One of the things that really irked me about Amtrak and how it was conceived was the lack of North-South routes in its national system. Sure, there was the short-lived Floridian but, beyond that, nothing in the mid-section of the country save for Chicago - New Orleans. Here are at least two corridors that deserve a look at:
Twin Cities - Kansas City
Billings - Cheyenne - Denver - Colorado Springs/Pueblo (to hook up with SWC at Trinidad/La Junta
Thoughts?
A question: how much passenger traffic was there on each of the routes named in 1970? The people who planned the routes looked at the traffic on many routes.
Johnny
Deggesty A question: how much passenger traffic was there on each of the routes named in 1970? The people who planned the routes looked at the traffic on many routes.
Shouldn't the question be: how much traffic is there today on north-south routes?
The I-35 corridor is busy enough, one would think, covering Duluth - Minneapolis/St Paul - Des Moines - Kansas City - Wichita - Oklahoma City - Dallas/Ft Worth - Austin - San Antonio. I'd like to at least see corridor trains on sections of that stretch. Dallas - OKC of course already has Amtrak service.
It would also seem to make sense to run passenger service along the front range in Colorado, something like Cheyenne - Fort Collins - Denver - Colorado Springs - Pueblo - La Junta or Trinidad to connect with the Southwest Chief.
Still a big proponent on Dallas to Denver. When that was run by the private sector there was quite the traffic for ski specials to Denver from both Houston and Dallas.
CMStPnP Still a big proponent on Dallas to Denver. When that was run by the private sector there was quite the traffic for ski specials to Denver from both Houston and Dallas.
CSSHEGEWISCHWhen you consider that the "Texas Zephyr" was discontinued by 1968, I'm not sure that a rail market for that route exists any more.
It was abandoned in Sept 1967 due to loss of the mail contract. The train had sleeping and full dining car service to the very end along with several coaches I believe. I have seen an older picture of one of the ski specials at approx 12-13 cars led by two back to back E units but no idea on the date. SWOPE SKI SPECIAL on the side of the train it said. No idea who SWOPE is. I believe the ski train originated in Houston via Dallas on the way to Denver.....if that helps.
The Texas Zephyr was popular in Dallas because of it's look and schedule.
http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/texzephyr196009.html
I'd like to bring back some sort of Floridian to give Louisville and Nashville Amtrak service. I'd also like it to go through Atlanta although there are a lot of problems down there. I also think there needs to be Chicago to Houston service like the old Lone Star (or bring back the Houston leg of the Texas Eagle which would provide Dallas-Houston train service via College Station giving Texas A&M students a train to/from home). I'd also like to see service from the NEC to Texas.
The Texas Eagle is essentially a north/south train, although southbound it is slanting to the west. Northbound it is slanting to the east.
Oklahoma City to Fort Worth is pretty much a north/south route. Dallas to Fort Worth, however, is an east/west route.
According to TXDOT the I-35 corridor from DFW to San Antonio is the most densely populated corridor in Texas. In addition to the anchor cities, it has significant potential passenger rail markets in Waco, Temple, Round Rock, Austin, and San Marcos.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
North South routes in the east are not very speedy except the CNO or the Silver service trains. Any train between those routes suffers from the glacier mountains that are close together without many gaps to traverse.
yes the routes are available but either slow or very expensive to build HrSR lines.
Philly Amtrak Fan I'd like to bring back some sort of Floridian to give Louisville and Nashville Amtrak service. I'd also like it to go through Atlanta although there are a lot of problems down there. I also think there needs to be Chicago to Houston service like the old Lone Star (or bring back the Houston leg of the Texas Eagle which would provide Dallas-Houston train service via College Station giving Texas A&M students a train to/from home). I'd also like to see service from the NEC to Texas.
They do need to bring back Chicago to Florida somehow, that is still a big market.
