Rail Traffic North of Albuquerque, NM

[MidlandMike]

I would have to agere with others who say that Denver-Albuquerque has less-than expected potential.  I drove I-25 between Sante Fe-Pueblo last year, and LasVagas-Raton was nearly deserted.  The traffic that picked-up north of Raton, I suspect came off US 64, a multilane highway from Texas.

Even Denver-Pueblo passenger service would require re-double tracking Colorado Springs-Palmer Lake, and probably triple tracking north from there to Denver.

[ALVA MORRISON]

Albuquerque to Denver is a passenger market that has not been even tested or surveyed for decades.  To write it off in today's world where rail is booming in popularity, and both cities (and several in between) are booming in size, seems like old-line railroad defeatism.  There should be through service Denver to El Paso, for crimeny's sakes, and on to Mexico City, especially with trade booming across the border.  Freight service that way could open up massive economic opportunities, too.  Look at what KCS is doing with their cross-border service.  Hey, just to make it unpopular, we could call it "The NAFTA Flyer"

[VerMontanan]

Sorry, Mudchicken.  I stand by my earlier post based on actual experience.  Your post seems based on denial and that Raton had some kind of SuperRoadForeman who could make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and your supposition that BNSF can’t do this now or won’t.  I doubt you can justify that with fact, unless you know everyone working at BNSF.

 

When I managed power for BNSF on this line around 2000, one C40 (standard power around that time) could handle 1100 tons (with a C44 a bit more).  One C40 can handle nearly 4,000 tons via Boise City.  There’s one aspect of 400 percent more power right there.  But that’s not all.  Depending on the size of the train, you have the extra manpower cost of cutting in midtrain helper (or distributed power), the manpower cost of cutting it out, and the cost of locomotive dwell and lost utilization having to resposition the power for the next help.  Additionally, as stated previously, if you’re talking about running today’s trains over this route, then you need to add the cost of decreased locomotive and car cycle time because trains would be waiting so long for meets due to the lack of sidings on the route capable of handling today’s longer trains.  This is simply a reality that even world’s greatest trainmaster can’t overcome.  And it’s in stark contrast to today’s operating reality via Boise City where a fraction of the locomotive power (and none of it needing to cut in midtrain) can handle these large trains without any power modification.

 

 

Your statement “The only time I ever saw the amount of power you claim would be required was on light engine hops and power repositioning for the mines” is truly curious.  Of course you never saw 11 or 12 locomotives on a train (as I described) was because the Santa Fe never ran one anything close to 16,000 (or more) tons.  Yes, I have personal experience seeing an SD39 pull as much as an SD45, but one doesn’t see these locomotives in road freight service much anymore, so such anecdotal information in discussing utility of the route for freight service today is useless.  But I do recall the power on some of the last York Canyon coal trains over Raton.  They were 9,000 to 10,000 tons and were destined to Box, TX (Midlothian).  Loading where they did, the only alternative to Raton Pass was backtracking to Glorieta, so over Raton they went, usually with 9 or 10 units, sometimes in two chunks due to the trailing tonnage restriction.  On occasion the train was doubled over Raton Pass.  It was always a hassle to position enough power to run this train, and frustrating because after the train departed Trinidad, it needed a fraction of the power used over Raton Pass, and then the surplus power dwelled awaiting the next train, or if there were none, repositioned out, both very costly.  This is an apples-to-oranges comparison in that this is not tonnage that would be routed via Boise City, but it does show vast amount of resources (power, crews, diminished power and car cycle time) necessary to move heavy trains over Raton.  And now (unlike York Canyon coal going east) that there is no freight traffic that HAS to go via Raton, nothing DOES go that way.  And it makes perfect economic sense.

 

And just to put things in perspective with your claim that running a train via Raton Pass would take only 1.5 to 2 times the power as the route via Boise City, even though it is 3.5 times as steep:

 

Currently, a standard shuttle grain train of 16,000 tons routed through Denver destined for Central California is assigned 4 units, usually DC units (C44s), in a 2X0X2 DP configuration (2 on the point, nothing cut in midtrain, and 2 on the rear).  This is actually more power than the train needs on the Boise City subdivision because the train is actually powered for the steeper grade at Palmer Lake, between Denver and Colorado Springs.   Power is added en route twice and by the time it departs Barstow, the train has 9 units in a 4X3X2 configuration for the 2.33 grade westbound over Tehachapi Pass.  This is, on average, about 2.475 HPT, which is again about .4 HPT more than needed, but trains are “overpowered” as they’re sharing the railroad with many high priority trains and therefore velocity is important.

