printman2000
Engineer
Your right! I did not notice that is arrived on CT and departed on MT. Kinda odd to do it that way. I think Amtrak has done it better always using the local time.
Southwest Chief
- Thread starter Peter L. Reid
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
printman2000
Engineer
This has been brought up before to me on an email list and I always dismissed it as very unlikely. However, with the fact that no extra cars were added to the SWC this summer (they usually add an extra coach), the track repairs, and the very high prices, I am not so sure you are wrong. Still not so sure you are right either, but I am not so sure about it anymore.
Nope. Not even close.
printman2000
Engineer
I hope you are right. Do you have anything in particular that makes you believe this? I would really like to go back to believing that discontinuance is not an option they are considering.
For one, there's no "talk" of it. Two, the Chief has never been at the top of any list of cuts that people throw around (usually it's the Sunset that is in the crosshairs). Three, the current Amtrak (I say "current" only because I don't know how decisions were made 20-30 years ago) isn't going to randomly discontinue a route just for the heck of it. Four, based on the PRIIA rankings, the Southwest Chief is towards the top of long-distance trains. Five, it serves three states (Illinois, Missouri, and California) that put lots of money into supporting passenger rail (and even if states don't pay for the long-distance trains, they do value their existence as part of the statewide network), on top of lots of local political support that is very valuable to Amtrak.
printman2000
Engineer
Again, I am not saying either way, just trying to weigh known facts.
1. I have heard talk of it. Not from Amtrak, but others.
2. Agreed.
3. I don't think we are talking about just discontinuing for no reason, the reason would be they cannot use the current route and they can then say a reroute would be too costly.
4. Might not be for long if prices do not come down.
5. I thought this too, but all of those states have a lot of other rail choices. But of all your reasons, this gives me the most hope. That would be a lot of 180 day notices to post!
Thanks for your reply.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Nice pictures you have there! It would have been really nice to ride in a train with a full-length dome and Alco PA/PBs painted in Warbonnet! I think those locomotives looked better than the E-/F-units when painted in that livery.Thanks for the link to SF Cheif's timetable. It remained pretty much the same schedule thoughout its run.
Here are pictures of #2 at Amarillo in June 1958 courtesy of my "Brownie Hawkeye" camera...
zepherdude
OBS Chief
Only what I read on other blogs, I brought this up months ago and was shot down by several thousand people here. I bring it up again. Many cities want this service to pass through their city. I think anything is possible.
rusty spike
OBS Chief
I absolutely agree; however its limted use on the Santa Fe coupled with the fact that Lionel's featured the F's in its toy train lineup of the 1950's, left the PA's in the shadow of the F's. But at the end of the day (or the era of the "warbonnet") that paint scheme dazzled any cab or cowl unit to which it was applied.
winterskigirl
Service Attendant
N
Nathanael
Guest
It won't happen. Thankfully, current Amtrak management (unlike some previous iterations) is not entirely stupid. The SW Chief provides the only decent connection between the 2nd largest and 3rd largest metropolitan areas in the US (along with the 12th largest). Rerouted? Yes; the particular intermediate points are relatively unimportant, apart from Albuquerque. It's already been rerouted once (within Illinois) to its benefit. Cut? No.
Worst case scenarios: If there's a real budget crunch, The Cardinal and Sunset Limited would certainly be cut first, so I wouldn't worry about the SW Chief unless that happens. Amtrak management has been quite clear that three-a-week is bad, and the history shows them to be correct; Amtrak will keep trying to make these trains daily, but if there's a crunch they may decide to drop them. If times got tough, they might also consider cutting the Palmetto in favor of the Silver Meteor, given that the Palmetto mainly serves states (South Carolina and Georgia) which provide no money or political support. Other worst case scenario: If there were a crunch due to an equipment shortage of Superliners (perhaps multiple major crashes), then again the Sunset Limited would be terminated first, and if more equipment were needed the California Zephyr would likely be shortened to run from Chicago to Denver (or perhaps Glenwood Springs or Grand Junction). (The Zephyr uses a *lot* of equipment for the 'west of Denver' service and gets relatively poor ridership between Reno and Glenwood Springs.)
