To summarize the relative advantages of the two routes:
1. Inertia-- The Raton route is already an established Amtrak route and has vocal advocacy groups. Advantage Raton.
2. Largest city-- Albuquerque has over a half million population. It's on the present route, however, would be connected to the Transcon by an existing train at Belen. Partial advantage Raton.
3. Largest city on alternate route-- Wichita has a population of 380,000, which is much larger than all the cities combined that would lose served on the present route within Kansas. Advantage Transcon.
4. Large intermediate city-- Trinidad (Pop. 9,000) is the largest city on the present route within Colorado. Amarillo (Pop. 190,000) is the largest city on the Transcon thru Oklahoma and Texas. Advantage Transcon.
5. Time-- ATK timetable time between Newton and Gallup= 16 hr 23 min. ATSF pre-ATK timetable for the San Francisco Chief via Amarillo, between Newton and Gallup = 16 hr 20 min. Lets call it a tie.
6. Expediency-- BNSF has abandoned service over the middle of Raton route while they have double tracked the Transcon. Major advantage Transcon.
7. The route between La Junta and Lamy currently has no freight customers with little chance new ones will surface. It also has a zero percent chance of EVER seeing through freights due to the horrendous grades over Raton and Glorieta passes. Therefore Amtrak is forever doomed to pay all the cost of maintaining this portion of the current route, using scarce resources that Amtrak doesn't have, and potentially taking scarce resources from other routes. Eventually the reroute will have to occur, or the train discontinued because of cost. Not much as an advanatage as an eventuality: Transcon
8. The extra cost of the Southwest Chief being the only train on between La Junta and Lamy will increase the cost of "Long Distance Trains" which some consider to be THE major expense for Amtrak. While this can be debated, the Southwest Chief debacle will eventually turn into Amtrak's "Bridge to Nowhere" and will be used to help villify all Long Distance trains as that much more expensive. When rerouted via Amarillo (if not first discontinued), the Southwest Chief will have no greater expenses than any other segment of an Amtrak long distance route. Adantage (DUH): Trancon
Mark Meyer
NEVER say never.
20 years ago, nobody thought that Donner Pass would become the number 1 northern connection into California again and yet UP has shifted significant traffic over to it. When Rail America discontinued freight service over the Siskyous a number of years ago, nobody thought it would come back and yet they are making plans for just that.
Raton certainly is tougher railroading, but as long as it exists, it can be an outlet. The transcon itself is likely to only increase it's tonnage over the coming years and that means some of it may get shifted.
9. The speed differential between passenger and freight trains (79 vs. 70 MPH) on a very busy line will mean that freight trains IN BOTH DIRECTIONS will sit in the hole while Amtrak (which according to the law cannot be delayed by freight operations) keeps moving at 79 MPH. This is the issue that doomed the fast 90 MPH UPS trains: it just wasn't worth it to stop all of those trains while the fast train didn't stop at all, switching back and forth from the north track to the south track running around dozens of trains. And BNSF cannot just throw in the towel once they figure out that it is a debacle as they (and the UP) did with the UPS train, they will be stuck with a route over capacity, delayed trains and pis*ed off customers. On the other hand, with Raton Pass the SWC will be able to run at an even faster speed (90 MPH) and BNSF will keep both an overflow route and a route to Denver from the South East. In my opinion those who want the SWC to relocate to the transcon are short-sighted and short-term versus long-term oriented myopics. Once a track is pulled up it is very unlikely that it will be put back in again. Advantage: Raton Pass.
Oh? I will bet that there are at least two fast intermodels each way that make Amtrak speeds over the line today! We aren't talking about a high speed corridor train here. The average speed of intermodels on the Transcon exceeds the averge speed of the Zephyr between Danver and Salt Lake |City, for example. I am not aware of any BNSF oposition to rerouting the Chief over the Transocn. Is there any?
