I've noticed over the last several months that Amtrak "Southwest Chief" is consistently losing 2-4 hours in both directions east of Alburqurque, particularly over the ABQ-Raton segment. I would not think that freight train interference would be an issue over this line, and that any serious deterioration in track condition would have been reflected in the most recent schedule changes. Other than the occasion horrific timekeeping fall-down in crossing Kansas (especially eastbound), the train seems to hold fairly well to running times across the rest of system (although not making up much of the lost time other than on the padded Bartow-Los Angeles segment on the westbound home stretch). What gives here????
CatFoodFlambet. I would not think that freight train interference would be an issue over this line, and that any serious deterioration
There are no freight trains between Alb. and Raton, NONE. The only possible interference from other trains would be the Road Runner commuter trains which operate from Alb. to a location a few miles east of the I-25 crossing where they then use their own track to Santa Fe.
Heat
I do not recall serious delays in the summers back when the Chiefs and Cap were run by ATSF. And there were some freights back then. Or perhaps this is just more evidence of the harm from Global Warming?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmI do not recall serious delays in the summers back when the Chiefs and Cap were run by ATSF. And there were some freights back then. Or perhaps this is just more evidence of the harm from Global Warming?
With jointed track there was much less possibility of buckled track or sun kinks. The joints allowed a lot of expansion area before enough stress was created to shift the track structure out of line. Welded rail, without all the joints, builds up temperature related stresses when temperatures begin to exceed the 'normalized' temperature that the rail is laid at. In the pre Amtrak world, jointed rail was the norm; today welded rail is the norm.
Welded rail is a technology that has yet to be MASTERED when it comes to responding to high and low temperatures.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD schlimm I do not recall serious delays in the summers back when the Chiefs and Cap were run by ATSF. And there were some freights back then. Or perhaps this is just more evidence of the harm from Global Warming? With jointed track there was much less possibility of buckled track or sun kinks. The joints allowed a lot of expansion area before enough stress was created to shift the track structure out of line. Welded rail, without all the joints, builds up temperature related stresses when temperatures begin to exceed the 'normalized' temperature that the rail is laid at. In the pre Amtrak world, jointed rail was the norm; today welded rail is the norm. Welded rail is a technology that has yet to be MASTERED when it comes to responding to high and low temperatures.
schlimm I do not recall serious delays in the summers back when the Chiefs and Cap were run by ATSF. And there were some freights back then. Or perhaps this is just more evidence of the harm from Global Warming?
The rest of the world has "solved" it. It's called expansion joints.
Buslist BaltACD schlimm With jointed track there was much less possibility of buckled track or sun kinks. The joints allowed a lot of expansion area before enough stress was created to shift the track structure out of line. Welded rail, without all the joints, builds up temperature related stresses when temperatures begin to exceed the 'normalized' temperature that the rail is laid at. In the pre Amtrak world, jointed rail was the norm; today welded rail is the norm. Welded rail is a technology that has yet to be MASTERED when it comes to responding to high and low temperatures. The rest of the world has "solved" it. It's called expansion joints.
BaltACD schlimm With jointed track there was much less possibility of buckled track or sun kinks. The joints allowed a lot of expansion area before enough stress was created to shift the track structure out of line. Welded rail, without all the joints, builds up temperature related stresses when temperatures begin to exceed the 'normalized' temperature that the rail is laid at. In the pre Amtrak world, jointed rail was the norm; today welded rail is the norm. Welded rail is a technology that has yet to be MASTERED when it comes to responding to high and low temperatures.
schlimm
The rest of the world hires people to maintain expansion joints. US carriers don't want the maintenance of expansion joints. US carriers do their best to find technologies that don't require periodic site specific maintenance.
Eastbound on Monday departed Newton at 3:10--thats PM, not AM. Yet another trainload of riders likely never to use the service again.