Given that BNSF has apparently actually offered to host the SW Chief on the line through Amarillo, I think the Chief is in no danger.
Fred Frailey in _Trains_ is being completely speculative in suggesting that BNSF will demand that Amtrak pay for double-tracking on the Transcon route, and I believe he is simply wrong. He's made false, pessimistic claims before. BNSF has in fact already stated its intentions to double-track the entire Transcon for freight purposes, so such a demand would be obviously bogus, and would probably inspire a successful Amtrak lawsuit -- I don't think BNSF would pull bogus nonsense like that. As one commenter to his article wrote (sic):
(Note, however, that this may explain why Amtrak is putting off rerouting as long as possible. The longer Amtrak waits, the more of BNSF's double-tracking program will be *finished* by the time Amtrak moves, which would allow better on-time performance.)
Now, there is some potential difficulty in the Wichita area where BNSF runs trains directionally. Thie means they run northbound trains through Wichita, but they run southbounds on a completely different route, so for them it's double-tracked, but following BNSF's route would bypass Wichita and Newton southbound (no good). However, the only "new" part of this for the Southwest Chief would be from Newton to "Mulvane", and of that, the section through downtown Wichita is already double-tracked -- and Wichita has room for station tracks to get the trains off the mainline while stopped. More double-tracking between Newton and Mulvane was already proposed for the proposed Wichita-Oklahoma City service, and Kansas, or even Wichita alone, might be willing to pay for that. It's certainly a lot cheaper than trying to maintain the Raton Pass line; BNSF's desired double-tracking for the *entire* Wichita-OKC Heartland Flyer extension was priced around $108 million, and this would be a small subset of that.
More worrisome is the cost of station construction/rehabilitation. Remember, new stations have to be compliant with the new ADA level-boarding rules. Rebuilding Wichita Union Station with 15" platforms and elevators is an expensive proposition, and building a new Amarillo station could easily require a passenger siding too. Hopefully the cities will realize that this is of value -- particularly Wichita, where the train station could be made ready for the proposed Heartland Flyer extension and proposed future daytime service to Ft. Worth at the same time as it is prepared for the Southwest Chief.
Amtrak George
Lead Service Attendant
Reroute and BNSF: from a purely business point of view, BNSF is already making huge progress double tracking the transcon, and has gone on record saying they would take the Chief on the reroute. They would get a corporate black eye if they now decided to put Amtrak in an impossible dilemma: charge Amtrak if it stays, and charge Amtrak if it moves. Personally I think BNSF is a really good company and won't try that. It would certainly benefit BNSF to get Amtrak moved to the transcon, and they could possibly get the issues with the sale of the line in New Mexico solved easier.
When the Illinois Central told Amtrak they would need to pay maintenance to stay on the old passenger main in Mississippi, they gave Amtrak the option to move to the Delta line. Amtrak didn't have the money to "pay to stay," so they moved, but were not required to pay for putting extra sidings, signals, etc. on the Delta line.
When the Illinois Central told Amtrak they would need to pay maintenance to stay on the old passenger main in Mississippi, they gave Amtrak the option to move to the Delta line. Amtrak didn't have the money to "pay to stay," so they moved, but were not required to pay for putting extra sidings, signals, etc. on the Delta line.
TimePeace
Disillusioned.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,166
Nice photos...Thanks for the link to SF Cheif's timetable. It remained pretty much the same schedule thoughout its run.
Here are pictures of #2 at Amarillo in June 1958 courtesy of my "Brownie Hawkeye" camera...
Better on some than on others, though. Great on Fs and PAs; on this FP45 not so much. I think the unit's angularity detracts from the warbonnet's lines enough to make this a "meh."
