former Ft. Worth & Denver line until it hits the south line where it would then turn west again. Then only the towns of Raton, Las Vegas and Lamy would be missed. Again, a “Throughway” bus could serve those towns and perhaps even stop in downtown Santa Fe. This might actually be an improvement.

I realize that the routing would be just a bit circuitous but perhaps not more so than the California Zephyr’s Denver – Ogden routing across Wyoming before it got moved to the D&RGW route. Also, stations in Trinidad and Albuquerque would need to be relocated in order to prevent a couple of awkward back-up moves but that’s no big deal. The “depot” in Trinidad is nothing but a concrete platform anyways. The depot in Albuquerque could be relocated to the main transcon in the same way that the main stop for Phoenix was moved to the outpost at Maricopa. But would BNSF buy this idea? Maybe they would if the "pot got sweetened".

I dunno. Just an idea that’s all.

Regards,

FMC
 
Here is a rather interesting blog that I stumbled across while searching for news on the Southwest Chief. The guys makes some good points whether we fully agree with them or not. Who knows? The intercity passenger train might turn out to have a different future in America than what we think.

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2018/08/essay-last-train-grand-canyon-how-amtrak-fails-national-parks-and-america

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

P.S. I don't know why but it seem like everytime I copy and paste a URL into this format it doesn't work. I found that when I click on the link, the forum is adding six characters that I did not put in there. If I go into my browser and delete the last six characters - it works! - FMC
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top