SWC ROUTE SLOW ORDERS

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
According to a posting on trainorders.com the section of the old ATSF Northern transcon route between Hutchison,KS and La Junta,Co has been downgraded so the new speed restrictions will limit the SWc to 60mph between these points, 40MPH for freights! :angry:

There is speculation that this is a wedge on the part of BNSF to get Amtrak to move to the Southern Transcon through Amarillo and Clovis,NM. The posters figure this will add 45minutes-1Hour to the run time of the Chiefs???? :eek:
 
This is not a "slow order" which implies a temporary situation. It is a permanent speed reduction from 79 to 60 miles per hour over 183 miles of line in Kansas. BNSF does not use this line, at least for through trains that require speed. Accordingly, BNSF has downgraded the maintenance to that required for 60mph passenger service (from FRA Class 4 to Class 3).

The 45 minute estimate is about right. At 79mph, a train will cover 183 miles in 2hr 19min. At 60mph, that same 183 miles takes 3hr 3min. It is not quire that simple due to station stops and speed restrictions for curves and other issues, but it is a good estimate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder what happened to Amtrak saying they'd pay the maintenance to keep the railroad at 79 mph? Or if there ever was any such agreement on Amtrak's part to do so?
 
I think the section Amtrak agreed to pay maintenance on is the section between the end of the New Mexico-owned segment where it peels off for Santa Fe and La Junta. BNSF is flat not using that part of line, as opposed to still using the section between Hutchinson and La Junta, albeit lightly.

Personally, I hope they keep the Chief on the line as long as they can. I love that whole segment between Lamy and Trinidad, over Glorietta and Raton passes, Wagon Mound, etc.

It is already the fastest transcon -- my opinion is the 45-60 minute additional time is acceptable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trains Magazine posted a news article about this situation today. Apparently the speed restriction abruptly came into effect after an inspection train on Thursday (8/21) found the 60-70 year old track to be unacceptably rough to maintain a speed of 79 mph. The only long-term solution is to replace the old rail or permanently lower the speed limit. The contract between BNSF and Amtrak allows BNSF to lower the passenger train speed to 40 mph in the future if need be.

Trains Magazine subscribers can read the article at http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=7269
 
Guest said:
Trains Magazine posted a news article about this situation today. Apparently the speed restriction abruptly came into effect after an inspection train on Thursday (8/21) found the 60-70 year old track to be unacceptably rough to maintain a speed of 79 mph. The only long-term solution is to replace the old rail or permanently lower the speed limit. The contract between BNSF and Amtrak allows BNSF to lower the passenger train speed to 40 mph in the future if need be.

Trains Magazine subscribers can read the article at http://www.trains.co...spx?c=a&id=7269
Click to expand...
Is this the area where we hear in trip reports about how rough it is?
 
zephyr17 said:
It is already the fastest transcon -- my opinion is the 45-60 minute additional time is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Transcontinental? It may be the fastest example in a network full of exceptionally slow long-distance trains, but Amtrak seems to be aware of the problem and is working with the BNSF to take the necessary steps required to reduce the speed back down to acceptable levels. ;)

Amtrak. It's every bit as slow as you'll ever accept!
 
Considering all that has been done in other places by other companies, we have little right ot gripe. Think about such stuff as:

1. Shut down of the line west of Phoenix

2. Illinois Central shut down of the direct Memphis - Jackson MS line. (To their credit, the reroute is less than one hour slower.)

3. ICRR speed reduction in Illinois from 100mph to 90 mph, and then removal of ATC so it went to 90 mph.

4. The multitudinous slow orders, reroutes, line closures, of the Penn Central era.
 
George Harris said:
Considering all that has been done in other places by other companies, we have little right ot gripe. Think about such stuff as:

1. Shut down of the line west of Phoenix

2. Illinois Central shut down of the direct Memphis - Jackson MS line. (To their credit, the reroute is less than one hour slower.)

3. ICRR speed reduction in Illinois from 100mph to 90 mph, and then removal of ATC so it went to 90 mph.

4. The multitudinous slow orders, reroutes, line closures, of the Penn Central era.
Click to expand...
Oh, of course, you're right, and didn't even mention the wretched condition the Milwaukee Road left the rails between St. Paul and Chicago, but I'm taking #3 tomorrow, and I'd hate to be late to the Albuquerque Isotopes - New Orleans Zephyrs game on Sunday because the Southwest Chief had to go slow in Kansas.
 
MrFSS said:
Guest said:
Trains Magazine posted a news article about this situation today. Apparently the speed restriction abruptly came into effect after an inspection train on Thursday (8/21) found the 60-70 year old track to be unacceptably rough to maintain a speed of 79 mph. The only long-term solution is to replace the old rail or permanently lower the speed limit. The contract between BNSF and Amtrak allows BNSF to lower the passenger train speed to 40 mph in the future if need be.