BaltACD Buslist BaltACD schlimm With jointed track there was much less possibility of buckled track or sun kinks. The joints allowed a lot of expansion area before enough stress was created to shift the track structure out of line. Welded rail, without all the joints, builds up temperature related stresses when temperatures begin to exceed the 'normalized' temperature that the rail is laid at. In the pre Amtrak world, jointed rail was the norm; today welded rail is the norm. Welded rail is a technology that has yet to be MASTERED when it comes to responding to high and low temperatures. The rest of the world has "solved" it. It's called expansion joints. The rest of the world hires people to maintain expansion joints. US carriers don't want the maintenance of expansion joints. US carriers do their best to find technologies that don't require periodic site specific maintenance.
my response was meant to be amusing, that's why the solved was in quotes, my apt. In London was right next to one on the DLR it was anything but quite!
I think the guess that it is heat related is probably correct. I fly-in to Kansas City frequently and it is warmer than Dallas sometimes.......which is really weird.
I have to tell you though being in the hotel across the street from Union Station, UP and BNSF really pump a lot of trains through Kansas City....24 by 7. Sometimes three at a time. Mostly 2 mile long intermodal and coal trains but every once in a while a mixed general merchandise train.
CWR has been around quite awhile. ATSF stated installation (weld in situ) about 1955.
Balt has been trying to get the point across in a pretty clear manner.
Between Trinidad MP 616 and Albuquerque/Hahn MP 902, you have 5-6 track department folks (including two track supervisors/ motor track inspectors), two signalmen and no mechanical people. Since NM welched on the deal to buy the line and Amtrak was not interested in contributing to the pitance they contribute, the "just get by" solution is what you get.
Between the speed restrictions for heat and underpowered trains that can just barely make it over the hills, much less district speed over the flats, you're seeing the results.
There is no more local business between Trinidad and Lamy/Bernalillo. It has always been thin and non-existant after York Canyon (now home to Ted Turner's pet bison), MDF, Lumber and Maloof all quit. The small amount of traffic on the Santa Fe Branch also went away and had been in serious decline for decades. NM made sure to discourage most new industry with their politics. The route is still the fastest way between Chicago and LA if you can handle the grades, but NM ownership of part of the old northern transcon makes it unattractive as well. There is insufficient market for premium fast freight (ATSF and BNSF both tried). NM can rival IL for corrupt, inept and totally dependant on Uncle Sugar. Been that way since Day 1.
Dining Car can remenber when that piece of railroad was hopping and its own Division (Headquartered at Las Vegas). It was still 6-10 trains a day (massive RCE/ Locotrol trains were common) when I was there. One train each way still strikes us as feeling a little weird.
diningcar CatFoodFlambe t. I would not think that freight train interference would be an issue over this line, and that any serious deterioration There are no freight trains between Alb. and Raton, NONE. The only possible interference from other trains would be the Road Runner commuter trains which operate from Alb. to a location a few miles east of the I-25 crossing where they then use their own track to Santa Fe.
CatFoodFlambe t. I would not think that freight train interference would be an issue over this line, and that any serious deterioration
There was (is?) some freight traffic north of Alb. out about as far as the Road Runner jct. Here is an image on Google Earth dated 4/22/17 that caught a switching move. 35°30'14.67"N 106°14'38.72"W
mudchicken Balt has been trying to get the point across in a pretty clear manor. Between Trinidad MP 616 and Albuquerque/Hahn MP 902, you have 5-6 track department folks (including two track supervisors/ motor track inspectors), two signalmen and no mechanical people. Since NM welched on the deal to buy the line and Amtrak was not interested in contributing to the pitance they contribute, the "just get by" solution is what you get. Between the speed restrictions for heat and underpowered trains that can just barely make it over the hills, much less district speed over the flats, you're seeing the results. There is no more local business between Trinidad and Lamy/Bernalillo. It has always been thin and non-existant after York Canyon (now home to Ted Turner's pet bison), MDF, Lumber and Maloof all quit. The small amount of traffic on the Santa Fe Branch also went away and had been in serious decline for decades. NM made sure to discourage most new industry with their politics. The route is still the fastest way between Chicago and LA if you can handle the grades, but NM ownership of part of the old northern transcon makes it unattractive as well. There is insufficient market for premium fast freight (ATSF and BNSF both tried). NM can rival IL for corrupt, inept and totally dependant on Uncle Sugar. Been that way since Day 1. Dining Car can remenber when that piece of railroad was hopping and its own Division (Headquartered at Las Vegas). It was still 6-10 trains a day (massive RCE/ Locotrol trains were common) when I was there. One train each way still strikes us as feeling a little weird.
