# Southwest Chief News & Future Operations



## fredmcain

Does anybody have any more up-to-the-date news on the future of the Southwest Chief? The future of this train has been in the news a lot lately but not for about the last week or week and a half.

Anybody on this forum know what's going on? Does anybody at Amtrak know what's going on?

It was widely reported that Anderson would not complete Amtrak's share of the commitment to track improvements. But then this new board member appointee stated something like he didn't "think it would be right to renege on a previously established commitment". So? Are the track improvement on again, off again on again?

I'd be interested to know if anyone has any recent news.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain,

Topeka, IN


----------



## greatcats

See my post made today in Travelogues. One of the conductors told me that Amtrak returned Tiger grant money to Colorado. However, I cannot vouch for the complete accuracy of that. It has been stated that Amtrak employees are often not well informed and rumors abound.


----------



## jis

The Board candidate in question is yet to be confirmed by the Senate, so he is no quite on the Board yet, unless he got confirmed today.

Not clear how everyone will save their respective faces and back off from the $3million kerfuffle, but I suspect they eventually will, because anything else will be politically quiet painful.

The greatest danger that the Southwest Chief faces at present IMHO is the possible failure of Rail Runner to meet the PTC deadline. Of all the potential PTC outages that were discussed at the Spring RPA Meeting, the Rail Runner one appeared to be the most problematic. Working through Senator Nelson's office we have determined that the two Florida ones will get resolved by December. Nothing similar has been found about the Rail Runner yet.


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> <snip>
> 
> The greatest danger that the Southwest Chief faces at present IMHO is the possible failure of Rail Runner to meet the PTC deadline. Of all the potential PTC outages that were discussed at the Spring RPA Meeting, the Rail Runner one appeared to be the most problematic. Working through Senator Nelson's office we have determined that the two Florida ones will get resolved by December. Nothing similar has been found about the Rail Runner yet.


Well, I thought I heard that lines which are protected by the older Automatic Train Stop ( which I thought this line is ) would be granted a waiver for an unclear period of time. Is that incorrect or perhaps misunderstood?


----------



## jis

Congress will have to change the law to make that possible. The current law does not quite allow that. It is quite specific as to what criteria must be met, and that does not satisfy the criteria.

Of course anything is possible, but no solution is in the bag at the present time, in a manner of speaking.


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> Congress will have to change the law to make that possible. The current law does not quite allow that. It is quite specific as to what criteria must be met, and that does not satisfy the criteria.
> 
> Of course anything is possible, but no solution is in the bag at the present time, in a manner of speaking.


Unfortunately, I cannot cite my source 'cause I can't find it anymore. Does anybody else know? Can ATS be accepted on an interim basis for PTC?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## Ryan

Jishnu knows and has already provided the answer you seek.


----------



## Lonestar648

From what I have read the Albuquerque Commuter rail system making the date is a real problem for Amtrak.


----------



## VentureForth

I was under the impression that PTC was only required on lines where passenger and freight trains shared the ROW. Does BNSF run ANYTHING on this branch any more? Not relevant?

I'd hate to see Amtrak rerouted through Belen. Way too much freight traffic, loss of ABQ as a station without a massive Wye, not near as scenic.


----------



## Seaboard92

The issue is not BNSF it's the Rail Runner.


----------



## fredmcain

Actually, I came across a piece of possible good news this morning. The latest Rail Passenger Association "Hotline" reported that there was a meeting last week between Jim Matthews, President of the RPA (formerly NARP) and Richard Anderson. Anderson stated that there are _NO_ plans to cut any long distance trains at this time. He also stated that for lines where PTC has not been installed by the end of the year, that this will result in temporary service disruptions and not a permanent discontinuance. (Whatever that means).

You can read the report here: https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/hotline/ 

As someone else on this group stated earlier, some of this stuff may have been started as rumor. It's either that or Anderson sensed he was starting to get his butt in a ringer and backed off. Either way, I feel better about this - for now.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## Lonestar648

So if Railrunner doesnt meet the end of the year date as expected, then will the SWC stop running? Is there any incentive for Railrunning to get PTC completed in 2019 or could they let it drag on, thus in effect canceling the SWC?


----------



## jis

fredmcain said:


> Actually, I came across a piece of possible good news this morning. The latest Rail Passenger Association "Hotline" reported that there was a meeting last week between Jim Matthews, President of the RPA (formerly NARP) and Richard Anderson. Anderson stated that there are _NO_ plans to cut any long distance trains at this time. He also stated that for lines where PTC has not been installed by the end of the year, that this will result in temporary service disruptions and not a permanent discontinuance. (Whatever that means).
> 
> You can read the report here: https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/hotline/
> 
> As someone else on this group stated earlier, some of this stuff may have been started as rumor. It's either that or Anderson sensed he was starting to get his butt in a ringer and backed off. Either way, I feel better about this - for now.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain


I am glad that you are feeling better. The information that I have been giving here is no rumor. Everything is based on a presentation made by the guy at Amtrak who is in charge of PTC, SMS and other Safety matters, which took place during the RPA Spring Meeting in Alexandria VA. It is he who had a bright red marking out the Rail Runner segment stating there was no resolution of the issue as of then and they were working diligently on figuring something out. There still is no resolution and the issue is being worked.

