Southwest Chief Re-Route?

[The Davy Crockett]

And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?

Why do you ask? Why Oh Why? In ABQ.... there is a why. No need to back it all the way back, or transfer ABQ pax to the Rail Runner...

Okay, why ask? I'll crawl back into my cave on my own accord now... h34r:

 

[AmtrakBlue]

And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?

Why do you ask? Why Oh Why? In ABQ.... there is a why. No need to back it all the way back, or transfer ABQ pax to the Rail Runner...

Okay, why ask? I'll crawl back into my cave on my own accord now... h34r:

You drive a Honda?

 

[The Davy Crockett]

And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?

Why do you ask? Why Oh Why? In ABQ.... there is a why. No need to back it all the way back, or transfer ABQ pax to the Rail Runner...

Okay, why ask? I'll crawl back into my cave on my own accord now... h34r:

You drive a Honda?

No, but close :excl: Its a toYota!

 

[Sleeper]

And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?

Engineer, the reason I ask this is because a westbound on the new route would get to Belen, go 30 miles north to ABQ, and almost 30 miles back south again to turn west at Dalies. I was not referring to backing the train vs. running it forward.

 

[Nathanael]

What we are actually talking here in track class is that defined by the FRA. Class 3 = 60P/40F, Class 4 = 80P/60F, Class 5 = 90P/80F.By the way, these numbers also explain why BNSF is content to continue allowing 90 mph passenger service west of Albuquerque. If they want to run 70 mph freight, the track must be maintained to Class 5, so there is nothing extra in the way of track maintenance to allow the passenger trains 90 mph. Before someone gets all exicted about saying that can be done in many other places, let's not forget that there are significant signal system costs to go above 79 mph. The facilities are already in place and have been for many years on the tracks where the Southwest Chief is cu.rently allowed 90 mph, but not on many (all?) of the other lines allowing 70 mph freightsw

However, the PTC mandate will require that such signal systems be installed on most of the mainlines in the country. The Class Is are trying to weasel out of the deadline, but they are unlikely to be able to do so, since it would require an act of Congress, and Congress is gridlocked. Also, people still remember Chatsworth, and Amtrak and Metrolink are going to finish installation well ahead of the deadline, showing that the freights are just foot-dragging for the purpose of increasing profits.

The freights have been foot-dragging on this since the 1930s, and it's frankly criminal. Eventually if they keep this up it'll catch up with them; if there's another Chatsworth *after* they flout the legal deadline, expect the government to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

So go ahead and get excited -- it can be done in many other places in a few years. (Most of the route of the Cardinal doesn't qualify as a mainline so expect no improvement there, but all the other long-distance trains spend most of their time on mainlines which are subject to the PTC mandate.)

 

[gswager]

And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?

Engineer, the reason I ask this is because a westbound on the new route would get to Belen, go 30 miles north to ABQ, and almost 30 miles back south again to turn west at Dalies. I was not referring to backing the train vs. running it forward.

Incorrect, there are tracks in a shape of triangle. Tracks split just south of ABQ- going southwest to LA or south to Belen. From east heading to Belen, you either go north to ABQ or continue west to LA. From the west (in middle of nowhere) which is called "Dalies", you either go northwest to ABQ or continue heading east to Belen.

Using Belen as a stop for SWC is nearly impossible due to BNSF largest inspection yard on Transcon. NM RailRunner deadends at Belen station, nothing further south. SWC will continue go to ABQ has it had been for years during pre-Amtrak era.

 

[Sleeper]

And would the Chief reroute go into ABQ and back out, or just stop in Belen and let passengers transfer to the Rail Runner to go to ABQ and Santa Fe?

Engineer, the reason I ask this is because a westbound on the new route would get to Belen, go 30 miles north to ABQ, and almost 30 miles back south again to turn west at Dalies. I was not referring to backing the train vs. running it forward.

Incorrect, there are tracks in a shape of triangle. Tracks split just south of ABQ- going southwest to LA or south to Belen. From east heading to Belen, you either go north to ABQ or continue west to LA. From the west (in middle of nowhere) which is called "Dalies", you either go northwest to ABQ or continue heading east to Belen.