DwightBranch 9. The speed differential between passenger and freight trains (79 vs. 70 MPH) on a very busy line will mean that freight trains IN BOTH DIRECTIONS will sit in the hole while Amtrak (which according to the law cannot be delayed by freight operations) keeps moving at 79 MPH. This is the issue that doomed the fast 90 MPH UPS trains: it just wasn't worth it to stop all of those trains while the fast train didn't stop at all, switching back and forth from the north track to the south track running around dozens of trains. And BNSF cannot just throw in the towel once they figure out that it is a debacle as they (and the UP) did with the UPS train, they will be stuck with a route over capacity, delayed trains and pis*ed off customers. On the other hand, with Raton Pass the SWC will be able to run at an even faster speed (90 MPH) and BNSF will keep both an overflow route and a route to Denver from the South East. In my opinion those who want the SWC to relocate to the transcon are short-sighted and short-term versus long-term oriented myopics. Once a track is pulled up it is very unlikely that it will be put back in again. Advantage: Raton Pass.
+1
And, the Raton Pass mainline is a vital link for future service from Denver southward to connect with the SW Chief.
Los Angeles Rams Guy And, the Raton Pass mainline is a vital link for future service from Denver southward to connect with the SW Chief.
Except for the fact that the connecting service between Denver and La Junta was discontinued on April 30, 1971. Passenger counts were already pretty weak even prior to that date.
There is no place on the Raton Pass route where passenger trains are allowed to run 90 MPH.
There are no 90 MPH UPS trains anywhere, nor are there any plans to upgrade the equipment to operate that fast. Locomotives on BNSF aren't geared to operate even to 79 MPH.
I am fascinated by those (such as "DwightBranch") who think that when the Southwest Chief is rerouted it will be a "debacle" causing delayed trains and "unhappy" customers because it will be "over capacity."
The reality is that BNSF operates about the same number of trains west of Dalies and east of Kansas City where the Southwest Chief operates now, and this would remain unchanged regardless of how the Southwest Chief is routed in between those locations. And, west of Dalies, the terrain is much more challenging, so why is this apocalyptic scenario not occurring now along this section of the Southwest Chief route?
The realities are this: The “Transcon” route between Dalies and Newton via Amarillo is much more level than west of Dalies, and therefore the passenger train would be even less of an intrusion. Also, with a moderate number of trains diverging off the “Transcon” at places like Texico (to Temple/Houston), Amarillo (to Fort Worth), and Avard (to Tulsa/Memphis), the actual train count in much of the segment between Dalies and Newton can be 20 to 25 percent less than elsewhere on the “Transcon,” yet another reason that the Southwest Chief will not be a problem.
As for keeping the Raton pass route as an overflow route “to Denver from the South East,” this isn’t necessary. BNSF has two routes already, southward via Boise City, and northward via Clayton, NM to handle the traffic – basically a double track railroad. As railroads continue to push for heavier and longer trains, the Raton Pass route with its stunning 3.5 percent grades, and with very few sidings that can handle the average-length train operated today, will continue to not even be a consideration for moving freight traffic.
What should have been said:
9. As the funding (if any) to keep the Southwest Chief route on the Raton Pass line will be only sufficient for life support and little else, the line will continue to deteriorate. Speeds will drop, and sidings and segments of CTC will be eliminated as a cost-saving measure being too expensive to maintain for just two trains per day. Additional running time for the train will be required as track speeds get slower and sidings (minimizing places to meet) are removed from service. Eventually, a catastrophic event will occur in this 280-mile segment where there is no other traffic, such as locomotive failure (such as at Las Vegas without enough power remaining to pull the train up the steep hills at Glorieta or Raton), or a winter event where a large snowfall strands the train as no other traffic helps keep the track plowed, and there is no donor power available from any other trains. Meanwhile, had the train been routed via Amarillo and Clovis, current endpoint-to-endpoint running time could be maintained as the passenger train on this segment would be of little consequence due to the mild profile (compared to elsewhere on the Chief’s route) and that this part of the route is the least-trafficked of any along the entire Southwest Chief route (except in eastern Kansas).
Advantage by a long shot: “Transcon”
YoHo1975 Raton certainly is tougher railroading, but as long as it exists, it can be an outlet. The transcon itself is likely to only increase it's tonnage over the coming years and that means some of it may get shifted.