Incidentally, he also had SFRTA (Tri Rail) and CFRC (Sun Rail) in the "at risk" column. Since then we got in touch with Senator Nelson's Transportation staff who nudged both of them into action and got a commitment from both to complete all necessary steps to get and "Alternative Schedule Agreement" with the FRA, so that there is no discontinuity come Jan 1, 2019.

Just FYI I am an RPA Council Member and the Division Leader for the Southeast Division. In case of doubt, look it up at the source: https://www.railpassengers.org/about/leadership/council-of-representatives/division-leader/



Seaboard92 said:


> The issue is not BNSF it's the Rail Runner.


Indeed. The problem is RailRunner. There are two solutions:

1. Install all the trackside hardware and run a short demo segment before the end of December to qualify for an extension.

2. Run 6 round trips or less altogether per day to qualify for exception (IIRC, don;t remember the exact number off the top of my head). This will mean significant reduction in weekday Rail Runner service and and a small reduction in weekend service so as to scale back operations to 5 trips each way, leaving one slot for the SWC. That would probably be the absolute drop dead alternative.

But stay tuned. Maybe Thirdrail has more current information.


----------



## pennyk

jis said:


> The information that I have been giving here is no rumor. Everything is based on a presentation made by the guy at Amtrak who is in charge of PTC, SMS and other Safety matters, which took place during the RPA Spring Meeting in Alexandria VA. It is he who had a bright red marking out the Rail Runner segment stating there was no resolution of the issue as of then and they were working diligently on figuring something out. There still is no resolution and the issue is being worked.
> 
> Incidentally, he also had SFRC (Tri Rail) and CFRC (Sun Rail) in the "at risk" column. Since then we got in touch with Senator Nelson's Transportation staff who nudged both of them into action and got a commitment from both to complete all necessary steps to get and "Alternative Schedule Agreement" with the FRA, so that there is no discontinuity come Jan 1, 2019.
> 
> Just FYI I am an RPA Council Member and the Division Leader for the Southeast Division. In case of doubt, look it up at the source: https://www.railpassengers.org/about/leadership/council-of-representatives/division-leader/


I will confirm the accuracy of what Jis stated above. I was present at the RPA meeting and confirm that he is the Division Leader for the SE Division.


----------



## bretton88

jis said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I came across a piece of possible good news this morning. The latest Rail Passenger Association "Hotline" reported that there was a meeting last week between Jim Matthews, President of the RPA (formerly NARP) and Richard Anderson. Anderson stated that there are _NO_ plans to cut any long distance trains at this time. He also stated that for lines where PTC has not been installed by the end of the year, that this will result in temporary service disruptions and not a permanent discontinuance. (Whatever that means).
> 
> You can read the report here: https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/hotline/
> 
> As someone else on this group stated earlier, some of this stuff may have been started as rumor. It's either that or Anderson sensed he was starting to get his butt in a ringer and backed off. Either way, I feel better about this - for now.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad that you are feeling better. The information that I have been giving here is no rumor. Everything is based on a presentation made by the guy at Amtrak who is in charge of PTC, SMS and other Safety matters, which took place during the RPA Spring Meeting in Alexandria VA. It is he who had a bright red marking out the Rail Runner segment stating there was no resolution of the issue as of then and they were working diligently on figuring something out. There still is no resolution and the issue is being worked.
> 
> Incidentally, he also had SFRC (Tri Rail) and CFRC (Sun Rail) in the "at risk" column. Since then we got in touch with Senator Nelson's Transportation staff who nudged both of them into action and got a commitment from both to complete all necessary steps to get and "Alternative Schedule Agreement" with the FRA, so that there is no discontinuity come Jan 1, 2019.
> 
> Just FYI I am an RPA Council Member and the Division Leader for the Southeast Division. In case of doubt, look it up at the source: https://www.railpassengers.org/about/leadership/council-of-representatives/division-leader/
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not BNSF it's the Rail Runner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. The problem is RailRunner. There are two solutions:
> 
> 1. Install all the trackside hardware and run a short demo segment before the end of December to qualify for an extension.
> 
> 2. Run less than 6 round trips or less altogether per day to qualify for exception (IIRC, don;t remember the exact number off the top of my head). This will mean significant reduction in weekday Rail Runner service and and a small reduction in weekend service so as to scale back operations to 5 trips each way, leaving one slot for the SWC. That would probably be the absolute drop dead alternative.
> 
> But stay tuned. Maybe Thirdrail has more current information.
Click to expand...

