What is happening to the SWC route?

[sechs]

Go emote up a tree. And take the bill of goods you are trying to sell with you.

At some point, a moderator is going to decide that you're trolling here. I hope it's soon.

 

[sechs]

I just wanted something clarified: Does BNSF want to completely abandon the current route that the SWC uses, or just downgrade it heavily?

The route between Newton and Pueblo is used for freight trains to Colorado. The route between Pueblo and Las Animas is used for coal trains going to Texas through Amarillo. The track between La Junta and Trinidad is probably going to be abandoned. The track between Trinidad and Lamy would most likely be 'banked' like UP's Tennessee Pass line, for possible future use.

Please refer to this division map: http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/div_ks.pdf

Newton to Las Animas Junction (the La Junta Subdivision) will be maintained for occasional use. They pick up a lot of agricultural products on this line, but that's just a small part of the year and not time-sensitive. So slow moving trains aren't a problem.

Las Animas Junction to La Junta is part of the Boise City Subdivision. That's your coal route to/from Texas.

Except for the section between La Junta and Trinidad (which connects the two parallel routes between Amarillo and Pueblo), there's basically nothing on the Raton Subdivision. It, along with the remnants of the Glorieta Subdivision have been completely suplanted by the Southern Transcon. It's basically just a rarely used alternate route.

 

[sechs]

The mention, alternate of using the UP route, that crosses the Transcon at Vaughn caught my interest. That was the route of the joint Rock Island-Southern Pacific "Golden State" and other trains...I wonder how that line would do as a substitute? I don't think it serves any larger cities, but I guess it's in pretty fair shape as a freight line.....

That assumes that UP wants anything to do with this... which it definitely does not.

As the line appears to miss any major city along the way, the Southern Transcon actually seems like a better choice

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Ridiculous. You want to call BNSF a good corporate citizen for living up to the agreement it made in order to divest itself of passenger operations?

Being good requires going above the requirements of your moral obligations.

 

[William W.]

My general impression is that the freight companies are out to destroy Amtrak, whether it be passively or actively. At the very least, they dislike it and want to see it go. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that their actions seem to support my opinion. The constant dispatching malfeasance, demands for additional payments, and the general hostility all add up to death by a thousand cuts.

 

[the Duck]

All the talk about passenger trains having their on track might make sense after all .But there are some points to remember and one of those is how much ridership is it going to take to pay for the rails and ties? Does crossing 4 times a day or 8 times a day sound about right for every mile of track for 50 years with enough passengers to make a distance economical? What about new technology ie second generation superconducting Maglev?

 

[The Davy Crockett]

What about new technology ie second generation superconducting Maglev?

I think this is getting rather just a wee bit ahead of things... ...The technology needs to be applied in a more populated area first!

 

[Ryan]

That'd be tough to do, given that they've got a contract (through the end of 2015, it seems).

I wouldn't call I-135 an "unlighted, rural highway."

I would

I don't know of what that's a picture.
After passing the interchange with I-235/K-254, I-135 runs through Park City and the outer reaches of Valley Center, and, then, past the remnants of the Hartman Arena and Kansas Colliseum complex, before running about thirteen miles to Newton.

It's a picture of I-135 between Wichita and Newton. I don't see any streetlights, do you? Nor do I see any signs of civilization.

 

[William W.]

All the talk about passenger trains having their on track might make sense after all .But there are some points to remember and one of those is how much ridership is it going to take to pay for the rails and ties? Does crossing 4 times a day or 8 times a day sound about right for every mile of track for 50 years with enough passengers to make a distance economical? What about new technology ie second generation superconducting Maglev?

As I've stated previously, I think that it is a waste of money and resources to make long-distance trains high-speed (meaning 150+ MPH). It would be better to get them up to higher-speed status (110 MPH), and make them more reliable. The better application of true high-speed rail would be corridor and medium-distance inter-city services.