At Orange Empire Railway Museum; Perris, CA.
George Harris
Engineer
The Delta line had been the freight line for many years, but it was unsignaled 49 mph despite having a very heavy volume of freight. The addition of signals was IC's choice for the benefit of moving freight. The line was/is very close to grade free. The Grenada District had quite a bit of grades, mostly short, but a "rollor coaster" profile is an absolute nightmare for long heavy freight. ICRR's standard practice was to hang as much tonnage on a train as the engines could get started with and let it drag its way down the line. 200 car freights? Sure. Why not. For much of the last 40 years IC/ICG/IC has acted more line they wanted to get out of the railroad business than make it pay. I do not know the numbers, but I would suspect that their freight volume on the Delta line, despite pulling up, shuttnig down or selling off four parallel lines the length of Mississippi is probably less than it was in 1960. Therefore, handling the CNO on the Delta line, particlarly with it current slower than watching paint dry schedule is not really a problem.
Amtrak George
Lead Service Attendant
Hi George, I agree with you on most counts, except that the traffic on the Delta Line (now Canadian National) is pretty heavy. I have traveled the CONO route several times in recent years and have been treated to such things as pulling in a siding behind one freight to meet another one that is on the main line, then backing out on the main in order to run around the freight that was in the siding.
Talk about moving the CONO began in the mid to late 1970's, when I was working for ICG at Iselin Yard in the summer and going to law school.
The IC upgraded the track in the Mississippi Delta to allow 79 MPH max speeds, which they did for Amtrak's benefit and didn't have to do for the freights. That begin said, the stretch from Memphis to Jackson, MS is still pretty rough. Railroaders tell me it's hard to maintain the track on that Delta earth.
To get back to the issues in the current post, my point was that the IC willingly allowed the CONO to move over so they could downgrade and sell the Grenada District. I think BNSF will do the same for Amtrak with the Chief without making Amtrak pay the rest of the bill for double tracking.
Cheers, Amtrak George
Talk about moving the CONO began in the mid to late 1970's, when I was working for ICG at Iselin Yard in the summer and going to law school.
The IC upgraded the track in the Mississippi Delta to allow 79 MPH max speeds, which they did for Amtrak's benefit and didn't have to do for the freights. That begin said, the stretch from Memphis to Jackson, MS is still pretty rough. Railroaders tell me it's hard to maintain the track on that Delta earth.
To get back to the issues in the current post, my point was that the IC willingly allowed the CONO to move over so they could downgrade and sell the Grenada District. I think BNSF will do the same for Amtrak with the Chief without making Amtrak pay the rest of the bill for double tracking.
Cheers, Amtrak George
MikeM
OBS Chief
On the directional running tangent, I don't see that as an issue between Newton and Mulvane. I lived in Derby which is close to Mulvane for about 11 years; although the traffic is predominately one way, you do see some trains running against the flow and it does not seem to be a major issue. There are sidings that regularly see meets south of Wichita, and presumably there are similar options to the north. BNSF has been very busy the last few years laying new rail, surfacing, and upgrading the line so it wouldn't be a problem to run passenger trains from what I can see driving along it.
As of a few months ago, Wichita Union Station is vacant, after having been used for many years as a regional office for Cox Cable. The station isn't in the greatest condition; needs window work, paint, and not sure about mechanicals. However, at least part of the passenger subway from the station to the tracks exist as well as some of the train awnings. However, the tracks were significantly redone over the past few years, and there is no existing platform to use, so that's new construction. And the subway is accessed by a ramp which may not be ADA compliant.