Again, this doesn't make any sense because the "Transcon" is already handling all the traffic east of Kansas City and west of Dalies WITH the Southwest Chief on it, so it's illogical to claim that the section in the middle - where is there is actually less traffic overall - would be a problem. If tonnage is increased, the area that would likely need increased capacity would be west of Dalies, where there is no alternate (BNSF) route and the grades are steeper. And, if you're talking about a route to handle "increased tonnage" and take some pressure off another route, the Raton Pass line with its 3.5 percent grades is the last on anyone's list as a consideration. With the amount of locomotive power required to utilize the Raton Pass route, and the amount of siding augmentation necessary to enable the route to handle just an average-sized train operated today, clearly the decision would be to invest in the current route instead of pouring money into a line with such severe operating characteristics.
Until the relatively recent removal of the ATS system from service, there were plenty of places between Raton and Las Vegas where 90 was boarded speed as was between Lamy and Albuquerque.
(I staked far too many curves down there to concede otherwise)....Plenty of places on the 1909 Belen Cutoff that are not choice for speed either (Abo et al)......The Cimarron Cutoff or the Dawson line (or some combination as has been looked at seriously) would not generate any major advantage.
Those of us that worked the line just marvel at some of the crap presented here as "fact". John Reed and the others at Santa Fe knew the limitations of he line and respected the operating limitations, but they still held onto the line for good reason.
(1) BNSF is understandably playing hardball here for something does not earn it's keep. Amtrak has gotten away with a something for nothing rationale for years on this line.
(2) Before a witch-hunt going after BNSF and AMTK gets going - please aim all wrath at the nutcase politicians and dreamers in New Mexico that set the lack of common sense headache in motion. NM largely remains a ward of the feds because they are so inept at most things.
VerMontanan YoHo1975: Raton certainly is tougher railroading, but as long as it exists, it can be an outlet. The transcon itself is likely to only increase it's tonnage over the coming years and that means some of it may get shifted. Again, this doesn't make any sense because the "Transcon" is already handling all the traffic east of Kansas City and west of Dalies WITH the Southwest Chief on it, so it's illogical to claim that the section in the middle - where is there is actually less traffic overall - would be a problem. If tonnage is increased, the area that would likely need increased capacity would be west of Dalies, where there is no alternate (BNSF) route and the grades are steeper. And, if you're talking about a route to handle "increased tonnage" and take some pressure off another route, the Raton Pass line with its 3.5 percent grades is the last on anyone's list as a consideration. With the amount of locomotive power required to utilize the Raton Pass route, and the amount of siding augmentation necessary to enable the route to handle just an average-sized train operated today, clearly the decision would be to invest in the current route instead of pouring money into a line with such severe operating characteristics.
YoHo1975: Raton certainly is tougher railroading, but as long as it exists, it can be an outlet. The transcon itself is likely to only increase it's tonnage over the coming years and that means some of it may get shifted.
Given your location, is it possible that you work for the BNSF, have worked for them or know someone who works for them?
Your responses appear to contain the insights of someone who has an insider's view.
CSSHEGEWISCH Los Angeles Rams Guy: And, the Raton Pass mainline is a vital link for future service from Denver southward to connect with the SW Chief. Except for the fact that the connecting service between Denver and La Junta was discontinued on April 30, 1971. Passenger counts were already pretty weak even prior to that date.
Los Angeles Rams Guy: And, the Raton Pass mainline is a vital link for future service from Denver southward to connect with the SW Chief.
Carl, that may very well have been the case back in '71 but I invite you to take a drive on I-25 going south from Denver sometime; particularly between Denver and Colorado Springs. I think you'll find that this is an area that is in DIRE need of passenger rail.
mudchicken Until the relatively recent removal of the ATS system from service, there were plenty of places between Raton and Las Vegas where 90 was boarded speed as was between Lamy and Albuquerque. (I staked far too many curves down there to concede otherwise)....Plenty of places on the 1909 Belen Cutoff that are not choice for speed either (Abo et al)......The Cimarron Cutoff or the Dawson line (or some combination as has been looked at seriously) would not generate any major advantage. Those of us that worked the line just marvel at some of the crap presented here as "fact". John Reed and the others at Santa Fe knew the limitations of he line and respected the operating limitations, but they still held onto the line for good reason. (1) BNSF is understandably playing hardball here for something does not earn it's keep. Amtrak has gotten away with a something for nothing rationale for years on this line. (2) Before a witch-hunt going after BNSF and AMTK gets going - please aim all wrath at the nutcase politicians and dreamers in New Mexico that set the lack of common sense headache in motion. NM largely remains a ward of the feds because they are so inept at most things.
