With an apology to Arlo Guthrie. The Sunday morning edition of The Wichita Eagle on its' front page carried the following headline: "Amtrak could cancel sertvice through Kansas" story by-line Matt Reidl Basicly, the story was of a firstime riding couple on the SWC at Newton, Kansas who were told their EB Chief was running some 6 hours late, and the rest iof the story was about how in about six months the SWC could be cancelled by the failure of the Kansas City Terminal RR to install PTC on their portion of the SWC's route ( a $30 Million dollar hit for the KCTRR).
As many readers are aware of the mandate by the US Congress for the installation of PTC. An Amtrak spokesperson Barth Hague (The SWC's representative on the Amrtak customer Advisory Committee) indicated, in part of the of the Federal mandate to install PTC across its tracks by Dec.31,2015 an endeavor that is expected to cost some $625 million according to an Amrtak 2012 document. Apparently the intansigence of the KCTRR is not willing to install the mandated PTC on its system to support the small number of Amtrak trains that use it ( apparently, the Federal mandate only applies to Class 1 railroad properties(?)- The law states "...any railroad Main Lines over which regularly scheduled intercity passenger or commuter rail services are provided..." The KCTRR seems to take the position, that it should be AMTRAK that pays for the installation on its property. ( Since this is published in a Kansas Paper for consumption in the Wichita area; my question: Is are not the cross-Missiouri daily AMTRAk services terminated in Kansas City? Would they not also, be effected by the failure to install PTC at the KCTRR property? )
There is also a mention in the quoted article of a 2013 News Release issued by Amtrak and attributed to its CEO Joe Boardman saying: "...Congress is clearly 100% in charge in directing how long distance train service is provided in the United States, and has been ever since it created AMTRAK more than 40 years ago."
Interstingly, the article further states: " In May, The House Appropriations Committee voted to cut $260 million from Amtrak's Budget, also voting down an ammendment proposed by Democtats slated to provide $825 million to install PTC Technology. "
The article then goes on to note the number of passengers who ride the SWC each year and further quotes Amtralk Spoxperson, Mr. Hague on the potential economic impacts of the loss of the Route through Kansas of the Southwest Chief ( it serves 6 cities across Kansas).
If the people of Kansas are really serious about keeping Amtrak, KDOT can probably dig up the money by delaying a few highway rebuilds.
OTOH, certain people have been looking for any possible excuse to kill long-distance passenger rail...
I'll put a cork in it before my political opinions pour out.
Chuck
I agree they will scrounge up the funds from somewhere. I think the Feds will find someway to force KCTRR either via an amendment to legislation or in some other area. Have my doubts their position will stand very long.
It occurs to me that somebody, somewhere, is whipping this topic up in the media for some reason (or ulterior motive?).
Here is a link that shows a historical map of the Kansas City Terminal Railway.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_vogel/2487797123
(I have no idea if this is still accurate, and if anyone has a better map, I encourage them to provide a link here.)
You will notice from this that operation over this trackage is not exactly likely to be at high speed, and the lion's share of any "PTC" cost is going to be in a relatively large number of instrumented and perhaps power-converted switches and crossovers and such -- very few of which could possibly affect the progress of the few Amtrak trains. I can easily believe a $30M pricetag for all the expensive stuff and the wiring and computers to link it all together. But I can equally easily see there is no need (other than nominal compliance with law) for most of that amount to be spent.
I'm thinking the 'solution' to this is going to involve waivers, perhaps complete with some operating restrictions around the time the Amtrak trains are actually using the plant (perhaps requiring some documented check that the switches have been lined and locked followed by written or verbal confirmation). Even with some sort of public grant, I can't imagine throwing the money at a full PTC instantiation here, especially if the railway itself is expected to be coughing that up just for the passenger service.
Wonder if they'll try to build an Amshack someplace and find a relatively 'unswitched' route past it they could spike (or implement limited PTC on)? Or split the train into two consists as happened at Memphis when the culvert failed, with a bus ride through town?