Currently Railrunner runs only 4 RTs on weekends between Santa Fe and ABQ, and 8 weekday RTs between ABQ and Santa Fe, so weekend service would not have to be adjusted. Weekday service reductions would be painful (killing 3 trips) but Railrunner has been nothing but service reductions and low ridership, so the cuts might not be so bad.


----------



## railiner

pennyk said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just FYI I am an RPA Council Member and the Division Leader for the Southeast Division. In case of doubt, look it up at the source: https://www.railpassengers.org/about/leadership/council-of-representatives/division-leader/
> 
> 
> 
> I will confirm the accuracy of what Jis stated above. I was present at the RPA meeting and confirm that he is the Division Leader for the SE Division.
Click to expand...

I see your name on their website, too...looks like AU is well represented at RPA...


----------



## fredmcain

JIS,

I am sorry, but I didn't mean to insinuate that what you said was based on a rumor. The "rumor" I was referring to reflects back to an earlier post someone had made that Amtrak had returned $3 Million of Tiger grants to the states. The individual who made that statement suggested that it might have been a rumor. That was his suggestion - not mine. Perhaps it was merely a rumor but then again maybe it's not. I don't know for sure but it'd be interesting to know.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## neroden

Railrunner is going to meet the PTC requirements eventually; the state legislature, after multiple studies, concluded it would cost a *lot* more to shut it down than to keep it running, so they'll do what it takes. The legislature is being very grudging with funding, though, hence the delays. If political pressure can dislodge the funding, it would be a good thing.


----------



## jis

fredmcain said:


> JIS,
> 
> I am sorry, but I didn't mean to insinuate that what you said was based on a rumor. The "rumor" I was referring to reflects back to an earlier post someone had made that Amtrak had returned $3 Million of Tiger grants to the states. The individual who made that statement suggested that it might have been a rumor. That was his suggestion - not mine. Perhaps it was merely a rumor but then again maybe it's not. I don't know for sure but it'd be interesting to know.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain


No problem. I just wanted to make sure that we clearly separate what is rumor from what is documented fact.


----------



## Lonestar648

If the NM legislature is tight with money for Rail Runner, would it be more beneficial for them to cut three RT weekdays than install and activate and maintain PTC?


----------



## chrsjrcj

Things are heating up.

Fair Use:

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/railroads/390155-lawmakers-request-meeting-with-amtrak-ceo-over-funding-for



> A bipartisan group of lawmakers on Thursday asked for a meeting with Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson over the company’s plans to deny funding for its Southwest Chief route pending additional financial investments.
> 
> The letter, penned by multiple House and Senate lawmakers in both parties, argues the route that runs through Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico is “vital to the economic well-being of our communities.”
> 
> “The lack of transparency by Amtrak management about its changing position on the Southwest Chief is troubling, particularly for a Government-Sponsored Enterprise entrusted with an important public transportation mission,” the letter reads.
> 
> “We request Amtrak take the lead in developing cooperative plans to ensure the Southwest Chief’s successful operation, including seeking funding from the various federal grant programs established to address these specific issues.”
> 
> Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) signed the document, as did a group of House lawmakers from New Mexico, Colorado and Kansas.


----------



## Lonestar648

This is good news!! I hope their meeting is productive.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

Maybe Congress can get enough pull to push Anderson out and bring in someone who has customer service skills and experience and railroad skills and experience!


----------



## railiner

Maybe UAL can be persuaded to hire Anderson away from Amtrak, to replace their Chairman and CEO position's...


----------



## fredmcain

OlympianHiawatha said:


> Maybe Congress can get enough pull to push Anderson out and bring in someone who has customer service skills and experience and railroad skills and experience!


You know, one thing I've wondered about. Why exactly did Anderson leave Delta to begin with? If he really and truly "retired" then why did he come on board at Amtrak? Or, did the Delta board push him out?

And then there's Wick Moorman. At the beginning of the year it was publicly stated that he would be staying on at Amtrak as a "consultant" for an unspecified length of time. Is he still there now? If so, why? Why should taxpayers fund Amtrak to effectively employ _TWO_ chiefs? And if by chance Moorman's still there he sure doesn't appear to be helping matters any.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## AmtrakBlue

fredmcain said:


> OlympianHiawatha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Congress can get enough pull to push Anderson out and bring in someone who has customer service skills and experience and railroad skills and experience!
> 
> 
> 
> You know, one thing I've wondered about. Why exactly did Anderson leave Delta to begin with? If he really and truly "retired" then why did he come on board at Amtrak? Or, did the Delta board push him out?
> 
> And then there's Wick Moorman. At the beginning of the year it was publicly stated that he would be staying on at Amtrak as a "consultant" for an unspecified length of time. Is he still there now? If so, why? Why should taxpayers fund Amtrak to effectively employ _TWO_ chiefs? And if by chance Moorman's still there he sure doesn't appear to be helping matters any.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
Click to expand...

