Some years ago, I remember watching a video about the York Canyon coal train. It took three locomotives up front and three more as pushers to get the train over Raton in two cuts. The train was then re-assembled and headed east behind two locomotives. Quite different from priority TOFC/COFC trains.
Raton pass in the early 90s was still viable enough for the Santa Fe that when they were doing work in Abo Canyon trains 199 198 and the eastbound counterparts were rerouted over Raton along with QNYLA. Those were so overpowered in the HP/ton normally getting 5 to 6 per ton that the grade wasn't that big of a hindrance. That and being all tofc with no double stacked containers.
Was SFe's northern line 3-4 hours faster than the southern?
In 1957 the Super Chief was scheduled 3 minutes faster Newton to Dalies (via La Junta) than the San Francisco Chief via Amarillo. The Chief and El Cap via La Junta were a few minutes slower.
Where do people get the idea Super C ran via Raton? Did it ever even detour that way?
(The last page of a 9/72 timetable shows it running via Belen, as it no doubt always did
1972-09-11AT&SF_Albuquerque17-SheldonPerry.pdf (wx4.org)
Last page of a 1971 timetable shows it running via Wellington
1971-05-16ATSF_Middle18-Moore.pdf (wx4.org)
Timetables didn't show the freight schedules before that.
mudchicken ... We probably crossed paths at Wootton/Morley/Gallinas/Starkville a few times, esp if you were with the test car EMD2, EMD4 and the two plain jane gray SBD SD-50's without their decals / paint applied. (Speaking of "blast", hopefully you missed Ralph declaring war on the beavers )
... We probably crossed paths at Wootton/Morley/Gallinas/Starkville a few times, esp if you were with the test car EMD2, EMD4 and the two plain jane gray SBD SD-50's without their decals / paint applied.
(Speaking of "blast", hopefully you missed Ralph declaring war on the beavers )
EMD demo SD60's EMD2 and 4 were there a few months before our first radial truck test on Sant Fe GP50 3810 and test car/braking units in 11/84. It was absolutely the best testing ground for a steering truck with all the 10 degree curves and the grade to assist the braking units in holding the locomotive at full TE. In total, I think I spent a total of about 5 months on various tests running up and down the Trinidad side of the hill in the mid-1980's. Had many great dinners at a Mexican restaurant near the station in Trinidad but the name escapes me now.
I did miss hearing about Ralph and the beavers.
Dave
mudchicken Vermont: At one point, the ATSF northern transcon was 3-4 hours faster (and one less crew district).
Vermont: At one point, the ATSF northern transcon was 3-4 hours faster (and one less crew district).
Could be. At one point. But not now. And this matters how?
mudchicken The line was very viable and had to be respected. I don't think the general managers, superintendents, trainmasters, RFE's, roadmasters and dispatchers were living a lie making the thing work. Some of the best real world training and professional railroad guidance I have experienced came from those people. (some of the worst experiences I had was from people off the southern transcon who had oversized egoes and/or were generally clueless and not resourcefull )
The line was very viable and had to be respected. I don't think the general managers, superintendents, trainmasters, RFE's, roadmasters and dispatchers were living a lie making the thing work. Some of the best real world training and professional railroad guidance I have experienced came from those people. (some of the worst experiences I had was from people off the southern transcon who had oversized egoes and/or were generally clueless and not resourcefull )
Obviously, you are very passionate about this route; you are also very biased. Having worked for the railroad for 40 years and being exposed to people from three mergers, I have learned to respect ALL railroaders for what they did on their railroad. And since the positions you mentioned - whether they were on the Northern route or Southern route - were all on the same railroad, and railroading being what it is, I know that these were not always the same people in these positions all the time; indeed, they were often moved about to gain experience, so your continuing (as you've stated this in previous threads) to suggest that the quality of personnel has anything to do with a route's viability is illogical. The reality is that the Raton Pass route is a high cost route with severe operating restrictions that were only exacerbated by the BNSF merger and upgrading of alternate routes. Being the inferior route in no way means the employees were inferior (nor superior).
