I'm a big supporter of the Raton Pass route as it really is the key link for future passenger rail service from Denver south and westward. In the freight world, the problem with Raton isn't the grades. Rather, it's the bridges that won't allow clearance for double-stack trains. Get those modified and then you have something.
I personally never have understood why BNSF has never initiated intermodal service between Southern California and Denver when predecessor ATSF did it and did it quite well.
Note to Dreyfusshudson:
Funny you should mention it in your post [snipped] "...That means in 2035 there will be at least twice as many trains needed as today. Major conurbations may well be a railroad nightmare. Routes that avoid them might be a great idea, e.g. Mexico-El Paso to points north and west avoiding the Los Angeles basin. UP might love this. Even if the ATSF main is triple tracked east from San Bernadino,.." [snipped]
The TRAINSNewswire of this date contains the following headline: "...Proposed Mexican rail line would link El Paso area with Pacific Coast..."
It seems to me that any passenger service over the Pass would need to take about 15 minutes from Trinidad to Raton, to be competitive on to Albuquerque, rather than the (very enjoyable) hour at present, so even more radical engineering than I was suggesting would be required.
With respect to clearances, I don't recall that many bridges between Albuquerque and Trinidad?- tunnel apart of course. Can't speak for La Junta to Kansas City- it's dark then!
Thanks- I missed this. Haverty of KCS believed that the Mexico coast could provide better access to some parts of the US than Los Angeles.
As a comment noted, this would mean US Dollars heading to China being reinvested in the Mexican economy. I suppose the point about Chinese money is that it's probably a lot easier to invest in infrastructure in Mexico than the US, where, I imagine there would be strong local hence political opposition to large infrastructure projects, especially in highly populated areas.
With regard to how capacity might expand within the US, I came across a Frailey blog which says 'OUR RAILROADS ARE A MESS'. It's a huge thread and everyone seems to agree with the starting premise, but as far as I can see, despite a lot of inputs from very knowledgeable people with expertise in railroads politics and finance, no solution emerged. No one saw a technological or political breakthrough which might help.
It seems to me that the only solution is from the Railroads themselves, providing they are earning enough to make the massive, game changing investments in capacity which may be needed. There are already examples; the BNSF's triple tracking of Cajon, the doubling of Abo Canyon and now Vaughn, and the doubling of the GN west of Minot, not to mention flood defences along the Missouri; the UP is doubling the Sunset route. NS and CSX don't seem to be following suit at the same level in terms of capacity, though they have invested to allow doublestacks.
I can see this process continuing, and I suspect plans are made, but the invest button will only be pressed when there's a crisis looming or happening, probably always too late. In todays' financial environment, it's a brave man or a fool that places big bets on future trends.
I can see expansion happening in low population areas, but anything near big cities, and most especially terminal capacity looks difficult, and that's where some novel thinking is going to be needed.
Dreyfusshudson . With respect to clearances, I don't recall that many bridges between Albuquerque and Trinidad?- tunnel apart of course. Can't speak for La Junta to Kansas City- it's dark then!
.
Consider dealing with the grades by merely adding "More Power !", now that DPUs are practical and widely used. Increased operating expenses, yes, but avoids the huge capital expense and time needed to build it and make it pay (kind of like the railroad's version of the oil companies' "How do we move the crude oil ?" problem - by train today, or wait for the pipeline to be built in who-knows-how-many years ?).
See also these 2 articles:
- Paul North.
Yep - which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because without long-term investment, some essential things don't get built or done (or maybe government has to step in ?) . . .
Except for a guy named Warren Buffett who runs a company called Berkshire Hathaway, and who famously has a long-term view of things. A very recent headline:
"Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. posted a record quarterly profit, a 41% jump tied to gains at its railroad, energy and other businesses as the U.S. economy continued its recovery." (From http://online.wsj.com/articles/berkshire-hathaway-profit-rises-1406928279?mod=yahoo_hs; emphasis added - PDN)
Oh yeah - about that railroad: it's BNSF, which owns the subject Raton Pass line . . .
Does anyone know what the required overhead clearance was for Interstate bridges over railroads was when the Interstate system was originated? What is the requirement today?