 

[the Duck]

I use to think Maglev was too expensive and for large population only. Until. Until I read a book titled "The Fight For Maglev" by James Powell and Gordon Danby, who are inventors of both 1st and 2nd generation SuperConducting Maglev. Their claim is the infrastructure can be built for about the same dollars as for steel track. Good read.

 

[neroden]

My general impression is that the freight companies are out to destroy Amtrak, whether it be passively or actively. At the very least, they dislike it and want to see it go. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that their actions seem to support my opinion. The constant dispatching malfeasance, demands for additional payments, and the general hostility all add up to death by a thousand cuts.

This has, unfortunately, been true since 1970; as far as I can tell, nobody disputes that; there was severe, fairly open hostility from most of the Class Is to Amtrak, and frankly all passenger service, from the beginning. However, there is actually some evidence that they are slowly becoming less hostile.

When Matt Rose became BNSF CEO, he famously asked why they weren't maintaining their tracks to passenger standards, or running Amtrak on time. Then he told BNSF operations that the cost (to BNSF) of running Amtrak responsibly was far less than the public relations value of doing so. The important thing to remember is that *this was a change* from the openly hostile attitude of the previous CEO.

Certain aged railroad CEOs, including one born in 1944, still seem to have the passenger-hostile attitude of the 1970s. The attitude seems to slowly be going away, though; perhaps as the people in the executive offices get younger.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I use to think Maglev was too expensive and for large population only. Until. Until I read a book titled "The Fight For Maglev" by James Powell and Gordon Danby, who are inventors of both 1st and 2nd generation SuperConducting Maglev. Their claim is the infrastructure can be built for about the same dollars as for steel track. Good read.

Even if the cost of implementation was identical the problem with Maglev would seem to be the cost of powering and maintaining it after it was built. Not to mention that improvements in conventional passenger rail technology have kept steel wheels on steel rails more than fast enough to remain perfectly viable. It is my position that when it comes to passenger rail development in a market with perpetually shrinking budgets keeping costs low is every bit as relevant as keeping speeds up. In my view Maglev has yet to prove it can outpace conventional rail enough to make the added operating cost and complexity worthwhile.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

...It is my position that when it comes to passenger rail development in a market with perpetually shrinking budgets keeping costs low is every bit as relevant as keeping speeds up. In my view Maglev has yet to prove it can outpace conventional rail enough to make the added operating cost and complexity worthwhile.

These points go to the DA!

 

[cirdan]

I use to think Maglev was too expensive and for large population only. Until. Until I read a book titled "The Fight For Maglev" by James Powell and Gordon Danby, who are inventors of both 1st and 2nd generation SuperConducting Maglev. Their claim is the infrastructure can be built for about the same dollars as for steel track. Good read.

I haven't read that book, but I read a report on the German Transrapid project and this report cruelly debunked the claims being advanced by the Transrapid's manufacturers. One salient point looked at the comparison of per passenger energy consumption, a point where the Transrapid manufacturers had consistently claimed to have the lower figure. The report went into the math behind that and found out the Transrapid manufacturers were assuming an airline coach-class style seating density and comparing that with an ICE train with its far more generous seating, restaurant car, business areas etc. It then took an ICE and hypothetically fitted airline seats in airline density to all the cars and it actually came out more efficient than the Transrapid.

 

[sechs]

That'd be tough to do, given that they've got a contract (through the end of 2015, it seems).

I wouldn't call I-135 an "unlighted, rural highway."

I would

I don't know of what that's a picture.
After passing the interchange with I-235/K-254, I-135 runs through Park City and the outer reaches of Valley Center, and, then, past the remnants of the Hartman Arena and Kansas Colliseum complex, before running about thirteen miles to Newton.

It's a picture of I-135 between Wichita and Newton. I don't see any streetlights, do you? Nor do I see any signs of civilization.

I'm sure that I could find a picture of Helena, Montana. You wouldn't assume that the whole state of Montana is a single, giant, thriving metropolis, now would you?