mudchicken I do NOT agree with your over-generalized and pre-conceived view of the ATSF original northern transcon. It does sound eerilly similar to many others who never set foot out there and try to cherry pick the facts. (fortunately the John Reids of the world could see through the bs)
I do NOT agree with your over-generalized and pre-conceived view of the ATSF original northern transcon. It does sound eerilly similar to many others who never set foot out there and try to cherry pick the facts. (fortunately the John Reids of the world could see through the bs)
You might think you do, but the rest of use really don't know what John Reed would have thought of the North route vs. the South route as the South route has evolved into the railroad it is, and how the BN purchase of the ATSF resulted in directional running between Pueblo and Amarillo.
My view is hardly "pre-conceived." As a power manager for BNSF, I got to learn first hand the joy of trying to scrounge power for a spontaneously-created vehicle train at Albuquerque routed via Glorieta and 10,000 tons of York Canyon coal for Box, TX over Raton. As for over-generalized: Yes, generally speaking - well actually speaking: 3.5 percent grades are a severe hinderance to heavy traffic freight railroading. It's not just Raton; American railroads don't have grades that steep on their main lines.
So what's your point? Given the reality of today's freight railroading, what place is there for the Raton Pass line that isn't applicable anywhere else?
Mark Meyer
Fred M Cain Your explanation that the only reason that the Santa Fe ran all but one of their passenger trains on the north line because they wanted to have them serve the Santa Fe/Albuquerque market is somewhat questionable. But just letting that go for a minute, it does not explain why the Santa Fe ran the Super C on the north line. I am guessing it's because the north line is faster.
Fred M Cain I question your assessment here for another reason. You have repeatedly gone on record as stating that the Milwaukee Road's line to Puget Sound was NOT the fastest nor the best route. But people involved with the Milwaukee road who were really in a position to know have repeatedly disputed that assessment. I don't want to mention any names here but I take So-and-so's word above yours.
Feel free to believe what you like, Fred, but I will debate anyone on the subject. The Milwaukee was simply the high-cost operation, and that's the reason it's not around. The ex-GN route from the Twin Cities to the Pacific Northwest for the most part fielded the fastest passenger, mail, and freight trains between Chicago and the Pacific Northwest on the least-costly route. But one thing about your choosing to believe "so-and-so:" He/she/it is telling you why things turned out the way they didn't. The Pacific Extension really really was mostly abandoned and the ex-GN route really really is still the primary freight and passenger route between the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. Sometimes things really do happen for a reason.
http://trainweb.org/milwaukeemyths/
Beyond that, I acknowledge that both the Raton Pass line and the Milwaukee Pacific Extension are/were unique and therefore interesting railroads whose subsequent demise or downgrading are met with a lot of passion. But that doesn't shield them from operating realities.
bogie_engineer mudchicken .....Wonder if BogieEngineer was ever with the test trains between La Junta and Trinidad when they were given absolute blocks and allowed to let fly.. I was not, all the testing in Colorado I was associated with was radial truck development and I never rode the test train between the test center and Trinidad. I will say testing on Raton is one of my best memories, the crews were great, the RR always gave us a 5 man crew so at least one did the daily cooking. IIRC, the trainmaster in Raton was Glen Powers at the time and he was very accomodating. Our engineer was a guy name Mike who was a preacher in Raton and our conductor Gary had some great stories. The fireman was a guy whose name I can't remember but he lived in Springer and took us golfing at Angelfire a couple of times on our days off. One of my all time favorite memories was my first trip there in Nov. 1984 where the local track guy, I think his name was Ralph Ponce, took several of us in his high rail truck riding in the back through the tunnel forward toward Raton, then in reverse at what seemed like 60 mph, probably much slower in reality. Dave
mudchicken .....Wonder if BogieEngineer was ever with the test trains between La Junta and Trinidad when they were given absolute blocks and allowed to let fly..
.....Wonder if BogieEngineer was ever with the test trains between La Junta and Trinidad when they were given absolute blocks and allowed to let fly..