Wizlish said: "...It occurs to me that somebody, somewhere, is whipping this topic up in the media for some reason (or ulterior motive?)..."
Your instinct is correct. Gov. Brownback's current administration is bound up in a situation; whereby, a panel of Federal Judges are dictating to the State of Kansas School Funding levels, and causing the State's Budget Process to grind to a virtual stop. Population in Kansas is nowhere, nearly,spread-out equally across the State; as you can imagine between rural and urban schools While the Judges Soloman-like attempt the equal (?) division of Revenues.
Consequently, the debt of the State is effecting every corner of the States Budget. One of tha areas hit has been the State DOT ( known as KDOT). The support, both physical and financial, for rail transportation has evaporated under the Brownback Admin. Immediate casualties have been the extension of the 'Heartland Flyer' from Oklahoma into the Wichita (and beyond area(?) to terminate at either Newton, or Kansas City (?). The six communities in Kansas-as well as in Colorado and New Mexico serviced by the 'Southwest Chief' have been fighting to keep it on it's current route. The 'Battle' has been an up and down, emotional, and political one on every available 'front' over the last several years. This current situation seems to be the latest chapter in this story of "As the Stomach Churns" for the supporters of both trains here in Kansas.
I have no idea of how this will turn out; The 'mandate' by the Legislative Branch of the government for Positive Train Control (PTC) makes a demand for a timed implementation, but like so many of those Congressional Mandates, the are funded without any idea as to the actual costs of either time or costs to complete.
At least when Captain Picard of the Enterprise said " Engage" or "Make it So" he was reasonably certain it would happen. The Congress of United States acts more like The Fairy Godmother, with her wand to wave; awaiting with either surprise, or no expectation of results, while waving their magic wand.
One thing to keep in mind is that the party that controlled Congress when the PTC mandate was passed is not the party that controls Congress now.
In fiscal 2014, there were only 49,418 boardings+alightings in Kansas stations, a decline of 1.5%. Since the station for Kansas City is in Missouri, unlikely that KS would foot the bill, even though Amtrak spent $33 million in KS in 2014. That small number of passengers also suggests the SWC rerouting would barely be noticed.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm In fiscal 2014, there were only 49,418 boardings+alightings in Kansas stations... That small number of passengers also suggests the SWC rerouting would barely be noticed.
In fiscal 2014, there were only 49,418 boardings+alightings in Kansas stations... That small number of passengers also suggests the SWC rerouting would barely be noticed.
One exception would be the crowd riding the SWC to Raton on their way to/from Philmont. The Raton station is only staffed when Philmont is open.
So none of the other carriers that use KCT trackage for their trains route HAZMAT over KCT. I find that highly unusual, but then I don't know the other carriers traffic mix and flow.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm In fiscal 2014, there were only 49,418 boardings+alightings in Kansas stations, a decline of 1.5%. Since the station for Kansas City is in Missouri, unlikely that KS would foot the bill, even though Amtrak spent $33 million in KS in 2014. That small number of passengers also suggests the SWC rerouting would barely be noticed.
My personal belief is the SWC would have picked up more riders and possibly would have moved faster to it's destination of LA had it been rerouted via Amarillo. Those BNSF freights tear through Texas on that mainline doing at least 70-75 mph. My guess and it is only a guess is Amtrak could get a speed limit of 90 mph easily on the new route......I don't know the regulations for that so it is only a guess. I think both Amtrak and the communities along the current route are wasting that money they are spending.
Amarillo has a nicely preserved very large passenger station as well. I have not really seen a substantive study comparing the two routes or a cost vs benefit analysis of one over the other. Think of the Amarillo stop and then a bus connection to Dallas and Fort Worth terminals? Why would we need the Sunset Limited after the Houston to Dallas HSR gets put in?
Again Amtrak management is failing it's mission to control costs and look towards the future, in my view.
CMStPnPMy personal belief is the SWC would have picked up more riders and possibly would have moved faster to it's destination of LA had it been rerouted via Amarillo.