 

The westward approach to Tehachapi (unlike eastbound) is fairly straight, with few curves of consequence, yet 9 generic 4400HP locomotives are required.  Yet you claim that 6 to 8 locomotives (using your 1.5 to 2 times the power scenario) would get the train over Raton (assuming, I suppose, that knowledgeable Road Foreman was still available), which is a mere 1.65 to 2.2 HPT for a grade about 1.5 percent more than Tehachapi, in spite of Raton having curves of 10 degrees in areas where the grade is well over 3 percent.  That’s why, in reality, especially for the longest ones, trains over Raton indeed must be powered near 4.0 HPT to compensate for curvature.  Distributed power can minimally ameliorate the horsepower requirements, but any way you look at it, a modern grain train over Raton (assuming it moved in one chunk, which I doubt would be desirable from an operating standpoint) would require between 56,000 and 64,000 HP, or between 13 and 15 generic 4400 HP units.  Versus 4 via Boise City.

 

[Deggesty]

mudchicken

Johnny - There was considerably more ATS out there. It was retired in pieces as it failed starting in the mid-1990's. (It would help too if the Amtrak power would quit throwing ATS shoes like a bratty little kid.)

 

MC, didn't you mention this some time back bad habit? Apparently the SFe did not feel the same way about the habit as the Southern did, before 1974 (that was the year I left the South for the West), when a shoe came lose from the truck and cleared a switchstand on the AGS as it flailed about on its cable, which was still firmly attached--as the freight continued moving, one wheel picked the switch and.... Since the maximum speed anywhere on the system was only one mph faster than that allowed without ATS, the Southern was allowed to cease maintaining the system. The system was extensive--at least from Monroe, Va., (if not from AF Tower) to New Orleans, Cincinnati to Macon, Bristol to Memphis, Haleyville to Jasper (IC had trackage rights here), Salisbury to Morristown, and possible Charlotte Junction to Columbia--this covered the greater part that had ABS or CTC.

[mudchicken]

Johnny - There was considerably more ATS out there. It was retired in pieces as it failed starting in the mid-1990's. (It would help too if the Amtrak power would quit throwing ATS shoes like a bratty little kid.)

[mudchicken]

VerMont: Your calculations are WAY out of whack. DC and MC were part of Team Chico for many years and our careers overlapped. I have seen enough detour trains over the Northern Transcon  over the years (including loaded coal trains going west over the hill) to know your claims are off base.

"at least a factor of 3 or 4" - If you had said maybe 1.5 or 2.0, I might have believed you and that factor would have stretched it at that. If you get somebody that understands the hill and motive power, you get pretty interesting outcomes. Throwing more fuel and horsepower at a constraint doesn't solve the problems down there. The now long retired RFE/TM/Asst Supt at Raton (HGP) could make that place dance and helped write the book on RCE/DPU operations. BNSF will be lucky to ever find another like him. The hill just doesn't fit into BNSF's cookie-cutter operations scheme any more and that's a shame. The hill needed to be treated with respect. The current bunch is terrified of the place and it's largely unwarranted. (Passenger or Freight, there is a science and an art to what goes on....and the same can be said for Cajon, but there is no alternate BNSF route there.)

Hint: RSD-15's, SD26's and SD39's called the place home. It wasn't because it was a backwater assignment. They replaced SD40-2, SD45's etc on virtually a 1 to 1 basis and it worked really well, La Junta - Belen. The only time I ever saw the amount of power you claim would be required was on light engine hops and power repositioning for the mines. Bigger concerns were always train handling and making sure d/b's were cut out like they were supposed to be. The main problem with detours was always running out of qualified crews.