Overmod Bitter though I am about the CASO, it was never going to serve its valuable purpose as a high-speed link 'ever any more'.
Bitter though I am about the CASO, it was never going to serve its valuable purpose as a high-speed link 'ever any more'.
That is part of what you are seeing now.
York Canyon Distict (at French / Coal mines, part of earlier Dawson RR (SP))-GONE
Montana de Fibre - Fiberboard & Plywood Mill (north of Las Vegas) GONE
Santa Fe Branch Traffic at Lamy (Building Material & Beer) GONE
Gypsum/Wallboard traffic at Galisteo, NM GONE
Manufactured Housing plant at Domingo NM - GONE
Notice a trend?
(The double & triple tracking of the southern transcon made the northern transcon redundant...Similar to what happened to the KP & MP vs the UP transcon after the traffic slump here in CO and KS (without the passenger train issue....Amtrak here is now 79MPH and ATS inductors are vanishing.)
BackshopWhat if the potential isn't needed?
That not meant to suggest that some lines don't have relatively less value in this respect than others. Bitter though I am about the CASO, it was never going to serve its valuable purpose as a high-speed link 'ever any more'. Likewise, the Tennessee Pass route, or (to bring in the other topic) the Milwaukee Pacific Coast Extension have much more value as bargaining chips than practical, competitive transportation routes (especially in ttrraaffiicc's future where autonomous-truck operations sets service and cost floors).
Any speed benefit from going over Raton does not factor into any practical modern freight paradigm, and arguably it never really did. On the other hand, peak 4% gets leveraged really, really fast with big PSR bridge consists. Meanwhile I doubt if Amtrak would achieve meaningful customer satisfaction by increasing speed there, either, particularly if sleeper comfort were considered.
What if the potential isn't needed? Here's a good example--Conrail had three very good NYC-Chicago mainlines (PRR-NYC-EL). All had their advantages and disadvantages. The problem was that they didn't have enough traffic to run all three efficiently. The first to go was the EL. Next, the PRR west of Alliance. If track can't be utilized fully, why use it at all?
Mudchicken,
Oh, sure, I knew that ATS wasn't usually used on freight trains. I think the top speed for the very fastest freights (The Super C excepted) on the Santa Fe was 70MPH, so what would be the point of using ATS?
I was just trying to show that the line was made faster than the southern line due to its arrow-straight trajectory and ATS (for varnish, that is). I think also that the Super C was allowed to go 90.
However, even this cannot be the complete explanation as you pointed out. I still think the north line has potential but what I think doesn't really matter. It's what the state and federal politicians and to some degree the railroad thinks.
Like I said once before, I'd just LOVE to revisit this thread (if I can find it) five years from now. I strongly suspect we will know more at that time.
Regards,
FMC
Vermont: At one point, the ATSF northern transcon was 3-4 hours faster (and one less crew district). As the crew districts got longer and the dispatching changed, that number dropped and the crew districts equalized.... even into the Q-Train / Rail Garrison era the line was still the faster way to go as they continued to improve the southern route. Unfortunately, there was not enough of a premium on fast freight to keep traffic with 9 symbols up there along with no consistent local business** . (even the trials with the road-railers reinforced that. No market, locomotive economics and suspicious "wind*" issues killed off that effort.)
Intimately familiar with Dodge City[Sears] -La Junta-Albuquerque [Hahn] as I have 10+ years experience in that country as part of my Santa Fe career.
(*) Odd, the wind issue seems to always wind up dumping trains in Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle.
(**) Which also meant less local freight and switches to dance around.
Fred: ATCS rarely, if ever was used in freight service. 79MPH or less didn't need it. (and spent too many hours looking for ATS shoes lost by Amthrax between Dodge City and Trinidad).....Wonder if BogieEngineer was ever with the test trains between La Junta and Trinidad when they were given absolute blocks and allowed to let fly..