In my area some I-70 bridges were rebuilt recently over a spur that has limited freight traffic - during the period that both old and new bridges existed - it appeared that the new one was about 5 feet higher than the old.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
(1) It's the two steel truss structures, none of the I-25 or roadway structures. The problem on the two in question is with the knee and gusset plates on laterals inside the trusses. The Canyoncito structure is older and less forgiving than the more massive Watrous structure that survived a helicopter crash among other indignities.
(2) Balt: depends slightly on the state you're in, but in general 22'-6" by the model law of 1958. Some states allowed and grandfathered-in as low as 19'-10" for some bridge elements. East coast (older) has more grandfathered structures. Some states, like Iowa, got really sloppy with the regulations and are just now starting to regain consciousness.
(*) If the threat of catenary appears, you're looking at 24'-6" minimum which has been in place since the mid 1980's after FRA, DOT and the railroad Ch.E's came up with a national MOU.
Just a few examples:
Washington State DOT says 22'-6" for existing bridges, 23'-6" for new ones - see Exhibit 720-1, Bridge Vertical Clearances on Page 720-6 (page 6 of 14):
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/m22-01/720.pdf
North Carolina is 23'-0" to 23'-6" - see page 12 of 31 at: https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/roadway/roadwaydesignadministrativedocuments/bridge%20policy.pdf
NS is 23'-0" - see: http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/industrial-development/track-design-information/Plan_7-1_Clearance_Diagram.pdf
I suspect that the national MOU that MC mentioned above was developed without much consideration of the possibility of domestic double-stacked containers (9'-6" high each) under 50 KV catenary. Someplace I recall 27' being the desired figure there, and I'd argue for 33' (see NS diagram above, note at the top about greater clearances for high-voltage wires, etc.), and be prepared to settle for about 30' - I think that's about what the remaining tunnels on the ex-Southern Rwy. CNO&TP ("Rat Hole" line) were bored out to during the several upgrades of that line since the 1960's. It would be interesting to see what Amtrak has been insisting on for highway overpass rebuilds up and down the NorthEast Corridor recently.
An awful lot of that extra vertical clearance is an allowance for surfacing over time. (undercutting every surfacing cycle would be amazingly ex$pen$ive) Amazing how often the rubber tired tribe designs to the absolute bare minimum clearance standard without any "cushion".
IIRC, the structures on the Glorietta Sub could squeak through two 8.5 x 8.5 sea-cans, but add at least one 9.5 foot container and alarm bells went off in the clearance bureau side of the centralized dispatchers office, wherever it resided. I don't know if BNSF could ever find another Asst.Supt/RFE/TM to run that place like Glenn Powers could in the 1980's. The guy was amazing as a mountain territory operations expert.
Paul_D_North_Jr Consider dealing with the grades by merely adding "More Power !", now that DPUs are practical and widely used. Increased operating expenses, yes, but avoids the huge capital expense and time needed to build it and make it pay (kind of like the railroad's version of the oil companies' "How do we move the crude oil ?" problem - by train today, or wait for the pipeline to be built in who-knows-how-many years ?).
So sensible, instead of slavishly confining allocation of resources to the best profile. Besides realizing savings over the cost of new construction, you miss all the environmental-impact and NIMBY hassles!
dakotafred So sensible, instead of slavishly confining allocation of resources to the best profile. Besides realizing savings over the cost of new construction, you miss all the environmental-impact and NIMBY hassles!
Oh yes, as sensible as restoring that rusted hulk of a Model T out in the back forty because you are worried your new car/pickup might have to go to the shop one day.
Mac
Dreyfusshudson I was arguing that since I think it likely that RR traffic will at least double in the next 20 years, there will be capacity crunches everywhere, and major investments needed. In this scenario, it would make sense to evaluate if Raton was a better bet for further investments than even more capacity through Amarillo. No point at all in renovating Raton now. I've no idea how the numbers would crunch, still less how they might look in the different world of 2025. Hopefully someone in Forth Worth has good answers to these questions.
I was arguing that since I think it likely that RR traffic will at least double in the next 20 years, there will be capacity crunches everywhere, and major investments needed. In this scenario, it would make sense to evaluate if Raton was a better bet for further investments than even more capacity through Amarillo. No point at all in renovating Raton now. I've no idea how the numbers would crunch, still less how they might look in the different world of 2025.
Hopefully someone in Forth Worth has good answers to these questions.