They attempted to start the Meridian MS to Dallas, TX (Southern Crescent extension) in several variants, last being just a truncated Dallas to Shreveport, LA train sponsored by Casinos. Everyone in Dallas likes the proposal and they like it in Louisiana as well but once you start talking about money, the enthusiasm disappears.
I think the Dallas to Houston service is probably not going to happen until the HSR proposal in place now falls apart.
JPS1Oklahoma City to Fort Worth is pretty much a north/south route. Dallas to Fort Worth, however, is an east/west route.
They will either abandon that completely or extend it to Kansas City. It's not going to stay static too much longer. Amtrak favors heavily replacing the bus North from OKC to Newton, KS with a train. OK is behind that idea as well but needs to scrape up the funds. If I had to rate chances of it happening I would say now 50% extension to KC and 50% total abandonment of the train. Future direction is entirely in Oklahoma's hands with their budget. Texas is not paying any more for the train and they made that clear.
Amtrak needs more money and New Cars order of Superliners cars and more Viewliners cars too. Amtrak does not have cars to put any new LD trains on right Now. Maybe Wick can put New Order of Cars after Nov. See who gets into Office in D.C.
CMStPnP CSSHEGEWISCH When you consider that the "Texas Zephyr" was discontinued by 1968, I'm not sure that a rail market for that route exists any more. It was abandoned in Sept 1967 due to loss of the mail contract. The train had sleeping and full dining car service to the very end along with several coaches I believe. I have seen an older picture of one of the ski specials at approx 12-13 cars led by two back to back E units but no idea on the date. SWOPE SKI SPECIAL on the side of the train it said. No idea who SWOPE is. I believe the ski train originated in Houston via Dallas on the way to Denver.....if that helps. The Texas Zephyr was popular in Dallas because of it's look and schedule. http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/texzephyr196009.html
CSSHEGEWISCH When you consider that the "Texas Zephyr" was discontinued by 1968, I'm not sure that a rail market for that route exists any more.
Of course in those days you didn't have numerous PRB coal trains grinding up and down Monument Hill (3000' above Pueblo, 2000 above Denver) @ 20 MPH. I don't think passenger trains sandwiched in there as automobiles on parallel I25 are zipping along at 75 would be very popular.
Trains ran an item a number of years ago written by an engineer on the Denver Pueblo crew district. He went on about how boring the 20mph assent of Monument is, I suspect passengers that aren't being paid to ride wouldn't feel better about it.
And that abandonment because of loss of mail contract meant that the train was not drawing enough passengers to survive on its own, unlike other CB&Q trains of that era.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BuslistOf course in those days you didn't have numerous PRB coal trains grinding up and down Monument Hill (3000' above Pueblo, 2000 above Denver) @ 20 MPH. I don't think passenger trains sandwiched in there as automobiles on parallel I25 are zipping along at 75 would be very popular. Trains ran an item a number of years ago written by an engineer on the Denver Pueblo crew district. He went on about how boring the 20mph assent of Monument is, I suspect passengers that aren't being paid to ride wouldn't feel better about it. Add
I keep hearing this over and over again like a broken record on the Trains Magazine forums, yet.........
You can look at a tonnage rail map of the United States and see that freight traffic on the line is not a huge monolithic issue. It's a medium density usage line at best. In fact the traffic on the California Zephyr line from Chicago to Omaha is more than twice as heavy. Same deal with the Southwest Chief line Chicago to LA as well as most of the Empire Builder line.
BNSF is launching high speed intermodal service on the line it just announced. What do you think those trains are going to do on the same trackage? I think if line capacity were an issue, BNSF would not make the public announcement before launching that service or implying it might also up the frequency if the business is there? BNSF even went so far to say in their press release that the speed the trains will achieve on this line is what clinched the deal as the speed will be slightly better than if someone drove the route with an OTR Truck. So it reads to me that traffic from Denver to Dallas is still not an issue on this line.
schlimmAnd that abandonment because of loss of mail contract meant that the train was not drawing enough passengers to survive on its own, unlike other CB&Q trains of that era.
