Does the UP then rout Denver -LA intermodal via Sherman Hill, Ogden, and then Salt Lake City? Or is it singnle-level stuff via the Moffat?
If the firstm is it a dedicated stack train? Each way?
Still seems wasteful to me to maintain two Colorado to Illinois prairie routings for two different LD trains instead of attempting consolidation. I don't think thats good management. Pick one or the other for both the CZ and Southwest Chief and combine the two to Denver.
CMStPnP Still seems wasteful to me to maintain two Colorado to Illinois prairie routings for two different LD trains instead of attempting consolidation. I don't think thats good management. Pick one or the other for both the CZ and Southwest Chief and combine the two to Denver.
The two trains serve different corridors, CZ serves Omaha/Lincoln and smaller NE & IA towns, SWC serves Kansas City/Topeka and smaller KS and CO towns. The two trains don't come within 150 miles of each other in Colorado. To combine the two at Denver would mean using the Pueblo Joint Line which has been congested for many years, and precluded Colorado from considering it for a Front Range corridor. Should these two present trains also serving Illinois to California be considered wasteful duplication?
MidlandMike CMStPnP Still seems wasteful to me to maintain two Colorado to Illinois prairie routings for two different LD trains instead of attempting consolidation. I don't think thats good management. Pick one or the other for both the CZ and Southwest Chief and combine the two to Denver. The two trains serve different corridors, CZ serves Omaha/Lincoln and smaller NE & IA towns, SWC serves Kansas City/Topeka and smaller KS and CO towns. The two trains don't come within 150 miles of each other in Colorado. To combine the two at Denver would mean using the Pueblo Joint Line which has been congested for many years, and precluded Colorado from considering it for a Front Range corridor. Should these two present trains also serving Illinois to California be considered wasteful duplication?
Not gonna happen anytime soon, even if the mismanagement and broken agreements in NM continue.
While Pueblo would like the train, they have options that many of the smaller communities do not and Colorado Springs/Denver are not that far away.
MidlandMikeThe two trains serve different corridors, CZ serves Omaha/Lincoln and smaller NE & IA towns, SWC serves Kansas City/Topeka and smaller KS and CO towns. The two trains don't come within 150 miles of each other in Colorado. To combine the two at Denver would mean using the Pueblo Joint Line which has been congested for many years, and precluded Colorado from considering it for a Front Range corridor. Should these two present trains also serving Illinois to California be considered wasteful duplication?
I know how emotional railfans can get in these forums about potential changes in the National Amtrak LD network. Just to be clear, however, the presumption in this thread that the Joint Line South of Denver can't handle an additional passenger train in each direction has never been supported by BNSF Railway.
Congestion on the Joint Line does not seem to be an issue for adding one passenger train a day in either direction via BNSF. As part of Amtrak's proposal for rerouting the Chief via Amarillo they also proposed on the side to Texas potentially adding a long desired Ft. Worth to Denver train that would use the joint line and interchange passengers at Amarillo with the rerouted Southwest Chief (2012-2013 about). Unless I am mistaken there is only one rail route that BNSF uses between Amarillo and Denver. Texas was not all that interested because of the financial viability of the train could not be determined. Additionally, there have been on and off talks over the years of adding a Ft. Worth to Denver train with BNSF and Amtrak va TXARP and BNSF never once mentioned capacity concerns on the joint line in Colorado. BNSF is fairly neutral on the idea of just adding one train from what I have read. Now you might have an issue of adding several trains and making it a passenger train corridor but in my view they could care less about one more train in either direction. An additional train would increase options for those that live in Denver and use Denver Union Station.
So having said that, seems ridiculous to have what amounts to four trains across desolate middle America with both the routes of the Southwest Chief and California Zephyr so close together between Illinois and Colorado. Seems to me one of them should be moved or relocated further apart or else combined together. If pulled further apart..........you could probably make a decent case for cancellation of the Sunset Limited West of El Paso or possibly West of San Antonio.