Well said. Again, my point is that AMTK NEEDS to keep the SW Chief on the Raton Pass mainline as citizens in SE Colorado and northern New Mexico have virtually no other travel options. Having the SW Chief simply re-routed over to the Transcon mainline would be devastating for SE Colorado.
Despite all the seeming advantages that the Transcon mainline has, don't forget that ATSF utilized the Raton Pass mainline for its "Super C" hotshot intermodal train. No matter how you slice it or dice it, the Raton Pass mainline is STILL the fastest way from Chicago to the Motherland.
Just to add to Mudchicken's rant - I would also hold the idiots at CDOT just as culpable for this mess with their typical "do-nothingism" about this.
Although I would hope for a Raton solution the transcon speed arguments are bogus.
assuming this section of transcon is all 79 MPH ( it is not ). using an average of 2 hrs between Amtrak stops the train would gain 18 miles on any leading intermodal train. Then a stop of 4 minutes would put Amtrak 36 miles behind intermodal that he would have to make up. Seems like fluidity would not be an issue especially with a 2 minute station stop. Slow orders certainly would tighten up the headways as intermodals accelerate slower and all may not go upgrade at track speed where as the Amtraker has a better chance.
Some here may be aware there was a regional conference on April 10,2012 between concerned political entities, AMTRAK, BNSF and part was open to the public for questions. Link from Garden City Telegram story:
By SHAJIA AHMAD
FTA: "We're here talking because it's not a panic. It's not like tomorrow we're going to have to do something different," Paul Vilter, assistant vice president of Amtrak, said during the gathering held at the Finnup Center for Conservation Education..."
FTA:"...The burden of maintaining, repairing and replacing the track line is estimated at about $10 million per year and $100 million in long-term improvement needs, funds that must spent to keep the Southwest Chief running through Garden City and a host of other communities in Colorado and New Mexico in future years, Vilter said.
Otherwise, BNSF's Transcon railroad route, which runs south of Newton and on through the Texas Panhandle toward New Mexico, could become the Southwest's Chief's new course in years ahead.
"It's been known for some time ... that freight traffic on this line is declining," the Amtrak VP also said. "We're really facing two things together here. One is an annual maintenance (cost) and the other a capitalized maintenance. One is about keeping it going, fixing the things that break, that have to be fixed every year, like filling potholes in your streets and roads. ... Unfortunately, there's also a long-range capital (cost). Rail is made of steel, it's very durable but wears out eventually. Within the next 10 years, that's on the rise within this line."..."
Los Angeles Rams Guy Despite all the seeming advantages that the Transcon mainline has, don't forget that ATSF utilized the Raton Pass mainline for its "Super C" hotshot intermodal train. No matter how you slice it or dice it, the Raton Pass mainline is STILL the fastest way from Chicago to the Motherland.
Given that BNSF runs intermodal trains with scheduled (and actual) running times faster than Amtrak between Kansas City and Albuquerque/Belen, it is inconceivable that any freight train operating now via Raton pass could best the best times of the hottest trains via Amarillo.
Other things to consider about the Raton Pass route:
1. Today, the trailing tonnage limit (as big as the train can be without a helper) for an average train is about 4200 tons, which is less than many of even the hottest trains operate, and less than half of that of most others. So, these trains would need a helper (or helpers) or distributed power to be routed via Raton Pass.
2. Most of the trains operated on the “Transcon” today exceed siding capacity of most of the sidings along the Raton Pass route.
3. Most intermodal trains operating on the “Transcon” today have doublestack equipment that don’t fit through the tunnel atop Raton.