I've heard that Anderson is not getting a salary from Amtrak.


----------



## fredmcain

"I've heard that Anderson is not getting a salary from Amtrak."

Huh? Is that for sure a fact or a rumor? Remember, the other day we were discussing rumors. *IF* that's really true the question begs to be asked, why is he working there? Certainly not because he's a foaming-at-the-mouth passenger train fan.

In any event, I'm glad that there are some law makers who are going to begin asking some very serious questions. It just seems to me that Congress had the good will last year to bump up Amtrak funding - which was a refreshing change from the annual cuts - but some of Anderson's actions almost seem like a slap in the face. Or is it all just very, very bad communication? It'd be swell to know exactly WHAT his intentions really are.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> "I've heard that Anderson is not getting a salary from Amtrak."
> 
> Huh? Is that for sure a fact or a rumor?


It’s actually for sure a fact. He cars out of retirement to work Amtrak for free. Doesn’t mean like him any more, but that is the truth.


----------



## looshi

His salary is $0 and he covers his own expenses. He has said that he came out of retirement as a public service. He is eligible for a performance-based bonus, which I think is undisclosed.


----------



## MikefromCrete

That was Moorman's deal. Is Anderson also working just for bonuses? That would explain the cost cutting schemes. It would probably be better just to pay him a salary.


----------



## fredmcain

The whole thing's starting to sound kinda fishy to me.

Hope someone looks into this !


----------



## frequentflyer

fredmcain said:


> The whole thing's starting to sound kinda fishy to me.
> 
> Hope someone looks into this !


Its true, and playing the politics game just makes this job more interesting for him. He's a former CEO, he has an ego. Who wouldn't mind going down in history as the CEO who fixed Amtrak.


----------



## frequentflyer

MikefromCrete said:


> That was Moorman's deal. Is Anderson also working just for bonuses? That would explain the cost cutting schemes. It would probably be better just to pay him a salary.


We forget that piece of info of Moorman being CEO too. How many of these changes were made under Moorman's stewardship, the former NS CEO.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

According to a Bloomberg online article from June 26, 2017, Anderson's "contract calls for three years of employment at zero salary, although he can receive a $500,000 bonus at the discretion of the railroad's board of directors."

Sorry I couldn't get a link to it to work, but that is a direct quote from the article. It was written by Elise Young, for those of you with better tech skills than I have who might want to look for it and read the whole thing.

Also, the article's nearly a year old, so things could have changed.


----------



## Lonestar648

Is Anderson really trying to fix Amtrak or is there a different motivation? Is there a future opening he is trying to get noticed for?


----------



## fredmcain

frequentflyer said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was Moorman's deal. Is Anderson also working just for bonuses? That would explain the cost cutting schemes. It would probably be better just to pay him a salary.
> 
> 
> 
> We forget that piece of info of Moorman being CEO too. How many of these changes were made under Moorman's stewardship, the former NS CEO.
Click to expand...

Well, now, that's a good point. I may be mistaken but didn't this whole question about "we're not sure about the long-distance services" first arrive under Moorman?


----------



## fredmcain

fredmcain said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The greatest danger that the Southwest Chief faces at present IMHO is the possible failure of Rail Runner to meet the PTC deadline. Of all the potential PTC outages that were discussed at the Spring RPA Meeting, the Rail Runner one appeared to be the most problematic. Working through Senator Nelson's office we have determined that the two Florida ones will get resolved by December. Nothing similar has been found about the Rail Runner yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I thought I heard that lines which are protected by the older Automatic Train Stop ( which I thought this line is ) would be granted a waiver for an unclear period of time. Is that incorrect or perhaps misunderstood?
Click to expand...

I would like to revisit this post that I made a while back. It was stated that in order for this to happen, "Congress would have to change the law"? Really? This same thing was just reported in the most recent issue of TRAINS Magazine that the FRA is considering allowing the Santa Fe's old ATS as a substitute for PTC on a temporary basis. Did anyone else see that? Or, maybe I just didn't understand the TRAINS article right.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## MikefromCrete

You right Fred, the Trains article said Railrunner will be using the Santa Fe ATS system on a temporary basis. This was the first time I've heard of such a solution, but apparently it can only be used on an interim basis until a real PTC system is installed.