What trains were drawing enough passengers without the mail contract? Just curious. Certainly Soo Line wasn't but it maintained it's passenger service via cabooses to the Northwoods of Wisconsin and UP, years and years after Amtrak was formed. Survival or Lack of Survival of a train past 1965, I don't think meant much. Look at how many people on here argue the CZ was profitable. Yet you have the full story told by railway executives themselves right on Amazon Video for anyone to watch or see. It hemmoraged money and long before it was yanked.
CMStPnP Buslist Of course in those days you didn't have numerous PRB coal trains grinding up and down Monument Hill (3000' above Pueblo, 2000 above Denver) @ 20 MPH. I don't think passenger trains sandwiched in there as automobiles on parallel I25 are zipping along at 75 would be very popular. Trains ran an item a number of years ago written by an engineer on the Denver Pueblo crew district. He went on about how boring the 20mph assent of Monument is, I suspect passengers that aren't being paid to ride wouldn't feel better about it. Add You can look at a tonnage rail map of the United States and see that freight traffic on the line is not a huge monolithic issue. It's a medium density usage line at best.
Buslist Of course in those days you didn't have numerous PRB coal trains grinding up and down Monument Hill (3000' above Pueblo, 2000 above Denver) @ 20 MPH. I don't think passenger trains sandwiched in there as automobiles on parallel I25 are zipping along at 75 would be very popular. Trains ran an item a number of years ago written by an engineer on the Denver Pueblo crew district. He went on about how boring the 20mph assent of Monument is, I suspect passengers that aren't being paid to ride wouldn't feel better about it. Add
You can look at a tonnage rail map of the United States and see that freight traffic on the line is not a huge monolithic issue. It's a medium density usage line at best.
Of course what you seem to overlook is that density is only half the capacity equation. Capacity is theoretical density times speed. (Trains/mile [function of signal system and track arrangement] X miles/hour [function of gradient, curvature, HP/ton] = trains/hour) Therefore even a medium density line has lower capacity if speed is low, which it is in this case. Have you ever been out there and observed trains? Maybe all those posters know something. I've participated in the tests of the original AC units on the hill so I've seen it up close and personal. Up until the advent of locotroled AC units this was a maned helper operation. UP was even running midtrain and reared locotrol units for a while. Nice to make claims from a distance but those familiar with it don't agree.
And what do we do with the widely separated north and southbound tracks south of Pueblo? Do we serve LaJunta southbound only and Trinidad northbound only. Or do we run against the current of traffic in one direction?
The State of Colorado has repeatedly looked at Denver/Pueblo service but has rejected it as non competitive.
Nothing on BNSF's intermodal planning site about a Denver Dallas lane coming that I could find, maybe an outdated browser. I would think a Denver LA service via ABQ would have far greater demand.
BuslistOf course what you seem to overlook is that density is only half the capacity equation. Capacity is theoretical density times speed. (Trains/mile [function of signal system and track arrangement] X miles/hour [function of gradient, curvature, HP/ton] = trains/hour) Therefore even a medium density line has lower capacity if speed is low, which it is in this case. Have you ever been out there and observed trains? Maybe all those posters know something. I've participated in the tests of the original AC units on the hill so I've seen it up close and personal. Up until the advent of locotroled AC units this was a maned helper operation. UP was even running midtrain and reared locotrol units for a while. Nice to make claims from a distance but those familiar with it don't agree. And what do we do with the widely separated north and southbound tracks south of Pueblo? Do we serve LaJunta southbound only and Trinidad northbound only. Or do we run against the current of traffic in one direction? The State of Colorado has repeatedly looked at Denver/Pueblo service but has rejected it as non competitive. Nothing on BNSF's intermodal planning site about a Denver Dallas lane coming that I could find, maybe an outdated browser. I would think a Denver LA service via ABQ would have far greater demand.
I'll answer this as I did in the past. When I hear from a Railroad Executive the line is at or near capacity I will believe it. Anyone else, highly likely.......clueless.