The Super C was routed via Raton just because few other trains were, and that's why it was able to make good running time. It was limited in tonnage due to the severe grades over Raton and Glorieta passes. It is true that “back in the day” the line was maintained for high speeds. But the mindset then (especially on the Santa Fe) was that running a good passenger service was reflective of the railroad as a whole, and maintaining it as such was a priority. Also, coal traffic from York Canyon (now non-existent) was a major traffic source. Now the freight railroads don’t operate the passenger trains and all freight business on the Raton line has disappeared. Things change, and as a result, the utility of the Raton pass line for any type of freight service has dwindled to zero.
Well, we now have a new thread on this topic, but given that BNSF is willing to pay part of the costs of upkeep, there must be some value they see in the line from a traffic perspective.
Also, remember that pre-BNSF and even BNSF during the 90s focused on TOFC pig trains as there high priority traffic and got into Stack service somewhat reluctantly. Pig trains have no problems clearing the tunnels on Raton.
The amount BNSF will pay to keep the line open (if any) remains to be seen. A small contribution might be worth their while if other entities pay the rest. Also, given that it's far from a sure thing that the other entities involved (such as Amtrak or state governments) will have any money to contribute, it's a low-cost PR move to state you'll put up part of the cost when there is fair chance that others won't be able to come up with their share, so then BNSF won't need to contribute.
It matters not if doublestacks were not embraced initially. Clearly, it is how most intermodal traffic is handled now, and the tunnel (there is only one) on Raton Pass cannot be used. "Pig trains" don't have a problem with the tunnel at Raton Pass only if they are purely single-level contrainer or TOFC trains, which are pretty rare. It's not uncommon to see a mix, so Raton Pass is out for these trains, too.
Very simply, Raton Pass has no utility as a freight route. The discussion needs to be whether it has value as a passenger route, and how it will be maintained, who will fund it, and if resources spent to maintain it could be better spent elsewhere at Amtrak.
YoHo1975 Well, we now have a new thread on this topic, but given that BNSF is willing to pay part of the costs of upkeep, there must be some value they see in the line from a traffic perspective. Also, remember that pre-BNSF and even BNSF during the 90s focused on TOFC pig trains as there high priority traffic and got into Stack service somewhat reluctantly. Pig trains have no problems clearing the tunnels on Raton.
VerMontanan The amount BNSF will pay to keep the line open (if any) remains to be seen. A small contribution might be worth their while if other entities pay the rest. Also, given that it's far from a sure thing that the other entities involved (such as Amtrak or state governments) will have any money to contribute, it's a low-cost PR move to state you'll put up part of the cost when there is fair chance that others won't be able to come up with their share, so then BNSF won't need to contribute. It matters not if doublestacks were not embraced initially. Clearly, it is how most intermodal traffic is handled now, and the tunnel (there is only one) on Raton Pass cannot be used. "Pig trains" don't have a problem with the tunnel at Raton Pass only if they are purely single-level contrainer or TOFC trains, which are pretty rare. It's not uncommon to see a mix, so Raton Pass is out for these trains, too. Very simply, Raton Pass has no utility as a freight route. The discussion needs to be whether it has value as a passenger route, and how it will be maintained, who will fund it, and if resources spent to maintain it could be better spent elsewhere at Amtrak. YoHo1975: Well, we now have a new thread on this topic, but given that BNSF is willing to pay part of the costs of upkeep, there must be some value they see in the line from a traffic perspective. Also, remember that pre-BNSF and even BNSF during the 90s focused on TOFC pig trains as there high priority traffic and got into Stack service somewhat reluctantly. Pig trains have no problems clearing the tunnels on Raton.
YoHo1975: Well, we now have a new thread on this topic, but given that BNSF is willing to pay part of the costs of upkeep, there must be some value they see in the line from a traffic perspective. Also, remember that pre-BNSF and even BNSF during the 90s focused on TOFC pig trains as there high priority traffic and got into Stack service somewhat reluctantly. Pig trains have no problems clearing the tunnels on Raton.
The Raton Pass mainline without question has value as a passenger route; whether it is for the current SW Chief but, even more so, as a link for future service from Denver to connect to SW Chief at either Trinidad and/or La Junta. Guess I have to politely disagree with your assessment that Raton Pass mainline has no value as a freight route. Would like to hear from Mudchicken about the tunnel and if it can't be modified to handle double-stacks.