----------



## fredmcain

[SIZE=medium]Mike,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]One thing that I think is most unfortunate in today’s world is that several railroads such as the SP and IC ripped out hundreds of miles of ATS. Even the Santa Fe removed their ATS on the San Joaquin Valley line following the discontinuance of Trains 1 & 2, the _San Franscisco Chief_ in 1971.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Several rail advocates and journalists have opined that Congress should’ve considered accepting ATS as a substitute for PTC on a permanent basis since it was a proven, off-the-shelf technology that would’ve worked. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]But, no matter. It is what it is, I guess.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Maybe in the end something good will come out of this mess. According to another article in the most recent TRAINS issue, BNSF’s Matt Rose seems to think so.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Regards,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Fred M. Cain[/SIZE]


----------



## cirdan

fredmcain said:


> "I've heard that Anderson is not getting a salary from Amtrak."
> 
> Huh? Is that for sure a fact or a rumor? Remember, the other day we were discussing rumors. *IF* that's really true the question begs to be asked, why is he working there? Certainly not because he's a foaming-at-the-mouth passenger train fan.


When Steve Jobs returned to Apple his official salary was 1 dollar a year, but of course in reality he made much more than that through stock options and things. Of course stock options are not guarnteed income but the better the business does. the more is in it for you. Jobs definitely made the Apple stock price go up up up and must have made himself quite a bit in the process.

Of course Amtrak doesn't have stocks. But maybe they gave him a contract in which only bonuses are payed based on achieving goals rather than there being a guaranteed base salary.


----------



## jis

The problem with accepting ATS as PTC is that it does nothing about civil speed enforcement, which is one of the three main requirements of PTC. People can have opinions all that they want., but without changing the definition of PTC it would be ridiculous to accepts ATS as PTC. Those that opine such only display a gross lack of understanding of the purpose of PTC. Preventing derailments caused by overspeeding is a stated primary goal of PTC. Even with all the ATS in the world, one cannot guarantee that the train will stop short of the foul point unless the speed approaching the home signal is within the specified speed limit.

I would categorize the Trains statement as an opinion that the writer has, that is unlikely to have been validated through FRA.



cirdan said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I've heard that Anderson is not getting a salary from Amtrak."
> 
> Huh? Is that for sure a fact or a rumor? Remember, the other day we were discussing rumors. *IF* that's really true the question begs to be asked, why is he working there? Certainly not because he's a foaming-at-the-mouth passenger train fan.
> 
> 
> 
> When Steve Jobs returned to Apple his official salary was 1 dollar a year, but of course in reality he made much more than that through stock options and things. Of course stock options are not guarnteed income but the better the business does. the more is in it for you. Jobs definitely made the Apple stock price go up up up and must have made himself quite a bit in the process.
> 
> Of course Amtrak doesn't have stocks. But maybe they gave him a contract in which only bonuses are payed based on achieving goals rather than there being a guaranteed base salary.
Click to expand...

Amtrak actually does have stock, but it is not worth much.
Anderson indeed has a $500,000 per year bonus based on meeting certain goals set for him by the Board, and has essentially no salary - i.e. he has some nominal salary like $1 a year or such. In some sense he is working for fun, just to see if he can make a whole pile of money by meeting the goals, and Board knowingly set it up that way, with a specific set of goals attached.

Based on his actions one can guess what goals have been set for him. Money talks BS walks.

My guess is, if he is let go based on the current events, even if they are consistent with his goals. he will gladly walk and take Amtrak to the cleaners for breach of contract, or anticipating that the Board will have to give him a handsome golden handshake. That is unlikely to happen.


----------



## cpotisch

cirdan said:


> Jobs definitely made the Apple stock price go up up up and must have made himself quite a bit in the process.


About $8 billion, in fact. In a succeeding company, stock options are vastly better than any possible salary.


----------



## fredmcain

JIS,

I did not take the TRAINS article mentioned in my post as an editorial but rather a report. The "opinions" of rail journalists that I mentioned was a reference to other articles I've seen - I think Don Phillips might've had one but I don't have it in front of me at the time.

As for overspeeding, I might be wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that ATS _COULD_ stop or restrict overspeeding. The old AT&SF had installed ATS transponders in advance of bad curves. I know that 'cause I've seen them. However, the one thing that ATS could not do - nor will PTC be able to do completely - is to override human stupidity. Such was the case with the devastating Robinson wreck in the 1950s where a trainman lost his head and threw a switch at the last minute in front of a speeding passenger train.


----------



## jis

Here is a reasonably good description of what Intermittent Induction Coil ATS, such as is deployed on the ex Santa Fe BNF route, is capable of and more importantly, not capable of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_inductive_automatic_train_stop

Here is the legal requirements to be met by a compliant PTC system:

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0358

Now, as an exercise, tell me which ones of those requirements are met by the ATS system.


----------



## cirdan

fredmcain said:


> As for overspeeding, I might be wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that ATS _COULD_ stop or restrict overspeeding. The old AT&SF had installed ATS transponders in advance of bad curves. I know that 'cause I've seen them. However, the one thing that ATS could not do - nor will PTC be able to do completely - is to override human stupidity. Such was the case with the devastating Robinson wreck in the 1950s where a trainman lost his head and threw a switch at the last minute in front of a speeding passenger train.