Using Belen as a stop for SWC is nearly impossible due to BNSF largest inspection yard on Transcon. NM RailRunner deadends at Belen station, nothing further south. SWC will continue go to ABQ has it had been for years during pre-Amtrak era.

Thanks for the explanation,

Sleeper

 

[jis]

So go ahead and get excited -- it can be done in many other places in a few years. (Most of the route of the Cardinal doesn't qualify as a mainline so expect no improvement there, but all the other long-distance trains spend most of their time on mainlines which are subject to the PTC mandate.)

All I can say is dream on. Just because PTC can theoretically allow something does not mean that the host railroads will bother to allow it without extracting a pound or two of additional flesh.
CSX has already given NYDOT a long laundry list of things that will need to happen before they will allow 90mph on the water level route west of Schenectady over and above PTC, and it ain't cheap, though of course cheaper than anything higher than 90. As a matter of fact CSX has categorically told NYDOT that there is no way no how they will allow anything above 90mph unless the higher speed track is removed by at least 50 feet from their regular speed tracks.

 

[VentureForth]

Sleeper - As gswager pointed out, Belen is just way too busy to have something like the SWC make a stop. The train will continue to serve ABQ.

The Belen yard is so busy that they couldn't even work it out to get the Railrunner to cross three mainline tracks to get to the Harvey House. There is just no real estate available for a "platform" connection to the Railrunner from the BNSF Mainline - at least nothing that exists or wants to be built by anyone for any sort of money.

The other reason is because ABQ is a major service stop - somewhere on the order of 45 minutes or so. They wash windows, fill up the diesel, street vendors show off their wares, and much fun is had by all. This would not be possible in Belen. Maybe take on fuel, but it would be nothing special. And if the passenger train is treated like all the rest of the transcon trains getting a refuel, it would be no fun for the passengers.

 

[rusty spike]

I just received an Amtrak e-mail regarding a 30% discount for May travel on the "Raton Route" between KCY and ABQ. Looks like Amtrak is triying to spike the numbers on this route to create more interest in the states involved. Any other thoughts on why they would do this? :unsure:

 

[printman2000]

I just received an Amtrak e-mail regarding a 30% discount for May travel on the "Raton Route" between KCY and ABQ. Looks like Amtrak is triying to spike the numbers on this route to create more interest in the states involved. Any other thoughts on why they would do this? :unsure:

Would you mind posting the text from that email. That is interesting.

 

[George Harris]

However, the PTC mandate will require that such signal systems be installed on most of the mainlines in the country. The Class Is are trying to weasel out of the deadline, but they are unlikely to be able to do so, since it would require an act of Congress, and Congress is gridlocked. Also, people still remember Chatsworth, and Amtrak and Metrolink are going to finish installation well ahead of the deadline, showing that the freights are just foot-dragging for the purpose of increasing profits.
The freights have been foot-dragging on this since the 1930s, and it's frankly criminal. Eventually if they keep this up it'll catch up with them; if there's another Chatsworth *after* they flout the legal deadline, expect the government to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

IMHO, this whole PTC is a case of overkill. The legislation is an example of we got to do something. We are taking something that is already safer than travel on the road and adding a burden of cost for minimal benefit. Any sort of cost-benefit analysis would say that this requirement will most likely be counterproductive in that it will increase the cost of running on rails such that there will be traffic driven from rail to road.

What is criminal is doing things that drive traffic from rail to road under they guise of improving safety, and that goes all the way back to the imposition of the signal requirements put in place in the 1940's. What you call foot dragging was actually an attempt to avoid driving costs up to the point of destruction of the service.

 

[yarrow]

I just received an Amtrak e-mail regarding a 30% discount for May travel on the "Raton Route" between KCY and ABQ. Looks like Amtrak is triying to spike the numbers on this route to create more interest in the states involved. Any other thoughts on why they would do this? :unsure:

i just got one for 30% off the eb between st paul and pdx for travel in may

 

[Bob Dylan]

However, the PTC mandate will require that such signal systems be installed on most of the mainlines in the country. The Class Is are trying to weasel out of the deadline, but they are unlikely to be able to do so, since it would require an act of Congress, and Congress is gridlocked. Also, people still remember Chatsworth, and Amtrak and Metrolink are going to finish installation well ahead of the deadline, showing that the freights are just foot-dragging for the purpose of increasing profits.