From the recent issue of Trains Magazine which I presume you read:
"In September, BNSF Railway launched new, faster service between the Pacific Northwest and Texas via Denver. Trains linking Portland, Ore and Seattle with Dallas-Fort Worth are two days faster than previous rail transit times and are comparable in speed to single driver OTR options.....BNSF says......"
You just better get on that phone ASAP and call the CEO of BNSF and tell him he has it all wrong. His line is at capacity and cannot handle higher speed trains. Make sure you record the phone conversation and attach it to your next post please.....heh-heh.
CMStPnP You can look at a tonnage rail map of the United States and see that freight traffic on the line is not a huge monolithic issue. It's a medium density usage line at best.
Your tonnage map is irrelevent. As pointed out by Buslist, in far better terms than I could, there is far more to this than looking at a Trains map.
I can attest to having thorough knowledge of a line that would show up as a light density line on your little map. Getting the two Amtrak trains that run over it is a daily struggle, not due to the amount of traffic, but the configuration of the line.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944Your tonnage map is irrelevent. As pointed out by Buslist, in far better terms than I could, there is far more to this than looking at a Trains map. I can attest to having thorough knowledge of a line that would show up as a light density line on your little map. Getting the two Amtrak trains that run over it is a daily struggle, not due to the amount of traffic, but the configuration of the line.
Make sure you join Buslist on the conference call and let BNSF know they are totally crazy to add higher speed intermodal to the line. It's only been operating for a month now, apparently in stealth mode since it hasn't been spotted by Buslist yet......and he watches the line.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160901006348/en/BNSF-Launches-Faster-Intermodal-Service-Pacific-Northwest
Please note the comment from BNSF about UNDERUTILIZED CAPACITY.
CMStPnP schlimm And that abandonment because of loss of mail contract meant that the train was not drawing enough passengers to survive on its own, unlike other CB&Q trains of that era. What trains were drawing enough passengers without the mail contract? Just curious. Certainly Soo Line wasn't but it maintained it's passenger service via cabooses to the Northwoods of Wisconsin and UP, years and years after Amtrak was formed. Survival or Lack of Survival of a train past 1965, I don't think meant much. Look at how many people on here argue the CZ was profitable. Yet you have the full story told by railway executives themselves right on Amazon Video for anyone to watch or see. It hemmoraged money and long before it was yanked.
schlimm And that abandonment because of loss of mail contract meant that the train was not drawing enough passengers to survive on its own, unlike other CB&Q trains of that era.
I fail to see your point. No matter what others post, you disagree. My post above was not a repudiation of yours, just a clarification. Of the many passenger trains still operating when Amtrak took over, some were operated because the marginal revenue contribtion was a plus. This was especially true if GAAP numbers were used internally, as contrasted with ICC rules.
schlimmNo matter what others post, you disagree.
No, just throwing a BS flag on an oft stated claim a specific line cannot handle a passenger train because there is not enough capacity or space or due to directional running or slow moving coal trains, or steep grades, or whatever. I said this in other threads as well. Give me the proof of the capacity issue from the railroad that owns the line and I'll back down.
schlimmOf the many passenger trains still operating when Amtrak took over, some were operated because the marginal revenue contribtion was a plus. This was especially true if GAAP numbers were used internally, as contrasted with ICC rules.
OK and here all I asked for was a specific CB&Q train as an example that met that criteria in May of 1971. I am curious which one or ones it was.
CMStPnP No, just throwing a BS flag on an oft stated claim a specific line cannot handle a passenger train because there is not enough capacity or space or due to directional running or slow moving coal trains, or steep grades, or whatever. I said this in other threads as well. Give me the proof of the capacity issue from the railroad that owns the line and I'll back down.
Depending upon line configuration, a line can be capacity constrined with a train in each direction daily - freight or passenger.