Would that still be possible with PTC?

I thought all modern signalling systems interlock the switches if they are in an actively set path..


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for overspeeding, I might be wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that ATS _COULD_ stop or restrict overspeeding. The old AT&SF had installed ATS transponders in advance of bad curves. I know that 'cause I've seen them. However, the one thing that ATS could not do - nor will PTC be able to do completely - is to override human stupidity. Such was the case with the devastating Robinson wreck in the 1950s where a trainman lost his head and threw a switch at the last minute in front of a speeding passenger train.
> 
> 
> 
> Would that still be possible with PTC?
> 
> I thought all modern signalling systems interlock the switches if they are in an actively set path..
Click to expand...

Right. once a signal is set a switch cannot be thrown without first withdrawing the signal and unlocking the switch. that is what electrically locked switches are all about. A PTC system is non-compliant if all switches in the path governed by it are not electrically interlocked with the signaling system.

Though when it comes to ingenuity in human stupidity, I am sure there are corner cases where stupidity can befuddle other humans and automation electronics equally well. That is why there are rules to follow, to minimize the chances of such. If humans refuse to follow rules, even minimally, then all bets are off, specially if they try hard to break safety rules at every turn.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Let's not forget... PTC was in full working order on the Michigan Amtrak train that had a green indication, and yet the switch was lined off of the main into a yard. It was the engineers decision not to blindly trust the in-cab signals that kept that wreck from being much much worse.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Let's not forget... PTC was in full working order on the Michigan Amtrak train that had a green indication, and yet the switch was lined off of the main into a yard. It was the engineers decision not to blindly trust the in-cab signals that kept that wreck from being much much worse.


Yup. Human stupidity/carelessness/breaking of rules by the Communication and Signal Department folks was involved in a big way. As I said, human ingenuity is usually involved in creating bad messes, and causing lots of harm, even with all the automation in the world to try to reduce the chances of such. Likewise human ingenuity can help prevent disasters if applied correctly. In operations the bias is supposed to be on the side of preventing disasters, but alarmingly often people involved behave in the opposite way.

Cab signals and all the automation is just a safety fallback thing. Engineers are still in control and are supposed to do the right thing within the bounds set by the safety envelope. PTC is not ATO (Automatic Train Operation). Indeed with the level of callousness displayed by the Signal Maintainers in that case, such people should not be allowed to come anywhere near any safety critical system.


----------



## Lonestar648

The electronics and computers are only as good as the people operating them. It takes everyone doing their jobs correctly.


----------



## railiner

How about the ancient 'speed signals' on the New York subways? They force the train to slow down, or else, if the train goes thru the red signal, the tripper will cause an emergency stop...


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> How about the ancient 'speed signals' on the New York subways? They force the train to slow down, or else, if the train goes thru the red signal, the tripper will cause an emergency stop...


Yup. And actually one could come up with a scheme to even use the Induction coils to enforce certain speed limits, but that has typically not been done. The reason is it would have reduced average speed and hence throughput of trains dramatically. Incidentally, some of the PTC freight operators are already discovering the effect of PTC on throughput (negative), though nothing as dramatic as it would have been if only Induction Coils were used. mainly this effect happens because the automatic system is more conservative and does not push the safety envelope as far as a human operator tends to.

Incidentally, the rear end collisions on Manhattan bridge happened in spite of the New York Subway ancient stop enforcement system. The problem was that the train was overspeeding when it passed the auto stop level triggering its brakes, and it ran into the train ahead before it could stop completely.

The ATSF ATS also has exactly this problem. It is not guaranteed to stop the errant train before it fouls the interlocking that it is protecting, and in addition it cannot enforce civil speed limits, both TSR and PSR as required by PTC. hence anyone who proposes to have ATS substitute for PTC is just ignorant enough not to know know what either or both are and what the PTC regulation is.


----------



## daybeers

jis said:


> ...Preventing derailments caused by *overspending* is a stated primary goal of PTC...


----------



## jis

Here is an article from Railway Age, explicitly stating what I tried to explain in an earlier post regarding what the law says about granting extensions. It appears that FRA has even less leeway than I was willing to agree it might.

https://www.railwayage.com/cs/ptc/rssi-ptc-forum-interoperability-the-final-hurdle/


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> Here is an article from Railway Age, explicitly stating what I tried to explain in an earlier post regarding what the law says about granting extensions. It appears that FRA has even less leeway than I was willing to agree it might.
> 
> https://www.railwayage.com/cs/ptc/rssi-ptc-forum-interoperability-the-final-hurdle/


JIS,

I dunno. Just scanning through that it sounds to me like a fairly upbeat article. Most if not all big freight carriers are on schedule. There is some concern, however, over commuter railroads. Fines were mentioned. But if the FRA fines them wouldn't they be essentially just fining the taxpayers 'cause most of those systems are taxpayer supported anyhow.?