Fred M Cainit does not explain why the Santa Fe ran the Super C on the north line.
mudchicken "and no Raton Pass is not faster than the Belen Cutoff.. " - Disagree (by 3-4 hours)...
"and no Raton Pass is not faster than the Belen Cutoff.. " - Disagree (by 3-4 hours)...
Hey, "Mudchicken",
My guess is that if it was 3-4 hours faster then that it had something to do with the line from central Kansas (new Newton) to Lamar or Trinidad. Trains could move like a bat out of hell on that line. It mostly had a top speed of 90 MPH and an engineer on a late train might even push the envelope to the century mark.
That made the line SO fast that it compensated somewhat for the slow running over Raton and Glorietta passes. If I'm not mistaken, I think there was also a little bit of 90 MPH running north (timetable east) of Albuquerque.
I'm not sure but I'm still under the impression that the Santa Fe's old ATS hardware is still in place. It's track conditions that have forced speed limits down. If the feds and the state fund the rebuilding of the line, would 90MPH speeds return? Huh! I can only guess about that. That's another "what if" just as is the rebuilding of the line and whether or not BNSF would use it again if it got rebuilt.
I don't think that we should argue about this because the future is totally unknown as I've said before. It's all a matter of "wait and see"
Fred M. Cain
VerMontanan "and no Raton Pass is not faster than the Belen Cutoff.. " - Disagree (by 3-4 hours)... So, the Raton Pass route had the fastest train, but it wasn't the fastest route. And with the infrastructure enhancements on the route via Clovis, that route is all the faster.
diningcarBNSF has developed efficient options that avoid the need for the track between Jansen ( two miles S of Trinidad) and Bernalillo, NM.
Does the Rosario Asphalt plant still receive rail service?
Los Angeles Rams GuyI get a laugh out of all of the so-called "professionals" on here who diss Raton Pass.
What about all the professionals who actually run the railroad who "diss" Raton Pass?
I get a laugh out of all of the so-called "professionals" on here who diss Raton Pass. It was a viable route then and it can be again.
One source of traffic for Amtrak has been Philmont Scout Ranch, which wouldn't be served nearly as well from the Belen cut-off. Kind of doubt that the Philmont traffic come anywhere near close to justifying the cost of keeping Raton Pass open.
Fred M Cain I've often wondered just what BNSF would do if the states and the feds jumped in there and improved this line with all welded rail, PTC and lengthened CTC-controlled sidings? They might just look upon things differently.
I've often wondered just what BNSF would do if the states and the feds jumped in there and improved this line with all welded rail, PTC and lengthened CTC-controlled sidings? They might just look upon things differently.
No, they would avoid it and its 3.5 percent grades like the plague.
Fred M Cain That's kinda what happened with the Devil's Lake Line in North Dakota. At one time it was a possible candidate for abandonment with few if any trains using it other than Amtrak. Then the states chipped in and improved the line and, I think, BNSF contributed some money as well, and now BNSF uses the line as a pop-off valve. A few years ago when oil traffic peaked they were using it a lot.
That's kinda what happened with the Devil's Lake Line in North Dakota. At one time it was a possible candidate for abandonment with few if any trains using it other than Amtrak.
Then the states chipped in and improved the line and, I think, BNSF contributed some money as well, and now BNSF uses the line as a pop-off valve. A few years ago when oil traffic peaked they were using it a lot.
This is mostly not true. Before the Bakken boom, BNSF was mostly not running any through trains on line knowing (as did come to pass) that Amtrak and/or some government entity would step in to help raising the track when Devils Lake (the lake) was evolving into an inland sea, as the states along the Empire Builder route - whether blue or red - are very protective of that train. But when Bakken traffic took off, BNSF did much more than contribute "some" money; it was more like 95% of it. Amtrak and the state each contributed one-third of the $97 million cost to raise the railroad from Churchs Ferry east. But BNSF put up the rest of the money and to basically rebuild the entire railroad from Surrey (Minot) to Fargo via Grand Forks, installing new ballast, ribbonrail, an entirely new signal system including CTC, and numerous new sidings. All part of an upgrade that included adding a second main track most of the way from Minot to Williston, a staging yard east of Glasgow, Montana, and adding crossovers and areas of second main track in Minnesota and Wisconsin - a price tag in the billions of dollars. The route between Fargo and Minot is far from a "pop-off valve;" it is considered an alternate main line, and crews operating between Dilworth, MN and Minot can use either route, though the route via Grand Forks and Devils Lake is usually used for westward trains.