Trains Magazine subscribers can read the article at http://www.trains.co...spx?c=a&id=7269
Click to expand...
Is this the area where we hear in trip reports about how rough it is?
Click to expand...
Yes
 
daxomni said:
zephyr17 said:
It is already the fastest transcon -- my opinion is the 45-60 minute additional time is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Transcontinental? It may be the fastest example in a network full of exceptionally slow long-distance trains, but Amtrak seems to be aware of the problem and is working with the BNSF to take the necessary steps required to reduce the speed back down to acceptable levels. ;)

Amtrak. It's every bit as slow as you'll ever accept!
Click to expand...
I was speaking in the context of Amtrak long-distance trains. Sorry the context wasn't clear to you.

Also, to my knowledge, other super-long distance trains do not really exceed Amtrak's pace on the Southwest Chief, which still does 90 mph over long stretches, or not by very much. I don't think the Rossiya or the Indian Pacific beat it. The Canadian certainly doesn't.

The truly high-speed runs seem to be in what we'd call corridor services, 300-700 miles. Not 2000+.
 
printman2000 said:
Seems Amtrak has made an official statement now saying they are not interested in rerouting the SWC to stay on the transcon. Apparently this is straight from Boardman's mouth and reiterated by Marc Magliari.

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2010/aug/27/bc-ks-aging-rails1st-ld-writethru/?features&travel
Click to expand...
I dont disagree with the slightly slower running time in Western Kansas since the tracks are so rough, (they did say it could be made up in other areas) but for Amtrak to decide that $10,000,000 a year to maintain worn out track is a good use of meager funds is hardheaded and stupid, that $10,000,000 could better be used to hire more OBS,buy equipment etc. etc. Hope this is one that all the various lobby groups,politicians and AU MEMBERS :help: agree on and put pressure on Amtrak to reconsider! I know youd like this too Craig since you can catch the train in Amarillo, hope common sense instead of Joe's way prevails!
 
I would not mind at all if Amtrak rerouted as that would bring the Chief closer to me and give me an expanded mix of trains to chose from. Now what about the stretch through New Mexico that is still guarded by blades; is BNSF still planning to replace those? That is classic railroading where I'd kill to have a Dome.
 
OlympianHiawatha said:
I would not mind at all if Amtrak rerouted as that would bring the Chief closer to me and give me an expanded mix of trains to chose from. Now what about the stretch through New Mexico that is still guarded by blades; is BNSF still planning to replace those? That is classic railroading where I'd kill to have a Dome.
Click to expand...
BNSF stopped all planned signal upgrades when they entered the agreement to sell it to New Mexico, even though the sale of the line north of Lamy has not gone through and may never go through. There is no freight traffic on the line at all anymore, so I doubt BNSF would put money in it unless subsidized by Amtrak or New Mexico.
 
jimhudson said:
I dont disagree with the slightly slower running time in Western Kansas since the tracks are so rough, (they did say it could be made up in other areas) but for Amtrak to decide that $10,000,000 a year to maintain worn out track is a good use of meager funds is hardheaded and stupid, that $10,000,000 could better be used to hire more OBS,buy equipment etc. etc. Hope this is one that all the various lobby groups,politicians and AU MEMBERS :help: agree on and put pressure on Amtrak to reconsider! I know youd like this too Craig since you can catch the train in Amarillo, hope common sense instead of Joe's way prevails!
Click to expand...
Just read the linked article.

Several points: If the rail was rolled 1941 to 1950, the majority would be in 131 lb/yd rail, not 132. The 132RE section was first rolled in 1947. Of course by now either would be so worn they are probably quite a few pounds less, probably in the 120 lb/yd or less range.

Surely the statement "non-welded" was in error. That would be senseless. It caused little if any more to install welded rail and a lot less to maintain welded rail.

The $10 million per year needs something more than pulled out of the air by Fred Frailey. While he is an interesting writer, an expert in railroad maintenance cost he is not.

Cutting off the bent ends and welding up the remainder of the rail may or may not be worthwhile doing with this stuff, but the call needs to be made by someone who is an expert in the area. This method of extending rail usefulness is well proven. In addition to getting rid of a pair of joint bars and 6 bolts ever 39 feet, you also get rid of the signal bond wires at the joint Whether it is worthwhile here would depend upon many things, not least of which would be the internal condition of the steel and the amount of head wear. Some new, or at least, newer rail would be required, as you lose not less than 3 feet per 39 foot piece by doing this.

Given a relay of the rail, whether with new or used, and a good tie and surfacing job, the maintenance of the line for 79 mph with welded rail should not be more than the maintenance of the lie for 60 mph or even less with jointed rail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How long is it likely to take before BNSF finds that they cannot economically maintain the existing rail to 40 MPH freight standards, and what will they do at that point?
 
Joel N. Weber II said:
How long is it likely to take before BNSF finds that they cannot economically maintain the existing rail to 40 MPH freight standards, and what will they do at that point?
Click to expand...
Hi, VERY good point !! It's like the old '' now what ? '' question. It will be down another notch..say, 25mph trackage....then BNSF will start making noise about petitionning for abandonnements on certain segments, etc.ec.etc.... Seems Boardman & Cop. are simply delaying the inevitable here. The might not be interested to re-route SWC now but what about within 2 years ? It's bound to happen.

Your comment is very relevent.

Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top