Ridership at those KS stations on SWC:
2015 Boardings + Alightings
Dodge City 5,048
Garden City 7,972
Hutchinson 4,925
Lawrence 8,319
Newton 13,010
Topeka 10,399
Total: 49,673
In NB, it's mostly Omaha and Lincoln:
Hastings 5,433
Holdrege 2,345
Lincoln 15,384
McCook 3,342
Omaha 26,797
Total: 53,301
In Iowa it is similar:
Burlington 9,329
Creston 5,017
Fort Madison 6,788
Mount Pleasant 11,644
Osceola 13,775
Ottumwa 11,058
Total: 57,611
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CMStPnP MidlandMike The two trains serve different corridors, CZ serves Omaha/Lincoln and smaller NE & IA towns, SWC serves Kansas City/Topeka and smaller KS and CO towns. The two trains don't come within 150 miles of each other in Colorado. To combine the two at Denver would mean using the Pueblo Joint Line which has been congested for many years, and precluded Colorado from considering it for a Front Range corridor. Should these two present trains also serving Illinois to California be considered wasteful duplication? I know how emotional railfans can get in these forums about potential changes in the National Amtrak LD network. Just to be clear, however, the presumption in this thread that the Joint Line South of Denver can't handle an additional passenger train in each direction has never been supported by BNSF Railway. Congestion on the Joint Line does not seem to be an issue for adding one passenger train a day in either direction via BNSF. As part of Amtrak's proposal for rerouting the Chief via Amarillo they also proposed on the side to Texas potentially adding a long desired Ft. Worth to Denver train that would use the joint line and interchange passengers at Amarillo with the rerouted Southwest Chief (2012-2013 about). Unless I am mistaken there is only one rail route that BNSF uses between Amarillo and Denver. Texas was not all that interested because of the financial viability of the train could not be determined. Additionally, there have been on and off talks over the years of adding a Ft. Worth to Denver train with BNSF and Amtrak va TXARP and BNSF never once mentioned capacity concerns on the joint line in Colorado. BNSF is fairly neutral on the idea of just adding one train from what I have read. Now you might have an issue of adding several trains and making it a passenger train corridor but in my view they could care less about one more train in either direction. An additional train would increase options for those that live in Denver and use Denver Union Station. So having said that, seems ridiculous to have what amounts to four trains across desolate middle America with both the routes of the Southwest Chief and California Zephyr so close together between Illinois and Colorado. Seems to me one of them should be moved or relocated further apart or else combined together. If pulled further apart..........you could probably make a decent case for cancellation of the Sunset Limited West of El Paso or possibly West of San Antonio.
MidlandMike The two trains serve different corridors, CZ serves Omaha/Lincoln and smaller NE & IA towns, SWC serves Kansas City/Topeka and smaller KS and CO towns. The two trains don't come within 150 miles of each other in Colorado. To combine the two at Denver would mean using the Pueblo Joint Line which has been congested for many years, and precluded Colorado from considering it for a Front Range corridor. Should these two present trains also serving Illinois to California be considered wasteful duplication?
I'll just reiterate what Mudchicken said - not gonna happen. I WOULD, on the other hand, definitely advocate service on the Joint Line from at least Denver down to Trinidad and/or La Junta to connect with SWC service. With I-25 being the madhouse that it is - particularly between Denver and Colorado Springs - this has been something that has been needed for a long, long time.
Los Angeles Rams GuyI'll just reiterate what Mudchicken said - not gonna happen. I WOULD, on the other hand, definitely advocate service on the Joint Line from at least Denver down to Trinidad and/or La Junta to connect with SWC service. With I-25 being the madhouse that it is - particularly between Denver and Colorado Springs - this has been something that has been needed for a long, long time.
Well I discount what I read in these forums and listen to what the operating railroad says or doesn't say. Texas is not going to pay for the train and it was more of a push in 2001 than it was in 2012-2013. So it is currently dead in the water.
The proposal for a through train after SWC reroute was proposed intersecting with the SWC at Amarillo was to boost SWC ridership by providing both Denver and Ft. Worth as secondary options over it's current route. Additionally, if you look at the Amarillo Depot from Google Earth, trackwise it is setup to handle two intersecting passenger trains on two intersecting lines at the same arrival time and the depot is in good shape (which added to the theory this might be a good idea). Terminating in La Junta might produce similar results with SWC ridership but is also not really near an Engine Terminal Facility with a yard to store or service the train. I think those two items weigh heavily on Amtrak's deciding on a trains terminal but I could be wrong.