Balt has been trying to get the point across in a pretty clear manor.
Just seems incredible that BNSF can't route some of its trains over the Raton Pass mainline to help relieve some of the congestion on the Transcon. If you modify some of the bridges you could definitely open up some possibilities for it.
Los Angeles Rams GuyJust seems incredible that BNSF can't route some of its trains over the Raton Pass mainline to help relieve some of the congestion on the Transcon. If you modify some of the bridges you could definitely open up some possibilities for it.
There is a lot more involved in how to route trains over a carriers network than just having track running between B & X. Is there a crew base to support the traffic, will there be tonnage and/or length limits on the trains, will helpers or Distributed Power be required, will the communication equipment on the line support Distributed Power, is the track structure sufficiently maintained to support the intended tonnage, are there track and signal maintenance forces in place to support the wear and tear on the track and signals on a continuing basis. All the questions cost big bucks to answer and for what kind of return on investment.
As Mudchicken has stated, just enough resources have been put into the line to operate the SWC with a degree of safety.
Aren't some of the grades on the Raton line approaching 3% - not the kind of grades you WANT to use to make money on the freight you haul.
There is also a stretch of 4.03% at Morley. 3% is more of the mode type thing.
The crew base on the Raton Sub is gone. Either retired or moved elsewhere. Running the occasional bare table move requires getting people back there or putting qualified (read not many) pilots on board.
Longstanding concern about putting money into the passing sidigs (upgrading light track structure, poorly anchored because of the light rail) if the thing were to ever run serious trains again. The tunnel is OK for clearances, but two/three truss bridges have issues with gusset braces and top diagonal/ cross bracing struts close to or fouling stacks.
It is an operable railroad that requires a better understanding and skill than most places and must be run with respect. The least common denominator can wipe out all the advantages pretty quick.
"Los Angeles Rams Guy" ]ust seems incredible that BNSF can't route some of its trains over the Raton Pass mainline to help relieve some of the congestion on the Transcon. If you modify some of the bridges you could definitely open up some possibilities for it.
The transcon (Southern) is doing quite well -see Fred Frailey's recent blog. There will always be situations like Fred describes (a false positive hot box alert) but there are methods in place to handle them.
It seems so easy for some of us to look at a map, or have a personal bias, and then 'know' that a change would solve perceived problems. Railroading in todays enviornment is a very sofisticated business and BNSF does it well.
This should give you an idea of how severe the northern transcon is. The old Santa Fe refused to even route the old Super C on it even with its massive amount of HP per ton it ran with. Why the grades alone made it enough of issue even for a train that had 7 or more HP a ton. These trains that are run today even with AC lovomotives would have issues running over Raton on a daily basis.
I remember watching a video of the York Canyon coal train going over Raton. The train had to double the hill with three Dash-9's up front and three pushers on each cut. After the train was re-assembled, only two Dash-9's were needed to complete the trip.
This route is not very practical even as a relief route.
As I recall, when my family and I went to Albuquerque in the summer of 1973, a pusher was put on in La Junta to help us up to Raton Pass.
Johnny
mudchicken Balt has been trying to get the point across in a pretty clear manner. Between Trinidad MP 616 and Albuquerque/Hahn MP 902, you have 5-6 track department folks (including two track supervisors/ motor track inspectors), two signalmen and no mechanical people. Since NM welched on the deal to buy the line and Amtrak was not interested in contributing to the pitance they contribute, the "just get by" solution is what you get. Between the speed restrictions for heat and underpowered trains that can just barely make it over the hills, much less district speed over the flats, you're seeing the results. There is no more local business between Trinidad and Lamy/Bernalillo. It has always been thin and non-existant after York Canyon (now home to Ted Turner's pet bison), MDF, Lumber and Maloof all quit. The small amount of traffic on the Santa Fe Branch also went away and had been in serious decline for decades. NM made sure to discourage most new industry with their politics. The route is still the fastest way between Chicago and LA if you can handle the grades, but NM ownership of part of the old northern transcon makes it unattractive as well. There is insufficient market for premium fast freight (ATSF and BNSF both tried). NM can rival IL for corrupt, inept and totally dependant on Uncle Sugar. Been that way since Day 1. Dining Car can remenber when that piece of railroad was hopping and its own Division (Headquartered at Las Vegas). It was still 6-10 trains a day (massive RCE/ Locotrol trains were common) when I was there. One train each way still strikes us as feeling a little weird.