I manage subdivisions where trains cannot be called through terminals based on their time figures arriving the terminal - they can only be called through the terminal based upon the location of opposing traffic.
I have no idea if a similar situation may exist on lines that are under discussion. They do exist and in many more places than those on the outside of the industry would expect. The plant rationalization mantra of the 80's and early 90's bit hard and deep on many carriers. The physical plant that existed when the private carriers operated their own passenger trains no longer exist in that form - in many cases the physical plant no longer exists PERIOD.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD I manage subdivisions where trains cannot be called through terminals based on their time figures arriving the terminal - they can only be called through the terminal based upon the location of opposing traffic. I have no idea if a similar situation may exist on lines that are under discussion. They do exist and in many more places than those on the outside of the industry would expect. The plant rationalization mantra of the 80's and early 90's bit hard and deep on many carriers. The physical plant that existed when the private carriers operated their own passenger trains no longer exist in that form - in many cases the physical plant no longer exists PERIOD.
blue streak 1 BaltACD I manage subdivisions where trains cannot be called through terminals based on their time figures arriving the terminal - they can only be called through the terminal based upon the location of opposing traffic. I have no idea if a similar situation may exist on lines that are under discussion. They do exist and in many more places than those on the outside of the industry would expect. The plant rationalization mantra of the 80's and early 90's bit hard and deep on many carriers. The physical plant that existed when the private carriers operated their own passenger trains no longer exist in that form - in many cases the physical plant no longer exists PERIOD. Just a WAG but would think WASH - Richmond and the BBrRR for east bound Cardinals would fall in that category..
Can't call empty coal cars West from Doswell on the BB at certain times on passenger days. DC to Richmond is 2 & 3 tracks all the way. BB Richmond to Charlottesville and beyond is (I believe) dark single track.
Is there a connection between the former C&O and former RF&P at Doswell (once called Hanover Junction, I believe)?
CMStPnP schlimm No matter what others post, you disagree. No, just throwing a BS flag on an oft stated claim a specific line cannot handle a passenger train because there is not enough capacity or space or due to directional running or slow moving coal trains, or steep grades, or whatever. I said this in other threads as well. Give me the proof of the capacity issue from the railroad that owns the line and I'll back down. schlimm Of the many passenger trains still operating when Amtrak took over, some were operated because the marginal revenue contribtion was a plus. This was especially true if GAAP numbers were used internally, as contrasted with ICC rules. OK and here all I asked for was a specific CB&Q train as an example that met that criteria in May of 1971. I am curious which one or ones it was.
schlimm No matter what others post, you disagree.
schlimm Of the many passenger trains still operating when Amtrak took over, some were operated because the marginal revenue contribtion was a plus. This was especially true if GAAP numbers were used internally, as contrasted with ICC rules.
Rails applied to the ICC to abandon trains that were both 1. running a large loss, by any measure, and 2. provided no other benefits. I suggest you look to see which trains the CB&Q applied for.
DeggestyIs there a connection between the former C&O and former RF&P at Doswell (once called Hanover Junction, I believe)?
At Doswell there are two connections between BB (former CSX Piedmont Sub) and CSX (former RF&P). From the former RF&P #4 track SB (now referred to as the siding - it will clear a empty hopper train of 100 cars & 2 units - not 101 or higher) to BB Main WB. Also between the BB Main EB and RF&P #3 Main SB (known as the C&O connection). Both connections are on the West side of the RF&P Mains (#2 East track and #3 West track)
The Control Point at Doswell is controlled by the CSX BD Dispatcher, including signals across the diamond.