Question: How much of the Southwest Chief line (old Santa Fe "North Line") is currently owned by BNSF? I thought I read that some of it was sold to the State of New Mexico. Did New Mexico buy all of it in their state? What about in Colorado?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## Ryan

I think that this is the important bit.

“We will grant an extension to any railroad that meets the statutory requirements, but FRA has no authority to grant waivers or relief from the deadline.”



fredmcain said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The greatest danger that the Southwest Chief faces at present IMHO is the possible failure of Rail Runner to meet the PTC deadline. Of all the potential PTC outages that were discussed at the Spring RPA Meeting, the Rail Runner one appeared to be the most problematic. Working through Senator Nelson's office we have determined that the two Florida ones will get resolved by December. Nothing similar has been found about the Rail Runner yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I thought I heard that lines which are protected by the older Automatic Train Stop ( which I thought this line is ) would be granted a waiver for an unclear period of time. Is that incorrect or perhaps misunderstood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would like to revisit this post that I made a while back. It was stated that in order for this to happen, "Congress would have to change the law"? Really?
Click to expand...

According to the FRA, “Yes, really.”


----------



## jis

fredmcain said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an article from Railway Age, explicitly stating what I tried to explain in an earlier post regarding what the law says about granting extensions. It appears that FRA has even less leeway than I was willing to agree it might.
> 
> https://www.railwayage.com/cs/ptc/rssi-ptc-forum-interoperability-the-final-hurdle/
> 
> 
> 
> JIS,
> I dunno. Just scanning through that it sounds to me like a fairly upbeat article. Most if not all big freight carriers are on schedule. There is some concern, however, over commuter railroads. Fines were mentioned. But if the FRA fines them wouldn't they be essentially just fining the taxpayers 'cause most of those systems are taxpayer supported anyhow.?
Click to expand...

Fines are for not meeting statutory requirements. If the organization that fails to meet requirements is taxpayer funded then yes the fines will have to be paid out of taxpayer funds. In case of RailRunner it would be the New Mexico Taxpayers who will foot most of the bill,

But at the end of the day, the fine is merely a means to get compliance. What is more important is to actually get compliance rather than merely collect fines, as is mentioned in the article.

One of the biggest concern about a commuter railroad is Rail Runner, which has made no progress on anything towards meeting the statutory requirements that must be met to get an extension from the FRA. That was my original point, and it still stands, no matter how upbeat the article may sound to you.



> Question: How much of the Southwest Chief line (old Santa Fe "North Line") is currently owned by BNSF? I thought I read that some of it was sold to the State of New Mexico. Did New Mexico buy all of it in their state? What about in Colorado?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain


All of it except:


Trackage around Albuquerque owned by Rail Runner (i.e. State of New Mexico). This is only the part on which the RailRunner runs plus a little bit extra. In particular the trackage from Raton Pass to the point where RailRunner branches off is owned by BNSF as is everything in Colorado


----------



## DSS&A

Denver to Albuquerque is a potential passenger train corridor. I would think there is demand for a few round-trip trains a day between these cities. The two cities are 450 miles apart. A few corridor trains between these cities would increase passenger revenues to cover the fixed costs of the passenger train speed infrasteucure.


----------



## zephyr17

DSS&A said:


> Denver to Albuquerque is a potential passenger train corridor. I would think there is demand for a few round-trip trains a day between these cities. The two cities are 450 miles apart. A few corridor trains between these cities would increase passenger revenues to cover the fixed costs of the passenger train speed infrasteucure.


New Mexico actually had entered a contract to purchase the entire line up to the Colorado state line with this in mind. Also, BNSF had made it a condition of buying what New Mexico actually wanted, Belen-Lamy. The deal was phased, with transfer of ownership Belen-Lamy first. However, after an administration changed in New Mexico, New Mexico reneged on the deal. They ultimately settled with BNSF and the rest of the deal died.

While Albuquerque is a corridor candidate, in order to get to Denver, a train would have to use the very heavily trafficked Joint Line north of Pueblo, CO. BNSF is pretty resistant to adding a passenger train to the mix without some major capacity improvement funded by NM/CO . BNSF would almost require New Mexico and Colorado purchase the Raton line as far as Trinidad.