Rather than argue for any logical reason as to why you don't think the two corridors are viable, you simply try to trivialize it as the musings of "emotional railfans". Do you give any reasons for combining trains, other than that's the way you feel.
I don't know what BNSF has said about their support, or lack of, for more passenger trains on the Joint line. But I do know that they supported building of an alternative freight line to the east of the joint line. UP's lack of interest seems to have killed the proposed line. Maybe BNSF would be OK if the passenger lines re-installed the second track in the Colorado Springs area. They also said they would support the re-route of the SWC to the Transcon... for $100 million.
There are two BNSF (UP has track rights) lines between Amarillo and Pueblo (ex-C&S and ex-ATSF) that are operated as paired directional lines.
The "desolate middle America" that the CZ and SWC cross contain Omaha with a metro area population approaching a million, and KC with a metro area over 2 million. You also have not produced any costs comparisons. While the CHI-DEN combined portion would save engineer(s), there would be still be the rest of the individual crews on both sections, with added costs for the increased distance LA section crew and fuel, plus switching costs at Denver. If the extra time causes the LA section to miss their turn-around, then you will have to add a number of extra train consists to cover the schedule. Not to mention loss of passengers who don't want to take a meandering trek to LA.
Midland: Doubletrack from Palmer Lake to Crews through Colorado Springs would be a major effort, considering how bad the city of Colorado Springs (and to a lesser extent Colorado Springs ) considering how bad the City welched on the 1978 agreement (UP, BNSF and PUC all have a bad taste left in their mouths after that fiasco.)
FRA/USDOT just spent a major TIGER grant $$$ on laying 136CWR between Dodge City & Syracuse/Coolidge to replace old 132# Jtd from 1954. The Colorado side of the line between Holly and Las Animas is next. With that investment, re-routing through Texas is not likely for many years.
The front range bypass proposal has been "out there" for decades and is hardly a new thing. (where the Highway bubbas are trying to put it is about as big an issue as Uncle Pete's reluctance to buy-in...Everybody forgot about Kansas Pacific's Arkansas Valley Ry. experience along with the different conditions (read unstable subgrade / loess) out there today that UP has experienced between Limon and Kit Carson.)
MC, I noticed on Google Earth that the present line thru the city area of Colorado Springs appears as double track, and the old ROW south of CS appears intact ajacent to the present line. I would imagine the hard part would be north of CS. If a passenger agency was paying for the second track, they would prefer double track (for station convenience), rather than the grade seperated old AT&SF ROW. I am not optomistic that this will come to pass.
North of Roswell (CRIP Junction from the east) has been the source of most of the friction. Downtown Springs has historically been a 2MT operation ( 3 in places where you add-in the old CRIP main)... A healthy portion of the empty old ATSF main track berm to the south now has a water main in it.
Soooooooooo, again to me reads like no issue with adding a Front Range Passenger Train..........
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/07/08-amtrak-releases-southwest-chief-pueblo-extension-report
If your not a TRAINS subscriber, the above links states that the Amtrak study of extending the SWC to Pueblo from La Junta via the use of through cars and a stub train has been completed and would add revenue to the run (stated in the linked article above). CO ARP states the longer-term goal is to get that train to run farther North on the Joint Line.
Lets see how BNSF and UP respond but their response will likely indicate what the sensitivity is of adding just one more passenger train on the line. First to Pueblo, then to Denver. I don't think either one of them care for a single train. We shall find out soon enough.
CMStPnP Soooooooooo, again to me reads like no issue with adding a Front Range Passenger Train.......... http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2016/07/08-amtrak-releases-southwest-chief-pueblo-extension-report If your not a TRAINS subscriber, the above links states that the Amtrak study of extending the SWC to Pueblo from La Junta via the use of through cars and a stub train has been completed and would add revenue to the run (stated in the linked article above). CO ARP states the longer-term goal is to get that train to run farther North on the Joint Line. Lets see how BNSF and UP respond but their response will likely indicate what the sensitivity is of adding just one more passenger train on the line. First to Pueblo, then to Denver. I don't think either one of them care for a single train. We shall find out soon enough.