 

[Deggesty]

mudchicken

 

Deggesty

Altamont Press' Central West Timetable, published four years ago shows CTC from West Trinidad to Springer, with 2MT West Trinidad to Wooten; this may have been discontinued in the last four years. It also shows ATS between La Junta and Trinidad.

 

 

 

 

Closer to the truth, but you also left out the "Rowe Island", from Rowe through Apache Canyon to Lamy. (Its reason for being long gone)

 

TCS (antiquated) still out there, status quo. Converting TCS to ABS isn't cost justified given the situation and New Mexico's littany of broken contract promises and hyper-reliance on Uncle $ugar. If premium speed intermodal ever makes a comeback, the thinking might change.

 

Thanks, MC. I, of course, had no knowledge of what would be involved in converting CTC to ABS. I do find it interesting that only a part of the route had CTC installed. I wonder if at one time more of it had ATS than has been shown in comparatively recent ETT's.

[VerMontanan]

Mudchicken:

 

I’ll just focus on a couple of your points: 

 

No. 3: “More reliable than the northern transcon? - Nope ....especially when the operating bubbas and their competing current of traffic regimes compete. (Amarillo to Denver freight frequently is the loser in these operating dust-ups)”

 

Sounds like you’re just considering generic freight (BNSF calls it merchandise) traffic.  Since there isn’t a lot of it, sure, running small trains over Raton Pass would be a lot faster than via Amarillo.  And there wouldn’t be a lot of problem with meets, either, since these trains would be infrequent and small. (And of course, Amtrak would be the fastest of all!)  But let’s be practical and compare ALL traffic that needs to run between Denver and Albuquerque/Belen, and then the impracticality of Raton Pass is obvious.  The logistics, not to mention the crews and power needed to move 16,000-ton grain trains or 18,000-ton coal trains, would be a nightmare.  Actually might be an impossibility…the trailing tonnage limit for general service couplers (grade C) over Raton is less than 4,000 tons and 5,500 tons for grade E couplers.  That means that a standard 16,000-ton grain train would need to part of its 11 or 12 locomotives cut into the train twice.  Truly a time consuming maneuver!  (This compares to the current 4 units needed via Boise City, none of which are cut in midtrain).   Then of course these behemoths would need to meet opposing trains of similar lengths, resulting in huge delays since sidings with sufficient length are few and far between.  When the train got to Raton or Albuquerque (at least half of the power would need to stay on for Glorieta Pass), you’d not want to run all 13 locomotives west, so you would cut some off to reposition back for another loaded train.  This, of course, would cost more time and crews, as would adding to the eastward/northward train.  Depending on the frequency of these trains (still not many), locomotives would dwell waiting for a ride, or a light engine would be operated, further adding to the cost.  So, yes, if you consider ALL the traffic running between Denver and Albuquerque/Belen and the costs of managing the assets to handle it, the Raton routing couldn’t be more reliable because there are too many moving parts (all of which add cost).  This is somewhat to your No. 4 point:  Yes, you would need operating savvy to handle the line through Raton, but mostly you would need exponentially more locomotives and crews (assuming that additional sidings – another cost – were not added to reduce the meet/pass problem).

 

No. 5:”Easier on fuel consumption and power requirements? - Depends.”  I suppose it could depend on if lengthy tunnels were drilled under Raton and Glorieta passes to reduce the grade by about two-thirds.  But failing that, just the quantity of power required via Raton means the Amarillo routing is cheaper by a landslide (at least a factor of 3 or 4).

 

Again, if you want to run via Raton, you certainly could cherrypick and create a train that would be faster on that route than via Amarillo.  But if you consider all the traffic that really runs that way right now, there is no reason to run freight there, and that’s why there is none.

 

 

 

 

 

[mudchicken]

(1) had ATSF not rehabbed Las Animas Junction to Amarillo in '76-'78, the whole issue might be moot. It went from 90# jointed on poor ties in the dirt to 119# CWR on good ties plus the entire line was sledded and reballasted. The line was designed to a high standard in 1932-1937 and has never been signalled.

(2) Faster than the northern transcon? - Nope.