Given that Amarillo has a population of around 200,000, that routing switch seems like a no-brainer.
erikem schlimm In fiscal 2014, there were only 49,418 boardings+alightings in Kansas stations... That small number of passengers also suggests the SWC rerouting would barely be noticed. One exception would be the crowd riding the SWC to Raton on their way to/from Philmont. The Raton station is only staffed when Philmont is open.
[from Amtrak State fact sheet] "Raton had 15,875 boardings+alightings in 2014. Each summer, the Philmont Boy Scout Ranch hosts over 22,000 scouts and others, with about 20% [5.500] arriving via Amtrak. This is about half the usage [11,000] of the Raton station. "
Maybe during those months, special chartered trains could connect with some other Amtrak city, in NM or CO?
BNSF apparently is not enthusiastic about Amtrak moving th SWC to the Southern Transcon, and has said that $100 million for capacity improvements would be the price of admission. This is probably comparable to the cost of rehabing the present Raton route and maintaining for a while. The difference is the political push by the communities facing the loss of service.
And there it is......an agreement reached to cover this small PTC gap....
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/07/amtrak-kansas-city-terminal-to-forge-ptc-deal
A suggestion heard that we might like. Route the main SWC via Amarillo. At Newton split off a loco, coach, lounge, sleeper and go over the present SWC route to ABQ. The Amarillo section would get to ABQ or Newton Quicker, pre set its cars, and could wait for the Raton section to recombine. Boy scout traffic might require anothe coach(s).
This would require no new equipment except maybe higher passenger loads might change capacity needs. The LSL and EB are close cousins to this type of operation. Does anyone know of a train that did this in the past ?
Would require 4 - 6 additional crews for the Amarillo split. Would allow whole train to detour over either route due to any problem on other route without need for pilot.
blue streak 1 A suggestion heard that we might like. Route the main SWC via Amarillo. At Newton split off a loco, coach, lounge, sleeper and go over the present SWC route to ABQ. The Amarillo section would get to ABQ or Newton Quicker, pre set its cars, and could wait for the Raton section to recombine. Boy scout traffic might require anothe coach(s). This would require no new equipment except maybe higher passenger loads might change capacity needs. The LSL and EB are close cousins to this type of operation. Does anyone know of a train that did this in the past ? Would require 4 - 6 additional crews for the Amarillo split. Would allow whole train to detour over either route due to any problem on other route without need for pilot.
Johnny
Arlo Guthrie's version of the City of New Orleans was actually a cover of the original written and recorded by Steve Goodman in 1971.
DeggestyThe Santa Fe ran several different versions of this with the Grand Canyon--and also had Chicago-Los Angeles sleepers that spent a day in Grand Canyon (not in the Grand Canyon). One section ran via Dodge City and the other section ran via Amarillo.
Was run as train 123 & 124 via Dodge City and as 23 & 24 from KC to LA. In my 1955 OG, #23 ar KC @ 9:00 PM and the nortern section, #123 left KC @ 9:30 PM with the southern section #23 leaving at 9:50 PM. At Gallup, they are in opposite order with #23 leaving @ 5:58 PM and #123 leaving @ 6:13 and @ Barstow #23 has a 35 min dwell time while #123 has a 15 min dwell time. There are sleepers from Chicago and New Orleans to Oakland that are switched out at Barstow. These trains had a lot of cars added and subtracted along the way. There were Denver cars to LA & Albuquerque added & a KC and an Oklahoma cars to Denver removed at LaJunta; The Grand Canyon car left Chicago on #23 to Williams, then after returning from the CG, it continued West on #123 the next night. Cars fro Dallas and New Orleans are added at Clovis. With all that they still made Chicago-LA in 48 3/4 hours.
UPDATING NOTE: The TRAINS Newswire(By Bob Johnston) of July 7,2014 has news of the KCTRR and AMTRAk'S agreement to remedy the PTC requirement and mandate on the Kansas City facilities.