Amtrak does a preliminary study on a less busy segment of your proposed reroute, so you think this applies all the way to Denver? I say the ATK study is preliminary because "the study makes no attempt at this time to quantify operating, switching, labor, or infrastructure costs" or whether BNSF or UP would agree, and for how much $. The entire Pueblo diversion is over paired directional track, and each trip would mean half the time they would be going against direction of flow. There is also no mention of now much might be lost from present passengers who don't want to endure the round-about delay. It appears that Amtrak has given up on service and convenience for their present customers, and will go out of their way to pick up a little more political capital by serving someplace new. As you say, we will have to wait to hear from BNSF and UP.
MidlandMikeAmtrak does a preliminary study on a less busy segment of your proposed reroute, so you think this applies all the way to Denver? I say the ATK study is preliminary because "the study makes no attempt at this time to quantify operating, switching, labor, or infrastructure costs" or whether BNSF or UP would agree, and for how much $. The entire Pueblo diversion is over paired directional track, and each trip would mean half the time they would be going against direction of flow. There is also no mention of now much might be lost from present passengers who don't want to endure the round-about delay. It appears that Amtrak has given up on service and convenience for their present customers, and will go out of their way to pick up a little more political capital by serving someplace new. As you say, we will have to wait to hear from BNSF and UP.
Geez your really bad at reading comprehension/content aren't you. There was no way an average person could screw that up as much as you have.
You misread both my post and the article......here let me help you through the plain English............
First I stated in my post that BNSF and UP were not asked yet but we would know in a few weeks (end of July). I was pretty clear the Denver part would come later.
Second, this quote: "the study makes no attempt at this time to quantify operating, switching, labor, or infrastructure costs" Pertains to a second RT from Pueblo to Alberqueque if you read the article carefully (entirely different train). This is not referring to the stub end train from La Junta to Pueblo which they do give projections for. Read carefully here: the original study would not move the SWC off it's current routing it would merely interchange cars from the SWC to a stub end train that connected to Pueblo from La Junta. Since your not an expert on time it takes to switch cars to a new train, lets again wait and see what the railroads say.before you conclude that is a non starter for all the time it takes.
Blah, Blah, Blah on the rest, lets see what the Railroads say on line capacity and flow of trains they own the track and know what they can and cannot handle. I really wish I could trust folks here to tell me that but........we covered that topic before. Overly emotional when it comes to changing Amtraks route structure the tinest bit.
If my math is correct $1,445,000 divided by 14,000 passengers equals $103 per passenger to travel 64 miles between La Junta and Peublo.
At 14,000 passengers per year, that is an average of 19 per trip. Far cheaper and smarter to run a bus than a train IF there is any reason to even fool with it, which frankly I can not see.
Rail labor will love it. Add C&E for the stub plus a 3 man switch crew plus a carman, plus 20% fill in for days off.
Mac
Anyone figured out that the railroads do not own Pueblo Union Depot anymore, the mainline loop is long gone and there are no longer any connecting tracks to the main (a virtual island) anymore? It will take something else to tip the balance. The timing, demographics and frequency could get to be an issue as well.