They do.
dakotafred Paul_D_North_Jr Consider dealing with the grades by merely adding "More Power !", now that DPUs are practical and widely used. Increased operating expenses, yes, but avoids the huge capital expense and time needed to build it and make it pay (kind of like the railroad's version of the oil companies' "How do we move the crude oil ?" problem - by train today, or wait for the pipeline to be built in who-knows-how-many years ?). So sensible, instead of slavishly confining allocation of resources to the best profile. Besides realizing savings over the cost of new construction, you miss all the environmental-impact and NIMBY hassles!
It's hard to say how an EIS process will come out. Sometimes on something like adding sidings/new track, you get a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). However, sometimes simply adding more trains to existing track turns into a dust-up like the CN takeover of the EJ&E.
This all sounds like a cat and mouse game!
The situation is similar to the service Phoenix, AZ has found itself in.
UP has basically mothballed the Phoenix Line’s west portion, and is two-tracking the Sunset Route that is away from Phoenix.
Even signals are gone …
… but grade crossing devices are in place.
Photos shot March 21, 2012
If it wasn’t for Amtrak Nos. 3 and 4, the Raton line would probably be in the same shape as UP’s western Phoenix line.
The cat and mouse aspect is if the States fork some saving money in, well and fine, and BNSF will use the line, though not in great amount. If not, the line will stay without trains. If Amtrak over Raton moves over to the freight line to the south, Raton likely would be as UP’s western Phoenix line … STILL in tack, but signal-less and weed invested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Can't speak for Arizona, but it's old news that NM welched badly on the original deal, especially when the feds kept refusing to be their personal money tree. BNSF got burned and started playing hardball. nuf sed.
(As if the weirdoes dancing on the cistern at Riberra (allegedly for people on the trains who might see them for a nanosecond) and the "art" billboards weren't strange enough to be state funded projects)
MidlandMike It's hard to say how an EIS process will come out. Sometimes on something like adding sidings/new track, you get a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). However, sometimes simply adding more trains to existing track turns into a dust-up like the CN takeover of the EJ&E.
In contrast, the only reason all the environmental reviews happened with CN+EJ&E merger was the merger itself - that required US governmental approval by the STB, which was enough to trigger the EIS process. Had CN already owned EJ&E and no merger approval was necessary, the added trains and trackage would have needed only minimal permitting - same as the multiple-tracking of Cajon Pass and the rest of the BNSF TransCon, UP's of the Sunset Route, and earlier its lines across Nebraska, as well as the joint Powder River Basin lines a few years back.
The big eastern roads - NS and CSX - in some places have the fortunate circumstance that they're just replacing/ reinstalling a 2nd or 3rd main track or siding that was removed a few decades ago. As such, the environmental impact is obviously minimal - little or no new earth disturbance, stream or wetland encroachments, etc. - so the permitting process is much less burdensome.
Paul, as you know, but perhaps many railfans don't realize, the EIS involves more than things such as frogs. They include "people" issues and cultural impacts. There is also opportunity for public comment, and those Chicagoland suburbanites were fired up.
Looking at the ex-SP line west of Pheonix, one has to wonder why they did not retain it for directional running, rather than double track the main. If something that close is not retained, then I can imagine how much the Raton line is unwanted. It also shows how UP is much quicker to dump an Amtrak route than BNSF.
diningcar (8-6):
Two questions:
ONE: Technically, and in comprehendible terms, which ex-AT&SF route is shorter, through Raton or Amarillo?
TWO: Somewhere down the road of time, traffic volumes on the Transcon will become intolerable, pushing the maximum traffic volume possible for two-tracks. Do you see BNSF perceiving it more economical to route some eastbound traffic down Raton and east, or triple-tracking the Transcon?
MidlandMike (8-6):
The Phoenix line is about 43 miles longer than the more direct Sunset Route. In the Phoenix area there is a proliferation of 90 degree curves (i.e., from north-south to east-west, as an example).
There are also many grade crossings.
And, it would be slow going through Phoenix.
So, the choice was obvious for UP … Two-track the actual Sunset Route.
Take care all,
K.P.
I'm not sure if I'm reading the prior postings correctly, but I get the impression that those who tout the Raton Pass route as a reliever for congestion on the southern route don't realize that the two lines come together near Albuquerque and there is only one route to the west. Routing freights over Raton to relieve congestion on the southern route doesn't address the issue of congestion further west.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.