Probably the larger issue is the size of the station vs. the amount of passenger volume that would be seen in Wichita in the middle of the night. I almost suspect it'd be a real challenge to justify a major station rehab to serve one train in the midst of the night. What I suspect would be more likely is the installation of a "temporary" station at or near the existing Union Station. Although there is some support for passenger rail in Wichita, for the timing of the train it would be challenge to sell a major investment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Notelvis
Conductor
What is the probability of this actually happening? 50% 100%, and by when? Is it something where we should start to plan for that "last ride" along the traditional route within the next year or two
My wife, daughter, and I rode the Southwest Chief from Albuquerque to Chicago in July and there were places along the line where we literally slowed to a crawl (15mph) for 10-15 minutes at a time..... specifically around Lamy and again over Raton Pass. This was significantly slower running than when I last rode the SWC in 2009. The track is getting rougher, the running is getting slower, and the more time which passes without any maintenance being done, the more money it's going to take to get things 'back-up-to-speed'.
Having said that..... and given the most recent news as reported by Trains, it is very difficult for me to imagine a scenario which will keep the SWC on it's historical route over Raton Pass. I would estimate that the reroute others have detailed is probably 95% likely and probably by sometime in 2016 at the latest. Possibly by sometime in late, late 2013 or 2014 at the earliest.
Those of you wanting a last ride (or maybe a first ride) over Raton Pass might ought to make plans to do that in 2013 to be safe.
My wife, daughter, and I rode the Southwest Chief from Albuquerque to Chicago in July and there were places along the line where we literally slowed to a crawl (15mph) for 10-15 minutes at a time..... specifically around Lamy and again over Raton Pass. This was significantly slower running than when I last rode the SWC in 2009. The track is getting rougher, the running is getting slower, and the more time which passes without any maintenance being done, the more money it's going to take to get things 'back-up-to-speed'.
Having said that..... and given the most recent news as reported by Trains, it is very difficult for me to imagine a scenario which will keep the SWC on it's historical route over Raton Pass. I would estimate that the reroute others have detailed is probably 95% likely and probably by sometime in 2016 at the latest. Possibly by sometime in late, late 2013 or 2014 at the earliest.
Those of you wanting a last ride (or maybe a first ride) over Raton Pass might ought to make plans to do that in 2013 to be safe.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's almost no way a permanent reroute could be established by late 2013. It would take longer than that to get stations lined up along the new route.
VentureForth
Engineer
Not if the only station is Amarillo. They may open up a station in Tucumcari. Hmmm... Looks like the Transcon actually goes quite a bit south. Through Clovis perhaps?
Last edited by a moderator:
So, is 2013's AU gathering going to be somewhere along the SWC's route (the part that will be rerouted in the near future)? 
h34r:
h34r:
Notelvis
Conductor
I agree that it's unlikely that a reroute would happen before the end of next year but a reroute could happen on short notice at almost anytime. For a 'station' a short slab of ADA compliant platform and a mobile temporary building would be enough of a set-up to conduct business while better, permanent station facilities are established.
Consider a worst-case scenario (say a washout in Springer, NM) rendering any part of this otherwise unused route out-of-service. The need to 'fix-it' doesn't exist and suddenly a reroute is happening on short notice whether the stations along the way are firmly established or not.
Tucumcari is not on the Transcon. Tucumcari is on what is now UP's Golden State route, and was the connection between the Rock Island and SP parts of the Golden State route. The transcon runs further south, through Vaughn.
Last edited by a moderator:
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
The reroute would not run through Tucumcari. And Tucumcari station is abandoned and dilapidated, it would need a major renovation to get it useable again. UP probably wouldn't let Amtrak use the Golden State Line anyway.
Amtrak has made it quite clear that the various interested parties have until the end of next year to figure out a solution, or Amtrak will start down the road of making arrangements to move to the Transcon. There will be no sudden reroutes.
The agreement for current route runs for a few more years meaning that, even in the case of a washout that could result in a temporary reroute, BNSF is obligated to restore that bridge so that Amtrak can resume service.
- Status
Latest posts
-
Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement RFP discussion 2024 H1- Latest: Harmon Shay
-
-
-
-
-
