Passenger Trains > Kansas Slow Orders?

From on-time performance records over the last few weeks it appears that additional slow orders are appearing between Newton, Kansas and Lamar Colorado for Amtrak trains 3 and 4.  Who would have information as to whether or not this is true?  If so, is some work being done to improve the surface, or is this just more bad, neglected track?

Thanks for any Info.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/15 10:48 by railaddict.

Yes, work is ongoing to restore the poor La Junta Sub to a blistering 60 mph, which
is what the schedule of 3 & 4 is designed for.  I should add that some of it is still
good for 79 but no 90 any more.

The_Chief_Way Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, work is ongoing to restore the poor La Junta
> Sub to a blistering 60 mph, which
> is what the schedule of 3 & 4 is designed for.  I
> should add that some of it is still
> good for 79 but no 90 any more.

Has the ATS been removed?  I know the rail is shot.

    There is an ATS shoe right behind McDonalds in Dodge City, Kansas but it may not be active. Have no idea.
 

No, the ATS is still in service as before. I have heard that the FRA would object to its removal 
since it is already installed but I can't verify that.

Downgrading any signal system that is already in place is a very involved process with the FRA, regardless of current speeds on the track.

The_Chief_Way Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, the ATS is still in service as before. I have
> heard that the FRA would object to its removal 
> since it is already installed but I can't verify
> that.

It is so sad that this piece of railroad is ignored by BNSF.  Yes, they do operate freights on it.   It should be good for 100 mph from Newton to LaJunta.

We lost over an hour there on no. 3 there yesterday.
 

100mph was authorized from Hutchinson to Trinidad back in the day( until about 1958 ). I don't see BNSF or Amtrak interested in
that kind of railroad any more.

The_Chief_Way Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, the ATS is still in service as before. I have
> heard that the FRA would object to its removal 
> since it is already installed but I can't verify
> that.

The wreck back in 94 or 95 between a MARC Commuter Train and Amtrak 29 was the main reason why the FRA put that rule in which was also the time when Santa Fe was considering removing the ATS from it's system all at once!

> It is so sad that this piece of railroad is
> ignored by BNSF.  Yes, they do operate freights
> on it.   It should be good for 100 mph from
> Newton to LaJunta.

Hello,

This is the key issue with that route, what speeds are you willing to pay for?  BNSF needs (and can financially justify) only 40 mph or so for the freight trains that operate on that line.  Amtrak & passenger groups would like to see something more respectable like 79 mph or so, give or take.  The difference in track standards between 40 and 79 is significant, and that extra 39 mph is very expensive.  It's something BNSF isn't willing to pay for since any money that would go for speeds above what their freights need has a negative ROI for them.  Thus the deterioration of track condition over the years from the passenger standards/speeds of the past down to the current freight standards/speeds needed today with Amtrak's run-times being the loser in the whole deal.  

A recent TIGER grant will provide government funds to upgrade a portion of the line which will partially address this "gap" between BNSF's ideal speeds and Amtrak's.  It may be that more help is needed, but is this the best use of our tax money when alternate rail routes and other modal options exist?  That's the heart of the debate...

Take care,

Mark

mamfahr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This is the key issue with that route, what speeds
> are you willing to pay for?  BNSF needs (and can
> financially justify) only 40 mph or so for the
> freight trains that operate on that line.  Amtrak
> & passenger groups would like to see something
> more respectable like 79 mph or so, give or
> take.  The difference in track standards
> between 40 and 79 is significant, 

FRA class 3 maintenance allows 40 mph frt and 60 mph Psgr so the difference is not 39 mph but 19 mph.

Sneebly
>
> Mark

> > Amtrak & passenger groups would like to see something
> > more respectable like 79 mph or so, give or
> > take.  The difference in track standards
> > between 40 and 79 is significant, 

> FRA class 3 maintenance allows 40 mph frt and 60
> mph Psgr so the difference is not 39 mph but 19 mph.

Hello,

Note that I said they'd like to have 79 (give or take), are you saying they're ok with only 60?  I don't recall hearing that from them, and I didn't notice it in the documents they filed along with the application.

Take care,

Mark 

Similar situation in North Carolina and the northern part of South Carolina, where the ex-Seabord main line used by the Silver Star doesn't carry enough freight to justify Class IV maintenance in the opinion of CSX. After two hurricanes in the 1990s damaged the line, CSX and Amtrak reached an understanding whereby the track would be maintained to Class III and signals would be kept active. The deal has worked out alright, although the ride on the 60 mph track (mostly jointed rail) might cause your dental work to fall out.