FTA:"...KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Late Monday, Amtrak issued a statement saying, “an agreement in principle has been reached among the involved parties” to install positive train control on the Kansas City Terminal Railway, the Class III carrier jointly owned by Union Pacific and BNSF Railway. The terminal road handles the Chicago-Los Angeles Southwest Chief and two Missouri River Runner round-trips to St. Louis each day..."[snipped]
Further FTA:"...Although roads such as KCT and the Terminal Railway Association of St. Louis handle hazardous materials on run-through trains from their Class I connections, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 doesn’t require the Class III roads to install PTC except if they host passenger trains. When KCT asked Amtrak and Amtrak, in turn, asked the Missouri Department of Transportation to pay the tab, the issue came to the attention of U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who raised it at a previous hearing last December. He subsequently enlisted the support of U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who together jointly introduced legislation now pending to delay the implementation of positive train control on all railroads past the Act’s Dec. 31, 2015, deadline."
".Eric Curtit, Missouri Department of Transportation’s Administrator of Railroads and Multimodal Operations, tells Trains News Wire that the two Senators, “were beneficial in keeping the light shined on this issue, and their involvement helped bring all the parties together.” He confirms that the terms of the agreement are confidential at this point, but adds that whatever is finally worked out will likely provide a framework for an agreement that involves St. Louis’ Terminal Railroad, which handles the Missouri River Runners, Texas Eagle, and the Illinois-sponsored Lincoln Service trains..."[snipped]
Apparently, the continuance of AMTRAK's service was important enough to involve the State Senators in the situation for Missouri. It is a shame that the same cannot, apparently be said here in the State of Kansas; at least at this time(?) as our Southwest Chief is still hanging in the balance. Not to mention also the extension of the Heartland Flyer out of Oklahioma; both services still hostage to the State of Kansas fiscal delimma.
MidlandMike BNSF apparently is not enthusiastic about Amtrak moving th SWC to the Southern Transcon, and has said that $100 million for capacity improvements would be the price of admission. This is probably comparable to the cost of rehabing the present Raton route and maintaining for a while. The difference is the political push by the communities facing the loss of service.
Attribution? I'm not a Business Lawyer but I have had Business Law as part of my college education while I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express If this was New service I think BNSF could get away with that but I think it is legally dubious to attempt that with a reroute because BNSF is abandoning a line that Amtrak runs on that it agreed to run Amtrak trains on I would think since the reroute is a BNSF initiative to save costs, BNSF has to grant the reroute at about the same price as the original routing. They can't say reroute your train to a new route to save us money on that route PLUS pay us a lot more money for the new route. Otherwise I would think they would face a challenge in court on the whole deal PLUS, other railroads would be using the same tactic to pad their maintenence budgets.
So I can't believe that is true and even if it were true I think a court challenge would evaporate most of the financial claim.
CMStPnP MidlandMike BNSF apparently is not enthusiastic about Amtrak moving th SWC to the Southern Transcon, and has said that $100 million for capacity improvements would be the price of admission. This is probably comparable to the cost of rehabing the present Raton route and maintaining for a while. The difference is the political push by the communities facing the loss of service. Attribution? I'm not a Business Lawyer but I have had Business Law as part of my college education while I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express If this was New service I think BNSF could get away with that but I think it is legally dubious to attempt that with a reroute because BNSF is abandoning a line that Amtrak runs on that it agreed to run Amtrak trains on I would think since the reroute is a BNSF initiative to save costs, BNSF has to grant the reroute at about the same price as the original routing. They can't say reroute your train to a new route to save us money on that route PLUS pay us a lot more money for the new route. Otherwise I would think they would face a challenge in court on the whole deal PLUS, other railroads would be using the same tactic to pad their maintenence budgets. So I can't believe that is true and even if it were true I think a court challenge would evaporate most of the financial claim.
Fred Frailey brought up the $100 million figure in his blog, maybe a year ago. BNSF wants to abandon the LaJunta to SantaFe area because there is no freight traffic, and is in no obligation to continue service. Amtrak would have to maintain the track. The reroute is not to save BNSF costs, since its not their cost. Amtrak has the alternative to maintain the track themselves, so BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative. Apparently BNSF does not consider the similar $100 million charge for capacity upgrades to the southern Transcon as out of line, since that line is at capacity. They would have to double track the Pecos River bridge, and the Vaughn fill, and miles of track in the Kansas/OK area.
MidlandMikeBNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative.
That is disputable.
This may be a dumb question with an obvious answer, but, if it could round up the money, would it be advisable for Amtrak to simply buy this line with the stipulation that BNSF would continue to provide freight service to whoever needs it?
A McIntosh This may be a dumb question with an obvious answer, but, if it could round up the money, would it be advisable for Amtrak to simply buy this line with the stipulation that BNSF would continue to provide freight service to whoever needs it?
If i am understanding your premise; The line in question would become similar to the current situation in the Northeast Corridor?
Not sure if this has ever been offered as a viable alternative to the current 'tenant' 'landlord' arrangement that is currently the 'Plan' Amtrak is operating under, over the BNSF line(?)
Using a similar analogy, BNSF as a landlord, is trying to evict a recalcitrant tennant (AMTRAK). Sort of like the person who purchases a low-rent building, and the only way to get out the resident tennants is to make their situations miserable, and problematic. The the landlord can make 'upgrades' on the property; thereby, charging much higher rents(?). Eviction can be a very painful process ( on both sides), but also a legal minefield while being mindful of the tennants legal positions(?). This is very definitely a BNSF vs. AMTRAK battle, IMHO. The enabling legislation for AMTRAK grants it certain rights as to its tennancy. It may just be BNSF's long-term goal, to just wear-down AMTRAK, and eventually, BNSF can abandon the line(?). The problems here are somewhat due to distances, and population distribution; The SouthwestChief is a major source of inter-city transportation across its route in Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico. Problems exacerbated by various State funding issues that can effect the financial support for the route from the States involved(?) Possibly, if the BNSF can wear down the financial politics, it can sue for abandonment on the basis of 'lack of support/business' and the 'divorce will be painful, but final(?)
Before the Santa Fe went away, and melded into the (BN) +SF it operated a rather large, and efficient fleet of "Doodlebugs" over its extensive system of mainline, and lightly, utilized branches. The return of that concept, might be a way to save the AMTRAK service in the West. Just a thought.
MidlandMikeFred Frailey brought up the $100 million figure in his blog, maybe a year ago. BNSF wants to abandon the LaJunta to SantaFe area because there is no freight traffic, and is in no obligation to continue service. Amtrak would have to maintain the track. The reroute is not to save BNSF costs, since its not their cost. Amtrak has the alternative to maintain the track themselves, so BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative. Apparently BNSF does not consider the similar $100 million charge for capacity upgrades to the southern Transcon as out of line, since that line is at capacity. They would have to double track the Pecos River bridge, and the Vaughn fill, and miles of track in the Kansas/OK area.
OK so I believe you that BNSF made the comment, lets file it with other stupid comments they have made in the past that failed a legal challenge or which they later abandoned as impossible to challenge legally on their own.
My personal favorites:
UP has to pay a seperate entry fee to enter the Powder River Basin to haul the coal it can't just use C&NW to pull away the traffic. I still remember that one from decades ago from BN......equally ridiculous.
Also, BNSF has plans for those same improvements to make on their own. How can they turn around and say that now it is the fault of a single passenger train in each direction......would not stand in any court I know. You can also make the argument the line is at capacity because they are underutilizing the line they seek to downgrade or abandon.
With added frequencies of passenger trains yes. One train in each direction, buying the line I think would be another waste of money. I think if Amtrak had the capital or the support from the states along the line, it could at least add one more frequency to Denver and perhaps shift the CZ to use this route via Kansas City. Not sure how BNSF would respond to that. That would increase the traffic to three passenger trains a day each way. That would be a minimum threshold, in my view to support buying the line and increasing speeds on it.
Even so, Chicago to Denver even via Kansas City has never been a heavily traffic'd route. Look at the short consists of the CB&Q Denver Zephyr trains back when they ran. The real problem is there is almost nothing in between those cities but Prarie towns.