Rams,
VerMontanan is a BNSF insider so he has access to info we on the outside do not. That said, the fact that BNSF is not operating freight trains on the line is conclusive evidence that the line has no utility as a freight route. If ATK wants to use it they need to bring money.
Mac McCulloch
BN thought the NP through Montana had no utility as a freight route too. Now they run trackage rights trains over MRL all the time.
I appreciate the insider knowledge, but it requires the assumption that BNSF is infallible. They are not as has been proven before with pretty much every railroad company.
I'm not saying Raton will ever be a primary route again.
Heck, BNSF may see it as a PR move to keep the original Transcon open.
Also, I haven't trusted management since they moved from Chicago (ATSF) to Ft Worth. That shows poor judgement.
The MRL transaction was a union busting move. It was not about the utility of the line. A better example of the point you want to make is Stampede Pass in Washington State which sat idle for years before being reactivated. As for management falibility, look again to BN in the oil company management era when they tore out the SP&S between Spokane and Pasco, a collosal mistake.
In the Raton Pass case I can see no need for it. The grade soaks up power that is much better used keeping the Transcon fluid.
Moving the ATSF out of Chicago makes lots and lots of sense to me.
Mac
Given how new their Schaumburg Facilities were, it made no sense to me. Plus, it was an actual major point on the railroad compared to Ft. Worth.
If Chicago was so bad for business why did Boeing pick up and move Corporate HQ there a few years after ATSF left.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure Ft. Worth was chosen simply as part of the tit for tat back scratching involved in that merger. ATSF management, but BN's offices kind of thing. It likely had nothing to do with which location made any sort of objective sense.
VerMontanan Things change, and as a result, the utility of the Raton pass line for any type of freight service has dwindled to zero.
Things change, and as a result, the utility of the Raton pass line for any type of freight service has dwindled to zero.
Things change, and not always in the direction the freight railroads expect, and yet we as a society are often stuck with the results of their shortsightedness. I am not willing to add accept the Raton Pass line being added to the aforementioned Stampede Pass (luckily not scrapped by BN), the former MILW Snolqualmie pass (shorter and with easier grades than Stampede, shortsightedly scrapped by BN in 1988), the aforementioned SP&S line (shortsightedly scrapped by BN), and on other railroads, the former B&O St. Louis line (CSX decided they were a conveyer belt for coal companies, shortsightedly tore up the line through Ohio and West Virginia in favor of the meandering C&O, lost out on the double stack boom and then had to enter a bidding war for Conrail so they would have a St. Louis line again. Idiots.), etc. etc. Things change, and we as a society should be monitoring how our transportation infrastructure is maintained, once a long mainline is torn up it is very expensive to put it back in.
RE: Clearances
The 2780' Tunnel in use is fine and could be road header-ed or undercut to be even bigger. (The closed EB cordoroyed/ timber lined original tunnel would not even clear auto-racks and high cubes...it got "corked" multiple times, which did it in before 1980 when I got there)
The problem is three old through truss bridges with cross members and one of those with a top member that won't clear stacked sea cans....The one over the Mora River at Watrous is the worst. (Crashing Doolittle Ranch helicopters into it didn't help either). The bridge at Apache Creek/Canyoncito isn't much better and IIRC is fighting age problems.
The ATSF California Tunnels (Franklin Canyon/ Pinole-Glen Fraser-Martinez) were a much smaller clearance envelope.
DwightBranch Things change, and not always in the direction the freight railroads expect, and yet we as a society are often stuck with the results of their shortsightedness. I am not willing to add accept the Raton Pass line being added to the aforementioned Stampede Pass (luckily not scrapped by BN), the former MILW Snolqualmie pass (shorter and with easier grades than Stampede, shortsightedly scrapped by BN in 1988), the aforementioned SP&S line (shortsightedly scrapped by BN), and on other railroads, the former B&O St. Louis line (CSX decided they were a conveyer belt for coal companies, shortsightedly tore up the line through Ohio and West Virginia in favor of the meandering C&O, lost out on the double stack boom and then had to enter a bidding war for Conrail so they would have a St. Louis line again. Idiots.), etc. etc. Things change, and we as a society should be monitoring how our transportation infrastructure is maintained, once a long mainline is torn up it is very expensive to put it back in.