Between, Mudchicken,Diningcar, and BaltACD, I'll leave them the explanations of the various 'technical issues' involving the run over Raton. They obviously have the edge on that expertise.
I would put forward, that in light of all the issues with track, and structure there [lines to and over Raton, and East], the fact that the State of New Mexico had failed to honor[welched on?] its previous commitment to buy that line.
BNSF has elected to take that 'step-child', and with AMTRAK as a contractual tennant; opted to do the barest minimum to maintain a safe, marginal operating environment for AMTRAK, one train a day in each direction. Opting instead, to hold area, and State government's 'feet to the fire' on maintenance issue( Ie: the sum last year spent west of Newton,Ks, that was around$7 million (or so) for improvements (CWR and structural 'enhancements'). That whole project was highlighted by the incident of SWC getting 'knocked off the rails' by that feed truck knocking the new track out of alignment.
At times from the media reports, it seems that the little Kansas does, and the lesser contriubutions by Colorado, and New Mexico, BNSF's side seems to have an insatiable demand for more government money; because AMTRAK is the only user(?). That is their story and they are sticking to it! If they were really in the mood to get rid of the line, they'd bring in a scrapper to operate it, and finish it off, such as almost happened between Memphis and Canton, Ms.? {sarc/added}.
diningcar "Los Angeles Rams Guy" ]ust seems incredible that BNSF can't route some of its trains over the Raton Pass mainline to help relieve some of the congestion on the Transcon. If you modify some of the bridges you could definitely open up some possibilities for it. The transcon (Southern) is doing quite well -see Fred Frailey's recent blog. There will always be situations like Fred describes (a false positive hot box alert) but there are methods in place to handle them. It seems so easy for some of us to look at a map, or have a personal bias, and then 'know' that a change would solve perceived problems. Railroading in todays enviornment is a very sofisticated business and BNSF does it well.
I'm well aware of how well the Transcon is doing in addition to knowing how sophisticated it is to run a railroad these days with my 20+ years experience with both IAIS and CPRS. My point is that it is a doable proposition - IF you had the qualified crews in place and modifications done to necessary bridges as Mudchicken has pointed out. Sadly, that experience has either retired or moved on to other crew districts and if BNSF or someone else ever wants to run meaningful service again over the Raton Pass mainline, it'll be an incredibly tough start-up; no doubt about that at all.
Los Angeles Rams Guy diningcar "Los Angeles Rams Guy" ]ust seems incredible that BNSF can't route some of its trains over the Raton Pass mainline to help relieve some of the congestion on the Transcon. If you modify some of the bridges you could definitely open up some possibilities for it. The transcon (Southern) is doing quite well -see Fred Frailey's recent blog. There will always be situations like Fred describes (a false positive hot box alert) but there are methods in place to handle them. It seems so easy for some of us to look at a map, or have a personal bias, and then 'know' that a change would solve perceived problems. Railroading in todays enviornment is a very sofisticated business and BNSF does it well. I'm well aware of how well the Transcon is doing in addition to knowing how sophisticated it is to run a railroad these days with my 20+ years experience with both IAIS and CPRS. My point is that it is a doable proposition - IF you had the qualified crews in place and modifications done to necessary bridges as Mudchicken has pointed out. Sadly, that experience has either retired or moved on to other crew districts and if BNSF or someone else ever wants to run meaningful service again over the Raton Pass mainline, it'll be an incredibly tough start-up; no doubt about that at all.
Grades kill lines when there are other alternatives. The Raton line has severe grade issues with the kinds of trains the Class 1 carriers want to operate in the 21st Century. NS has had the Saluda Grade shut down for over a decade.
