blue streak 1, It appears BNSF does not wish to use this line. They have sold it between the east switch at Lamy to Albuq. to the State of NM. They do not wish to assume the cost of maintaining the RR to the standards required for freight operations and with the detours available in the RARE NEED situations they seem to be handling their business well on the double track, CTC , Transcon.
There should be enough old heads previously qualified that would need only a trip or two to requalify ?
I believe the answer is - BNSF does not have any plans to operate their trains over this line. When detours are necessary they use UP tracks and, conversly, UP uses detours on BNSF when they have the need.
Perhaps occasionally a work train is necessary like for the washouts a few years ago; and I believe Amtrak crews who are qualified for this line are hired for this short, slow speed operation.
Another scenereo for return of freight traffic to Raton Pass: Electrification. I some predictions come true, that natural gas replaces petroleum as the main energy source, then possibly the cost of electric power will be low enough compared to othe rsources that electrication of the main transcontinental railroads will make economic sense. Once that occurs, the cost of etra power to tackle 3% grades may not prevent alternate use of an electrified Raton as a relief line. This may just be wishful thinking, but it is a possibility. Requuired are both the change in energy economics and the masive increase in traffic.
BaltACD With only Amtrak using the Raton Pass line - it MAY be to the point that the ONLY qualified crews on the line are Amtrak's. If such is the case, then Amtrak would have to train and qualify BNSF crews to operate on this segment of BNSF track.
With only Amtrak using the Raton Pass line - it MAY be to the point that the ONLY qualified crews on the line are Amtrak's. If such is the case, then Amtrak would have to train and qualify BNSF crews to operate on this segment of BNSF track.
Johnny
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
+1 to DC's comment.
They can't round up enough qualified pilots and crews...and get them back to the territory when they have planned moves. And with an unplanned emergency?
UChicago, do you have any info that the Raton line was used following the accident at Panhanle, TX? I am not aware that it was and I think UP detours were used at that time.
Good points. And now BNSF is working on ten miles of triple-tracking the line east of Belen for better flow into and out of the fueling pads. That said, the northern route has been used for emergencies including after the head-on a couple of years ago on the "new line" through Amarillo.
Well, I have to say that at present the naysayers have it. The fact that the EIS process is not as burdensome as I thought it might be for adding additional tracks is important.
To CS Hegewisch's point, the way I was thinking is that, due to increasing volumes, BNSF begins to triple track where feasible west from Cajon. When they get to Dalies, they have a choice- press on, at least to Amarillo I suppose, or recognise that they already have a third main all the way to Newton, plenty of spare capacity across CO and KS, for the most part fast and straight, albeit with an inconvenient hill. They might then think 'shoulda taken that left turn in Albuquerque'.
Another scenario is that, if congestion increases, differential train speeds reduce capacity. Everything slows down, can't run premium fast stuff (See GN at present). Building 3 tracks will take time and cost a phenomenal amount of money over that distance, so, to relieve the squeeze in some places, you run, say, faster stuff via Raton. (I have a favourite pic of a bunch of GEs led by C30-7 8120 at the top of Raton Pass with a shortish piggyback in 1981).
In this general vein, I understand that the hilly NYS&W is presently being used as a safety valve by capacity strapped CSX. Why, if things get real bad they could even bring the PRR from Crestline back in play!
There. I've almost convinced myself it might happen.
Homestake Pass next, but never I think Tennessee Pass, and certainly not the Milwaukee, which is a shame because the Olympian Hiawatha is on my to do list.
Except for preservation of the Southwest Chief, proponents of the Raton Pass route for passenger traffic haven't yet shown it as a desirable or preferable alternative to other modes. Interstate 25 isn't stuffed with the likes of Megabus carrying folks between Denver, Albuquerque and El Paso. I don't even think The Hound serves this market. DEN-ELP nonstop flights are almost nonexistent. I don't know what to say about the proposal to reroute the SWC through Pueblo or Denver except as a possible abuse of recreational weed.
The probability of significant growth in north-south freight markets has not been shown. If the Mexican fantasy railroad to the El Paso area gets built, UP already has well built CTC routes to the west, northeast and east ready to go. BNSF has but single track dark territory to Belen - a possible export coal route?
I have to 'ride' with diningcar's outlook ....
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
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.
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
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.
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.
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 North.
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)
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.
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!
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 ?).
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.
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.
Mac
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.
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.
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.
(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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.