Before you go calling folks "idiots", you might want to get your facts straight.
Are you able to provide any substantiation for you assertion that CSX "had to enter a bidding war for Conrail so they would have a St. Louis line again." (after loosing out on "the double stack boom."
greyhounds Are you able to provide any substantiation for you assertion that CSX "had to enter a bidding war for Conrail so they would have a St. Louis line again." (after loosing out on "the double stack boom."
No, just a very clear memory and a subscription to Trains through the nineties. I recall very clearly two articles, in one it was mentioned that at the time CSX was removing their St. Louis line UP was routing a new double stack train and contacted CSX about using their St Louis line, which was still on the system map but was being torn up even as UP was talking to them (here is a mention of the UP trains that I first heard in Trains). Another was in the context of the Conrail split-up, that the main reason that CSX was interested in Conrail was because they need ed to replace the St. Louis line, the latter was a Don Phillips article as I recall. None of the articles from the nineties are available online so I cannot link to them, and my back issues from that time period are back in my parent's house.
Management would need a very good crystal ball to be able to foresee the future well enough to determine which non-performing assets can be mothballed and which can be discarded. Hindsight is always 20-20 and it would be quite unfair to say that what may have been a good decision at the time was really a bad decision based on said hindsight.
CSSHEGEWISCH Management would need a very good crystal ball to be able to foresee the future well enough to determine which non-performing assets can be mothballed and which can be discarded. Hindsight is always 20-20 and it would be quite unfair to say that what may have been a good decision at the time was really a bad decision based on said hindsight.
Don Phillips wrote a column in Trains magazine about ten years ago contrasting NS and CSX, which tore track up as fast as it could in the eighties and nineties because it wanted the money for the scrap rail. As a sidebar, this point is made in the latest issue of trains in an article called:
Baltimore & Ohio and Western Maryland built parallel mountain railroads in Pennsylvania. Only one survived
Metzger says CSX probably would love to have the former Western Maryland back, and to that you can add the former Seaboard Air Line between Richmond and Raleigh.
On the other hand, according to Phillps, NS has made a point of embargoing surplus lines intact. One line I remember him mentioning is a former Central of Georgia line in Georgia paralleled by a Southern line (between Macon and Atlanta as I recall) that they shut down but kept intact, and later started using again when traffic levels picked up. That is long term thinking versus presiding over a liquidation. NS also tore up track that could have been useful later (some of the Nickel Plate and Wabash in Illinois comes to mind) but in general, the argument goes, NS has been better about simply setting track aside to wait for conditions to change.
YoHo1975 BN thought the NP through Montana had no utility as a freight route too. Now they run trackage rights trains over MRL all the time. I appreciate the insider knowledge, but it requires the assumption that BNSF is infallible. They are not as has been proven before with pretty much every railroad company.
Others have already commented on this but I will add that in the case of the MRL the intent always to run traffic that way because BN guaranteed the MRL a quota of traffic for the life of their contract. The BNSF trains on MRL are not trackage rights, but rather BNSF trains, and BNSF pays MRL per car.
As for understanding that the Raton Pass has no utility as a freight route has nothing to do with any assumption about infallibility of the decision, rather just acknowledgement of the situation. It would be equally incorrect that those who say “never say never” about a line judged to be of no use think that every railroad ever constructed should be saved. The reality is that every route should be judged on its own merit. In the case of Raton, and its severe grades exceeding that of any other through route currently operated in North America, it’s not a stretch to understand why it is not being used, and likely never will be again.
If something unforeseen would occur, such as the creation of a huge source of long term traffic either in or out of someplace between Raton and Las Vegas inclusive in the future, I would go as far to say that it could even be more cost effective to construct a new railroad from Raton east to Des Moines or Folsom (on the old FW&D line) than constantly battle the horrendous grades of Raton and Glorieta.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.