Fred M Cain I know, I know, Raton Pass is most definitely NOT North Dakota and the grades are steep. But here's the thing: Those grades are only a problem for very heavy freight. Really HOT freight trains such as a lot of hot intermodal are not all that heavy. Santa Fe ran the Super C over this route and prior to the Santa Fe - BN merger they were also running a double stack train a few times per week.
I know, I know, Raton Pass is most definitely NOT North Dakota and the grades are steep. But here's the thing: Those grades are only a problem for very heavy freight. Really HOT freight trains such as a lot of hot intermodal are not all that heavy. Santa Fe ran the Super C over this route and prior to the Santa Fe - BN merger they were also running a double stack train a few times per week.
Again, not true. The statement "grades are only a problem for very heavy freight" is over-the-top ridiculous. What weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers? Regardless of the type of train, the steeper the grade, the more resources it takes. In today's world, the hottest Z trains can be 5,000 to 7,000 tons and could be limited westbound on Raton Pass to just less than 4,000 tons or 5,500 tons, depending on the type of couplers (or they would need to run with distributed power, a cumbersome move on a high-priority train, relatively speaking). The maximum grade westbound on BNSF from Chicago to Los Angeles is currently 1.6 percent, but that would grow to 3.5 percent via Raton. Also, as these trains are often in excess of 7,000 feet in length - much longer than most of the sidings via Raton Pass. "Loaded Multi-platform double stack equipment may not be operated on the Raton Subdivision. (Car kind codes QY, QV, QW, QX, QT). Single well equipment (Car kind codes QU and QK) may be operated if loaded in the bottom only." In addition to these restrictions, there are train makeup restrictions (placement of loaded and empty cars) depending on train weight which would make even TOFC or single-stack trains labor-intensive getting the train prepared for the steep grades.
Fred M CainThe reason that the AT&SF ran most of their passenger trains on this route is that is was generally faster than the southern route.
Nope. The route through Clovis was just as fast, and is moreso today with the infrastructure improvements. It's not unusual for some of BNSF's Z trains to make the Los Angeles-to-Chicago trek via Clovis and Amarillo faster than Amtrak's Southwest Chief. But even in Santa Fe days, the reason the passenger trains operated via Raton Pass was to access the important markets of Santa Fe (at Lamy) and Albuquerque (and at one time, access the Denver market at La Junta - a service that lasted to the start of Amtrak). Operation via Clovis and serving Albuquerque would be possible, but wyeing the train would be necessary at Albuquerque. This should have been the option Amtrak chose in the late 1990s, but prior to Amtrak - when Santa Fe was operating multiple passenger trains through Albuquerque - it would have been cumbersome to turn that volume of trains.
Fred M CainThe possibility of a big upgrade to this line is not completely out of the question. Meanwhile the states and even the feds have already committed some funds.
The possibility of upgrading for freight trains is out of the question. They will never operate this way again. An upgrade for passenger trains would be enormous and basically require a new alignment over Raton and Glorieta Passes as well as the approach to the Pecos River where there are currently numerous stretches of 20 and 30 MPH track. The current alignment does not work to make passenger trains competitive with driving I-25 between, say, Denver and Albuquerque. The state and federal funding "commitment" has zero to do with any "upgrade." Basically, the money is just to maintain the route so that the Southwest Chief can continue to operate on it, as it's the only train that does so from Trinidad to Lamy. Far from any upgrade, it is basically a money pit that could have been avoided had the train been rerouted via Wichita and Clovis in the late 1990s when it became obvious (and BNSF stated as much) that freight traffic (specifically York Canyon coal) was going to evaporate, and that the much-lower-grade ex-ATSF and ex-FW&D/C&S routes between Pueblo and Amarillo would be upgraded for directional operation.