(3)More reliable than the northern transcon? - Nope ....especially when the operating bubbas and their competing current of traffic regimes compete. [Amarillo to Denver freight frequently is the loser in these operating dust-ups)

(4)Easier on the operating dept? - Yep (With apologies to Gilpin Hill, Harbord Hill, the junctions at Las Animas, Springfield and Boise City which have challenges)...You have to have a qualified trainmaster to handle the northern transcon. Any "trained-monkey" could usually handle the Boise City Sub...

Boise City, OK was laid out to be in the center of a large figure "X" with a major yard and engine terminal. One side of the X is gone (incomplete Colmor Cut-Off), its opposite side is the Cimarron Valley RR. 

(5) Easier on fuel consumption and power requirements? - Depends.

If you start working-in Pueblo to Albuquerque into the equation, you introduce the stupid poor C&S between Pueblo and Trinidad and things change again.

[diningcar]

Los Angeles Rams Guy

But the routing over to Las Animas and thence down to the Transcon mainline at Amarillo still seems like a roundabout way to do it........I've heard the arguments about the grades on Raton and Glorieta passes but, as a former ATSF Roadmaster told me not so long ago, it's not the grades that are the problem. Rather, it's the bridges which, for the time being, do not allow for double-stack movement. Maybe BNSF can avoid the grades via Las Animas and down to Amarillo, but at what cost? Maybe the Raton Pass mainline will never become the funnel for freight traffic like I would like it to be but it's definitely a key link for future passenger service from Denver or other points.

 

What may not be understood regarding the Las Animas - Amarillo route is that this was the route selected after the SF-BN merger for loaded coal trains enroute  to Texas destinations. These formerly went through Trinidad and Dalhart, TX to Amarillo, a much more difficult route for the heavy loads. Now the loads go via Las Animas and the empties through Trinidad.

To make this work the Las Animas route was upgraded, especially that portion south from Las Animas Jct. So with the Las Animas route established and necessarly well maintained it was quite logical and economicaly justified to use it for all traffic. The need for fewer locomotives and the roadway maintenance avoidance on the Raton Line made the decision an easy one. 

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

VerMontanan

 

Los Angeles Rams Guy

 

 

 

Yes, was referring to passenger service......IMHO, the Raton Pass mainline is simply a critical link that cannot be ignored and it becomes that much more important once the Front Range cities of Denver, Colorado Springs and Pueblo are figured into the equation.

As for BNSF's intermodal service out of Denver, I believe that they do offer "service" out to Southern California utilizing their trackage rights over UP west of Denver.  How "reliable" it is is anyone's guess.  My point is that the former ATSF had service over Raton Pass and they seemed to be able to make do okay. 

 

 

 

 

Your post is confusing then.  You admit your reference was to passenger service, so it seems odd that you're evidently complaining that BNSF can't offer passenger service comparable to what ATSF did.  BNSF and all the other Class I railroads don't operate their own intercity passenger trains.  Only Amtrak does.

You have not answered you think BNSF is not offering reliable service.

Any traffic between Denver and Southern California operates via Amarillo which would be infinitely more reliable than a route via Raton Pass.  Such trains are much cheaper to operate, and likely faster and more reliable since locomotive power is not unlimited and Raton Pass takes over three times as much.

 

Thanks for the clarification on that....Actually, that's what I was thinking but sometimes my head doesn't always think so clearly in the early A.M. 

But the routing over to Las Animas and thence down to the Transcon mainline at Amarillo still seems like a roundabout way to do it........I've heard the arguments about the grades on Raton and Glorieta passes but, as a former ATSF Roadmaster told me not so long ago, it's not the grades that are the problem.  Rather, it's the bridges which, for the time being, do not allow for double-stack movement.  Maybe BNSF can avoid the grades via Las Animas and down to Amarillo, but at what cost?

Maybe the Raton Pass mainline will never become the funnel for freight traffic like I would like it to be but it's definitely a key link for future passenger service from Denver or other points.

 

[VerMontanan]

Los Angeles Rams Guy

 

 

 

Yes, was referring to passenger service......IMHO, the Raton Pass mainline is simply a critical link that cannot be ignored and it becomes that much more important once the Front Range cities of Denver, Colorado Springs and Pueblo are figured into the equation.