The freights have been foot-dragging on this since the 1930s, and it's frankly criminal. Eventually if they keep this up it'll catch up with them; if there's another Chatsworth *after* they flout the legal deadline, expect the government to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

IMHO, this whole PTC is a case of overkill. The legislation is an example of we got to do something. We are taking something that is already safer than travel on the road and adding a burden of cost for minimal benefit. Any sort of cost-benefit analysis would say that this requirement will most likely be counterproductive in that it will increase the cost of running on rails such that there will be traffic driven from rail to road.

What is criminal is doing things that drive traffic from rail to road under they guise of improving safety.

:hi: As usual, George the Engineer Nails it!!!

 

[rusty spike]

I just received an Amtrak e-mail regarding a 30% discount for May travel on the "Raton Route" between KCY and ABQ. Looks like Amtrak is triying to spike the numbers on this route to create more interest in the states involved. Any other thoughts on why they would do this? :unsure:

Would you mind posting the text from that email. That is interesting.

 

[chakk]

Most of May is a pretty quiet month for most of the LD trains in the west, so getting 70% of the fare to fill a coach seat is probably better than getting nothing at all. But I doubt that it will lead to that much of an increase in passenger traffic on the SWC that month.

 

[jebr]

Here's the link to the promo online. I never received an email.
http://www.amtrak.com/monthly-train-ticket-discount?WT.mc_t=AprAdvBookMSP_HP4_WSP&WT.mc_n=AprAdvBookpage&WT.mc_r=365

 

[AlanB]

and Amtrak and Metrolink are going to finish installation well ahead of the deadline, showing that the freights are just foot-dragging for the purpose of increasing profits.

While I do agree that the freights are foot dragging things, Amtrak & Metrolink are hardly a fair comparison. They have many fewer miles of track that need to be outfitted than any major freight RR. And for that matter, Amtrak already had the technology operating in a few places, so it was really more a matter of expanding what they have.

 

[CHamilton]

Did I miss this in some other thread?

Governor: State scrapping deal to buy BNSF track

Posted: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:00 pm | Updated: 9:58 pm, Sat Mar 16, 2013.

Associated Press

Gov. Susana Martinez’s administration has reached an agreement for the BNSF Railway Co. to pull the plug on a never-completed purchase of about 180 miles of track, and the company will refund $5 million fronted by the state for the line by her predecessor.
...
The administration doesn’t want the track from Lamy, a small community near Santa Fe, to the Colorado border. The state estimated it would need to spend $8 million a year just for maintenance and routine improvements of the track.

Former Gov. Bill Richardson’s administration had paid BNSF about $5 million in 2008 for the rail line as part of a larger deal to obtain track to start the Rail Runner Express commuter service between Santa Fe and Belen.

 

[Ryan]

It was somewhere in here, but I can't recall where.

Looks like this goose is cooked.

 

[yarrow]

in the new issue of trains magazine, fred frailey (ok fred can be a bit alarmist) writes that the swc will be gone after it is taken off raton pass as, fred says, bnsf won't allow it on the projected route through amarillo without big upgrades and thus the swc will be gone. i hadn't heard that before. is fred on to something or did he just think it up for a slow news day?

 

[printman2000]

in the new issue of trains magazine, fred frailey (ok fred can be a bit alarmist) writes that the swc will be gone after it is taken off raton pass as, fred says, bnsf won't allow it on the projected route through amarillo without big upgrades and thus the swc will be gone. i hadn't heard that before. is fred on to something or did he just think it up for a slow news day?

I have certainly heard others say this is what they fear.

Seems I also remember AlanB stating on this board a while back that because BNSF no longer wants to maintain the current route, they have to allow them on the alternate route. I could be remembering that wrong, but hopefully AlanB can confirm or correct me.

 

[Ryan]

Ask and ye shall receive:

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.

 

[greatcats]

This reroute issue is a complex matter, I'm sure, but they way I have understood it was that a year or two ago BNSF sort of invited Amtrak to move over to the Transcon.

 

[guest]

If they eliminate the Raton pass route, that will be one long boring ride. If they use the transcon, does that mean the Topeka and Lawrence stops would be eliminated in favor of the new service to Wichita?