BNSF has developed efficient options that avoid the need for the track between Jansen ( two miles S of Trinidad) and Bernalillo, NM.
If Congress chooses to subsiside the continual operation of the SW Chief with some matching participation from KS, CO and NM the Raton Pass line may remain operational. I see no other reason for it to remain; and yes I have a nostalgic connection because I worked on or with it for several years.
I think what I’d really like to try and do is to go back and revisit this thread five years from (if I can find it again, that is) and by that time we will know a whole lot more of what happened. There’s just no sense arguing about the unknown. Let’s wait and see first.
Fred M Cain I've often wondered just what BNSF would do if the states and the feds jumped in there and improved this line with all welded rail, PTC and lengthened CTC-controlled sidings? They might just look upon things differently. That's kinda what happened with the Devil's Lake Line in North Dakota. At one time it was a possible candidate for abandonment with few if any trains using it other than Amtrak. Then the states chipped in and improved the line and, I think, BNSF contributed some money as well, and now BNSF uses the line as a pop-off valve. A few years ago when oil traffic peaked they were using it a lot. I know, I know, Raton Pass is most definitely NOT North Dakota and the grades are steep. But here's the thing: Those grades are only a problem for very heavy freight. Really HOT freight trains such as a lot of hot intermodal are not all that heavy. Santa Fe ran the Super C over this route and prior to the Santa Fe - BN merger they were also running a double stack train a few times per week. The reason that the AT&SF ran most of their passenger trains on this route is that is was generally faster than the southern route. The possibility of a big upgrade to this line is not completely out of the question. Joe Biden has been talking about BIG bucks for rail which in the end might or might not happen. Meanwhile the states and even the feds have already committed some funds. Joe Biden is talking REALLY big but before we get too excited about that - I have watched this movie before where a president-elect has proposed spending a lot of money on the rail mode which, sadly, in the end never quite happened. Regards, FMC
The reason that the AT&SF ran most of their passenger trains on this route is that is was generally faster than the southern route.
The possibility of a big upgrade to this line is not completely out of the question. Joe Biden has been talking about BIG bucks for rail which in the end might or might not happen. Meanwhile the states and even the feds have already committed some funds.
Joe Biden is talking REALLY big but before we get too excited about that - I have watched this movie before where a president-elect has proposed spending a lot of money on the rail mode which, sadly, in the end never quite happened.
One thing you fail to mention at the time when BNSF DID use Raton Pass.. Abo Canyon, Flint Hills, Canadian River Bridge, and other 2MT projects were ocurring along the Southern Transcon.. Some traffic was sent via Raton Pass due to these projects, not because Raton is a relief valve or a better route. Which doesn't justify keeping an expensive slower route in operation.. Raton Pass is outdated and it's time has been up for awhile, and no Raton Pass is not faster than the Belen Cutoff..
(1) BNSF does not use the line at all between Bernalillo and Trinidad.
(2) With New Mexico welching on the original deal and leaving BNSF to maintain everything north of Lamy, this helps BNSF how? (And the piece they cherry-picked is a screwed-up mess as far as Rail Runner goes - will never meet projections.
(3) If they can't execute the Ribera Loop line change, good luck with some fairy-tale effort at Glorietta (whatever that is) ... Oh, but they can fund ghost dancers on top of the cistern at Gise/Fox that people on the train see for maybe a nano-second along with the two- "art billboards" if they still exist. Why do you invest time and effort into something you no-longer control??
(4) Sounds like the revival of the Chico Chief (198) is DOA as well.
When ATSF still had it, the main line rail was just fine (probably still is), the adventure was in the passing sidings (exception Onava and Schomberg) with lighter jointed rail and no decent anchors... and no length to handle the longer 8500+ foot stuff. Passenger train meets for 3 & 4 were not an issue.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.