I don't know the exact characteristics of the Southern Transcon vs. Raton; however I suspect what can be handled in a single train on the ST would take at least two if not three trains were it to be handled over Raton. Today's Class 1's are all about maximum tonnage for minimum cost.
CMStPnPI think the guess that it is heat related is probably correct.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
CShaveRR CMStPnP If MC says it, it's much, much more than a guess!With the unprecedented heat they've been having this spring (!) in this area, it's prudent to place speed restrictions on the trains. UP, during a "Level 2" heat restriction (definition not given), limits limits passenger trains (other than commuter trains) to 50 mph. I wouldn't be surprised if BNSF does the same--and a reduction to 50 from 79 or 90 could make a mess of the schedule in a hurry.If they aren't encountering sun-kinks, they might be causing them. If there was track work being done in this area (I'm sure there was when we went through there earlier in the spring, though our delays were because of other factors), the track could be more prone to kinks for a while afterwards. And if one happens, more repairs, more delays.
CMStPnP
If MC says it, it's much, much more than a guess!With the unprecedented heat they've been having this spring (!) in this area, it's prudent to place speed restrictions on the trains. UP, during a "Level 2" heat restriction (definition not given), limits limits passenger trains (other than commuter trains) to 50 mph. I wouldn't be surprised if BNSF does the same--and a reduction to 50 from 79 or 90 could make a mess of the schedule in a hurry.If they aren't encountering sun-kinks, they might be causing them. If there was track work being done in this area (I'm sure there was when we went through there earlier in the spring, though our delays were because of other factors), the track could be more prone to kinks for a while afterwards. And if one happens, more repairs, more delays.
On CSX - if a Tie & Surfacing gang works a segment of track, the track is restricted to 10 MPH until 10-15K tons of traffic pass over it. After that much tonnage the speed is raised to 25 MPH until more tonnage is operated over the track segment. Once the tonnage requirement at 25 MPH is reached then the track will be released to normal track speed. For CSX, passenger trains do not count in the tonnage calculations.
With the Raton line only operating one passenger train each way per day, I have no idea how long speed restrictions behind gangs that disturb the tie and ballast structure of track must remain in place before restoring operations to track speed.
BaltACDOn CSX - if a Tie & Surfacing gang works a segment of track, the track is restricted to 10 MPH until 10-15K tons of traffic pass over it. After that much tonnage the speed is raised to 25 MPH until more tonnage is operated over the track segment.
Viewers of the Rochelle webcam saw that UP has a similar policy, or would seem to, after the diamonds were replaced and the tampers were finished.
ChuckCobleigh BaltACD On CSX - if a Tie & Surfacing gang works a segment of track, the track is restricted to 10 MPH until 10-15K tons of traffic pass over it. After that much tonnage the speed is raised to 25 MPH until more tonnage is operated over the track segment. Viewers of the Rochelle webcam saw that UP has a similar policy, or would seem to, after the diamonds were replaced and the tampers were finished.
BaltACD On CSX - if a Tie & Surfacing gang works a segment of track, the track is restricted to 10 MPH until 10-15K tons of traffic pass over it. After that much tonnage the speed is raised to 25 MPH until more tonnage is operated over the track segment.
There may be FRA regulations regarding this - Mudchicken would know.
It's part of your track management plan, that FRA monitors, especially where you are operating on CWR.
CN, CP, UP, BNSF, KCS and several regionals out here all have similar hot weather policies. (includes additional track patrols and rail neutral temperature mitigation policies going back to the 1990's)
https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L03269
Shadow the Cats owner This should give you an idea of how severe the northern transcon is. The old Santa Fe refused to even route the old Super C on it even with its massive amount of HP per ton it ran with. Why the grades alone made it enough of issue even for a train that had 7 or more HP a ton. These trains that are run today even with AC lovomotives would have issues running over Raton on a daily basis.
West winds in Kansas were severe and steady enough to make the route a good hour to two hours slower than the Transcon - even with Super-C HP ratios that would make track speed over the 3.5 Raton grades. They would have had to add 3-4 units west of KC to keep up track speed most days. Several years ago , TRAINS ran detailed article about a day in the life of the area trainmaster - it required three crews to break up the daily Denver-Barstow and move it over Raton in two sections
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.