CMStPnP n012944 Your tonnage map is irrelevent. As pointed out by Buslist, in far better terms than I could, there is far more to this than looking at a Trains map. I can attest to having thorough knowledge of a line that would show up as a light density line on your little map. Getting the two Amtrak trains that run over it is a daily struggle, not due to the amount of traffic, but the configuration of the line. Make sure you join Buslist on the conference call and let BNSF know they are totally crazy to add higher speed intermodal to the line. It's only been operating for a month now, apparently in stealth mode since it hasn't been spotted by Buslist yet......and he watches the line. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160901006348/en/BNSF-Launches-Faster-Intermodal-Service-Pacific-Northwest Please note the comment from BNSF about UNDERUTILIZED CAPACITY.
n012944 Your tonnage map is irrelevent. As pointed out by Buslist, in far better terms than I could, there is far more to this than looking at a Trains map. I can attest to having thorough knowledge of a line that would show up as a light density line on your little map. Getting the two Amtrak trains that run over it is a daily struggle, not due to the amount of traffic, but the configuration of the line.
Where did I say anything specific about the line in question? I guess you still haven't mastered reading comprehension, as my post was in regarding to using a tonnage map to determine capacity. It also touched on my experienced with operations on a light tonnage line that hosted Amtrak. I look foward to hearing about you experience with railroad operations...Oh wait, never mind.
But since you want to discuss the line in question, please tell me how they are adding "higher speed" intermodals to the line. Here is the list of speeds out of the BNSF's timetable for the joint line:
"1. Speed Regulations 1(A). Speed—Maximum
Freight
MP 0.0 to MP 1.5 ........................................................................ 20 MPH.MP 1.5 to MP 4.5 ........................................................................ 30 MPH. MP 4.5 to MP 84.4 ...................................................................... 45 MPH. MP 84.4 to MP 108.6, MT1 ........................................................ 55 MPH.* MP 84.4 to MP 108.8, MT2 ........................................................ 50 MPH.* MP 108.6 to MP 118.4, MT1 ...................................................... 55 MPH.* MP 118.3 to MP 118.8, MT1 ....................................................... 20 MPH. MP 118.8 to MP 120.4, MT1 ....................................................... 15 MPH. MP 108.8 to MP 115.0, MT2 ...................................................... 50 MPH.* MP 115.0 to MP 118.2, MT2 ....................................................... 45 MPH. North Pueblo Highline, arriving and departing ............................ 10 MPH. MP 52.0 to MP 12.2, Main 1 against the current of traffic ............ 45 MPH. MP 12.2 to MP 52.0, Main 2 against the current of traffic ............ 45 MPH.
* The maximum speed for freight trains is 45 MPH when:
Train exceeds 10,000 feet; or
Train averages 100 TOB or more.
On descending grade between Palmer Lake and MP 61.4, the following table must be used to determine the maximum speed taking into account freight trains TOB and tons per axle of operative dynamic brake:
A train that exceeds the above table, one that experiences dynamic brake failure, or if the use of full dynamic brakes and a ** 15 ** pound brake pipe reduction will not control the train at the allowable speed, the train must be stopped and sufficient hand brakes set to prevent movement. The train must not proceed until additional dynamic braking is obtained, tonnage reduced, or retainers on all cars placed in operative position. The train must not proceed except as instructed by a road foreman of engines or other proper authority.
On descending grade between Palmer Lake and MP 41.0 on the northward track, the following table must be used to determine the maximum speed, taking into account freight train’s tons per operative brake (TOB) and tons per axle of operative dynamic brake. "
There is not a serperate speed for intermodal, so your new "higher speed" intermodal trains will operate at same speed as other freight traffic. I understand, since you seem to struggle with reading comprehension, how the headline confused you. However the faster intermodal service is from a shorter route.
n012944 I guess you still haven't mastered reading comprehension, as my post was in regarding to using a tonnage map to determine capacity. It also touched on my experienced with operations on a light tonnage line that hosted Amtrak.
n012944There is not a serperate speed for intermodal, so your new "higher speed" intermodal trains will operate at same speed as other freight traffic. I understand, since you seem to struggle with reading comprehension, how the headline confused you. However the faster intermodal service is from a shorter route.
Your post gives valuable info. So why spoil it with the cheap shots? Your shots are especially ironic given your struggles (recent examples above) with spelling and syntax.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.