As for BNSF's intermodal service out of Denver, I believe that they do offer "service" out to Southern California utilizing their trackage rights over UP west of Denver.  How "reliable" it is is anyone's guess.  My point is that the former ATSF had service over Raton Pass and they seemed to be able to make do okay. 

 

Your post is confusing then.  You admit your reference was to passenger service, so it seems odd that you're evidently complaining that BNSF can't offer passenger service comparable to what ATSF did.  BNSF and all the other Class I railroads don't operate their own intercity passenger trains.  Only Amtrak does.

You have not answered you think BNSF is not offering reliable service.

Any traffic between Denver and Southern California operates via Amarillo which would be infinitely more reliable than a route via Raton Pass.  Such trains are much cheaper to operate, and likely faster and more reliable since locomotive power is not unlimited and Raton Pass takes over three times as much.

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

VerMontanan

 

Los Angeles Rams Guy

The Raton Pass mainline is a critical link for future rail passenger service between Denver and Albuquerque.  What gets me is that predecessor ATSF offered reliable service between Denver and Southern California and yet BNSF can't?

 

 

 

 

Assuming you're not talking about passenger service which BNSF and other freight railroads to not operate, what evidence have you that BNSF is NOT offering reliable service between Denver and Southern California?

 

Yes, was referring to passenger service......IMHO, the Raton Pass mainline is simply a critical link that cannot be ignored and it becomes that much more important once the Front Range cities of Denver, Colorado Springs and Pueblo are figured into the equation.

As for BNSF's intermodal service out of Denver, I believe that they do offer "service" out to Southern California utilizing their trackage rights over UP west of Denver.  How "reliable" it is is anyone's guess.  My point is that the former ATSF had service over Raton Pass and they seemed to be able to make do okay. 

[MidlandMike]

The bill talks about the costs of the Railrunner, but does not say if ridership went up or down since it replaced the bus.  At the end it asks NM DOT to only look at the costs for the Railrunner, and the benefits of re-established bus service, rather than a cost/benefit comparison of both.

[Yard Limit]

This bill was introduced into the NM legislature.  It calls for evaluating the possibility of selling the assets of the Railrunner.  http://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/15%20Regular/memorials/house/HM127.pdf

[mudchicken]

Deggesty

Altamont Press' Central West Timetable, published four years ago shows CTC from West Trinidad to Springer, with 2MT West Trinidad to Wooten; this may have been discontinued in the last four years. It also shows ATS between La Junta and Trinidad.

 

Closer to the truth, but you also left out the "Rowe Island", from Rowe through Apache Canyon to Lamy. (Its reason for being long gone)

TCS (antiquated) still out there, status quo. Converting TCS to ABS isn't cost justified given the situation and New Mexico's littany of broken contract promises and hyper-reliance on Uncle $ugar. If premium speed intermodal ever makes a comeback, the thinking might change.

[azrail]

What freight traffic is there between Denver and LA, other than Coors beer?

The only ATSF passenger service to Denver was the daily connection to the main line at La Junta. It was combined with tha C&S train between Denver and Trinidad until the end of C&S pssgr service in 1967. From '67 to '71 it was an ATSF-only train.

 

[VerMontanan]

Los Angeles Rams Guy

The Raton Pass mainline is a critical link for future rail passenger service between Denver and Albuquerque.  What gets me is that predecessor ATSF offered reliable service between Denver and Southern California and yet BNSF can't?

 

Assuming you're not talking about passenger service which BNSF and other freight railroads do not operate, what evidence have you that BNSF is NOT offering reliable service between Denver and Southern California?

[Yard Limit]

I used to live in Denver and had family in Albuquerque so I've driven that stretch of I25 probably a hundred times.  It's awful!  It's one of the reasons I moved back to ABQ..., that and old parents.  

I solved the I25 problem by going into a partnership with three other guys on a Mooney M20J.  I could fly from BJC to ABQ in 1 hour and 45 minutes on a good day.  

A better solution for the rest of us would be having the light rail in Denver being extended to Colorado Springs and then Pueblo.  It should also be extended up to Boulder for that matter.  

I stand by my statement but I agree that doing anything to take traffic off of I25 for that stretch would be a good thing.  