I flew into Cedar Rapids, IA once on a turbo prop, after the crops were harvested. It was a small postage stamp of green on a large canvas of brown.
CMStPnPLook at the short consists of the CB&Q Denver Zephyr trains back when they ran. The real problem is there is almost nothing in between those cities but Prarie towns.
Oh my!
On the current route of the CZ, the folks around Omaha/Lincoln (1.3 million) would disagree.
If the route were switched to KC as an intermediate stop, you'd have 2.75 mil. in the MSA.
schlimmOh my! On the current route of the CZ, the folks around Omaha/Lincoln (1.3 million) would disagree. If the route were switched to KC as an intermediate stop, you'd have 2.75 mil. in the MSA.
Well the Omaha route is the most direct one so is the ex-D&RGW but my gawd it sure takes a long time to get to Emeryville, CA........which when I rode the train last was Transbay Terminal in SFO. I remember that Iowa and Nebraska track was really, really rough back then and the Superliners would hurl you around unless you were not in your bunk with a safety net in the late night hours. I'm sure BNSF has upgraded the line since.
BTW, finally after 6 months of waiting on a list my two BLI CB&Q A unit E8's with red trim and simulated nose grills are shipping, my HO Scale version of the BLI....CZ is complete at last!!!
CMStPnP MidlandMike Fred Frailey brought up the $100 million figure in his blog, maybe a year ago. BNSF wants to abandon the LaJunta to SantaFe area because there is no freight traffic, and is in no obligation to continue service. Amtrak would have to maintain the track. The reroute is not to save BNSF costs, since its not their cost. Amtrak has the alternative to maintain the track themselves, so BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative. Apparently BNSF does not consider the similar $100 million charge for capacity upgrades to the southern Transcon as out of line, since that line is at capacity. They would have to double track the Pecos River bridge, and the Vaughn fill, and miles of track in the Kansas/OK area. OK so I believe you that BNSF made the comment, lets file it with other stupid comments they have made in the past that failed a legal challenge or which they later abandoned as impossible to challenge legally on their own. My personal favorites: UP has to pay a seperate entry fee to enter the Powder River Basin to haul the coal it can't just use C&NW to pull away the traffic. I still remember that one from decades ago from BN......equally ridiculous. Also, BNSF has plans for those same improvements to make on their own. How can they turn around and say that now it is the fault of a single passenger train in each direction......would not stand in any court I know. You can also make the argument the line is at capacity because they are underutilizing the line they seek to downgrade or abandon.
MidlandMike Fred Frailey brought up the $100 million figure in his blog, maybe a year ago. BNSF wants to abandon the LaJunta to SantaFe area because there is no freight traffic, and is in no obligation to continue service. Amtrak would have to maintain the track. The reroute is not to save BNSF costs, since its not their cost. Amtrak has the alternative to maintain the track themselves, so BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative. Apparently BNSF does not consider the similar $100 million charge for capacity upgrades to the southern Transcon as out of line, since that line is at capacity. They would have to double track the Pecos River bridge, and the Vaughn fill, and miles of track in the Kansas/OK area.
As a railfan, I too was incredulous at the $100 million figure, knowing the capacity improvements would mostly benefit BNSF. Nevertheless, Amtrak knew they would have to pay some high price, and apparently don't think they would get much relief in court. I can think of 3 cases where ATK had to pay for track upgrades: the Devils Lake line on the Empire Builder route, Pan Am's line on the Downeaster, and NS on the Wolverine corridor (Michigan eventually bought the line). My sense is that ATK wants to continue on the present SWC route because the affected states say they are willing to contribute to track maintenance. I would not make the arguement the Transcon is at capacity because they are underutilizing the Raton line, because as a number of professional railroaders on these forums have pointed out, the 3% Raton and Glorieta grades make the line uneconomic as a thru freight route.
BNSF wants to keep the route east of LaJunta, but only need to maintain it for 40 mph for freight. Most of the rest of the line is in New Mexico, and NM had agreed to buy their line, but backed out of the deal when a new administration came into office.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.