CMStPnP MidlandMike Amtrak does a preliminary study on a less busy segment of your proposed reroute, so you think this applies all the way to Denver? I say the ATK study is preliminary because "the study makes no attempt at this time to quantify operating, switching, labor, or infrastructure costs" or whether BNSF or UP would agree, and for how much $. The entire Pueblo diversion is over paired directional track, and each trip would mean half the time they would be going against direction of flow. There is also no mention of now much might be lost from present passengers who don't want to endure the round-about delay. It appears that Amtrak has given up on service and convenience for their present customers, and will go out of their way to pick up a little more political capital by serving someplace new. As you say, we will have to wait to hear from BNSF and UP. Geez your really bad at reading comprehension/content aren't you. There was no way an average person could screw that up as much as you have. You misread both my post and the article......here let me help you through the plain English............ First I stated in my post that BNSF and UP were not asked yet but we would know in a few weeks (end of July). I was pretty clear the Denver part would come later. Second, this quote: "the study makes no attempt at this time to quantify operating, switching, labor, or infrastructure costs" Pertains to a second RT from Pueblo to Alberqueque if you read the article carefully (entirely different train). This is not referring to the stub end train from La Junta to Pueblo which they do give projections for. Read carefully here: the original study would not move the SWC off it's current routing it would merely interchange cars from the SWC to a stub end train that connected to Pueblo from La Junta. Since your not an expert on time it takes to switch cars to a new train, lets again wait and see what the railroads say.before you conclude that is a non starter for all the time it takes. Blah, Blah, Blah on the rest, lets see what the Railroads say on line capacity and flow of trains they own the track and know what they can and cannot handle. I really wish I could trust folks here to tell me that but........we covered that topic before. Overly emotional when it comes to changing Amtraks route structure the tinest bit.
MidlandMike Amtrak does a preliminary study on a less busy segment of your proposed reroute, so you think this applies all the way to Denver? I say the ATK study is preliminary because "the study makes no attempt at this time to quantify operating, switching, labor, or infrastructure costs" or whether BNSF or UP would agree, and for how much $. The entire Pueblo diversion is over paired directional track, and each trip would mean half the time they would be going against direction of flow. There is also no mention of now much might be lost from present passengers who don't want to endure the round-about delay. It appears that Amtrak has given up on service and convenience for their present customers, and will go out of their way to pick up a little more political capital by serving someplace new. As you say, we will have to wait to hear from BNSF and UP.
Well you are going to have to help me out here, as we apparently speak different dialects of English.
Here is a copy of your earlier post:
Where is it in your post that you state "BNSF and UP were not asked yet"? You seem to indicate you are waiting for a response from them. I thought I was agreeing with you on that. Also, it was clear to me that you were talking about Denver coming later.
The article says:
"However, the study makes no attempt at this time to quantify operating, switching, labor, or infrastructure costs or suggest what ridership and revenue might accrue from an additional round-trip that would connect Pueblo passengers with western Chief-served population centers such as Albuquerque and Los Angeles."
The article previously stated revenues but did not talk about costs. In that context the above paragraph was ambiguous. To me, it suggested that the cost part of the sentence referred to the currently proposed train, and the second part of the sentence after "or" referred to a future westward train.
When I saw the article headline, I thought it was a continuation on Pueblo's campaign to get the SWC re-routed thru their city, so I did speed read thru the stub aspect of the present study. Nevertheless the article states:
“Through car service will be an important initial building block in our efforts to reroute the train through Pueblo on its regular journey between Chicago and Los Angeles,” Colorado Association of Railroad Passengers president Jim Souby tells Trains News Wire.
I never claimed to be an expert on switching time, however, having observed this on a number of Amtrak LD trains, I can tell you it is not fast. When they used to switch at Salt Lake, a food truck would pull up and got lots of customers at midnight.
To quote your earlier post:
Since you pointed out that the article deals with a LaJunta-Pueblo stub train, it is hard to see that a preliminary study of a train that merely touches a Front Range city would now open up the whole Front Range Joint Line to your dreamed of Denver re-route of the SWC. I am all for re-routes where they make sense, such as the Capitol Ltd thru Cleveland, but your re-route makes little sense as others and myself have demonstrated. Sadly, your usual response is dismissive and rhetorical, rather than factual.
Have the Semapohores been removed yet or are they still there?
NO, the semiphores are still operating between Springer and Lamy, but there are some searchlight signals within these limits. They function well with only Amtrak's SWC and an occasional work train as the only trains operating. There should be no motivation to do away with them given the cost involved.
That is truly terrific news. Thanks.
That's good to hear, hope the maintence crews take really good care of them. I'm assuming the Semaphores were installed sometime in the late 40's.
If they ain't broke, don't fix 'em. Those old USS T-2's are pretty tough critters
(they pre-date the 1940's 30-50 years)
I have fond memories of standing at the rear of Southern's #43 as I went from Birmingham to New Orleans in the summer of 1951 and watching the blades of the northbound signals rise as we left each block.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.