[diningcar]

Yes, I 25 is very busy between Denver and Colorado Springs but much less busy as you go on to Pueblo. South of Pueblo the 100 miles of I-25 to the New Mexico State Line is not close to being busy. And I-25 from the CO State Line to Santa Fe is almost a lonesome road.

It is 435 +- miles from Denver to Alb. via I-25 and the busy segments are the 60 miles between Alb. and Santa Fe and the 100 miles between Denver and Pueblo.

A railroad passenger operation would be both longer in distance and much longer in time. And it would not go through Santa Fe without a change of trains to the Roadrunner.  If this could ever be justified it would be after those of us posting here are long gone.

[Los Angeles Rams Guy]

Yard Limit

I'd venture to guess that there will never be rail service between Denver and Albuquerque.  There's no market for it and the stretch between Raton and Trinidad is so steep that even Amtrak takes an hour to cover those 20 miles.

 

Have you been on I-25 lately from Denver southward toward Colorado Springs and Pueblo?  If not, I'd check it out and am guessing you might want to revise your statement.

 

[Deggesty]

Thanks, Yard Limit, for the Rail Runner ETT. I had forgotten about their service between Santa Fe and Albuquerque.They can, indeed, make use of the CTC on the track they use.

[MidlandMike]

As a passenger route, won't the line need PTC?

[Deggesty]

Altamont Press' Central West Timetable, published four years ago shows CTC from West Trinidad to Springer, with 2MT West Trinidad to Wooten; this may have been discontinued in the last four years. It also shows ATS between La Junta and Trinidad.

[Yard Limit]

https://www.acm.jhu.edu//~sthurmovik/movies/New_Mexico_Rail_Runner_%20TT_n_GO_1_120608.pdf

Everything you wanted to know about the line.

[diningcar]

I think I am correct about this: the only CTC between Newton, KS and Albuquerque is the 22 mile La Junta to Las Animas Jct. segment which BNSF uses for their very busy freight operations to Amarillo.

Perhaps the New Mexico RailRunner has CTC for their operations between Belen and Santa Fe.

[Yard Limit]

Thanks for this update!  I hadn't heard the news.  Here's another link:  http://www.kmbc.com/news/amtrak-to-continue-operating-southwest-chief-route/32075744

[Deggesty]

Yard Limit

I'd venture to guess that there will never be rail service between Denver and Albuquerque.  There's no market for it and the stretch between Raton and Trinidad is so steep that even Amtrak takes an hour to cover those 20 miles.

ATSF offered rail service from Chicago to LA, via Albuquerque along the northern route in New Mexico and was considered to be outstanding passenger service.  Having ridden on the Super Chief growing up, I can attest to that.  ATSF never went through Denver.

Denver and Rio Grande Western operated the Rio Grande Zephyr along the route from Denver to Salt Lake, going through some of the most beautiful country in the US.  In 1988 it purchased the Southern Pacific and eventually merged with the Union Pacific.  The California Zephyr runs along that route from Chicago to San Francisco.

When ATSF and BNSF merged, it gave BNSF other trackage in eastern New Mexico, where it runs north/south freight over instead of the steep grades from Albuquerque to Raton.  The only train that runs north of Lamy, New Mexico, is the Southwest Chief so there is no reason why BNSF wants to maintain that trackage for two trains a day.  

The latest I've heard is that Colorado, New Mexico, and Kansas will probably figure out a way to pay BNSF to keep the line open but I don't think it will be decided until next year.  I'll keep the group posted as news becomes available.

 

I expect that several of us have aleady seen the announcement in the News-wire section this morning. But for those who have not yet read it, here it is: http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/03/amtraks-southwest-chief-route-safe.

I wonder: will it still be maintained with ABS? and with CTC in at least one section? I really wonder about the need for CTC when there is only one train a day each way.

[diningcar]

Los Angeles Rams Guy

The Raton Pass mainline is a critical link for future rail passenger service between Denver and Albuquerque.  What gets me is that predecessor ATSF offered reliable service between Denver and Southern California and yet BNSF can't?

If you are ONLY talking about passenger service that has been Amtrak's responsibility since 1971. If you are including freight service, that service remains but by a different route. It now goes through Las Animas Jct. to Amarillo where it joins the Transcon.