----------



## frequentflyer

zephyr17 said:


> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denver to Albuquerque is a potential passenger train corridor. I would think there is demand for a few round-trip trains a day between these cities. The two cities are 450 miles apart. A few corridor trains between these cities would increase passenger revenues to cover the fixed costs of the passenger train speed infrasteucure.
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico actually had entered a contract to purchase the entire line up to the Colorado state line with this in mind. Also, BNSF had made it a condition of buying what New Mexico actually wanted, Belen-Lamy. The deal was phased, with transfer of ownership Belen-Lamy first. However, after an administration changed in New Mexico, New Mexico reneged on the deal. They ultimately settled with BNSF and the rest of the deal died.
> 
> While Albuquerque is a corridor candidate, in order to get to Denver, a train would have to use the very heavily trafficked Joint Line north of Pueblo, CO. BNSF is pretty resistant to adding a passenger train to the mix without some major capacity improvement funded by NM/CO . BNSF would almost require New Mexico and Colorado purchase the Raton line as far as Trinidad.
Click to expand...

What trip time would one be realistically looking at for a DEN-ABQ trip?


----------



## railiner

frequentflyer said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denver to Albuquerque is a potential passenger train corridor. I would think there is demand for a few round-trip trains a day between these cities. The two cities are 450 miles apart. A few corridor trains between these cities would increase passenger revenues to cover the fixed costs of the passenger train speed infrasteucure.
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico actually had entered a contract to purchase the entire line up to the Colorado state line with this in mind. Also, BNSF had made it a condition of buying what New Mexico actually wanted, Belen-Lamy. The deal was phased, with transfer of ownership Belen-Lamy first. However, after an administration changed in New Mexico, New Mexico reneged on the deal. They ultimately settled with BNSF and the rest of the deal died.
> 
> While Albuquerque is a corridor candidate, in order to get to Denver, a train would have to use the very heavily trafficked Joint Line north of Pueblo, CO. BNSF is pretty resistant to adding a passenger train to the mix without some major capacity improvement funded by NM/CO . BNSF would almost require New Mexico and Colorado purchase the Raton line as far as Trinidad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What trip time would one be realistically looking at for a DEN-ABQ trip?
Click to expand...

Looking back, the Texas Zephyr ran Denver to Trinidad in as little as 4:33, added to the Amtrak Trinidad to Albuquerque fastest time of 5:39 = total of 10 hours and 12 minutes...

I seriously doubt if that Denver to Trinidad time could be duplicated today, however...

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/texzephyr196009.html

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/timetables/Southwest-Chief-Schedule-031118.pdf


----------



## bretton88

railiner said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denver to Albuquerque is a potential passenger train corridor. I would think there is demand for a few round-trip trains a day between these cities. The two cities are 450 miles apart. A few corridor trains between these cities would increase passenger revenues to cover the fixed costs of the passenger train speed infrasteucure.
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico actually had entered a contract to purchase the entire line up to the Colorado state line with this in mind. Also, BNSF had made it a condition of buying what New Mexico actually wanted, Belen-Lamy. The deal was phased, with transfer of ownership Belen-Lamy first. However, after an administration changed in New Mexico, New Mexico reneged on the deal. They ultimately settled with BNSF and the rest of the deal died.
> While Albuquerque is a corridor candidate, in order to get to Denver, a train would have to use the very heavily trafficked Joint Line north of Pueblo, CO. BNSF is pretty resistant to adding a passenger train to the mix without some major capacity improvement funded by NM/CO . BNSF would almost require New Mexico and Colorado purchase the Raton line as far as Trinidad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What trip time would one be realistically looking at for a DEN-ABQ trip?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looking back, the Texas Zephyr ran Denver to Trinidad in as little as 4:33, added to the Amtrak Trinidad to Albuquerque fastest time of 5:39 = total of 10 hours and 12 minutes...I seriously doubt if that Denver to Trinidad time could be duplicated today, however...
> 
> http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track9/texzephyr196009.html
> 
> https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/timetables/Southwest-Chief-Schedule-031118.pdf
Click to expand...

That terribly uncompetitive, even at the old running times (compared to 6.5 hours driving). Under current conditions, my guess is running time would be 12ish hours. That would be a rough corridor train.


----------



## RPC

While the overall running time may seem uncompetitive, I'd bet there would be significant patronage along the Front Range segment. These folks, especially at the north end, face significant traffic slowdowns.

EDIT: Noun-verb agreement!


----------



## bretton88

RPC said:


> While the overall running time may seem uncompetitive, I'd bet there would be significant patronage along the Front Range segment. This folks, especially at the north end, face significant traffic slowdowns.


I definitely agree with having a train Pueblo to Denver, possibly even to Ft Collins. That would be wildly popular. It's the extra 6-8 hours to ABQ that is the loser.


----------



## ainamkartma

bretton88 said:


> RPC said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the overall running time may seem uncompetitive, I'd bet there would be significant patronage along the Front Range segment. This folks, especially at the north end, face significant traffic slowdowns.
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely agree with having a train Pueblo to Denver, possibly even to Ft Collins. That would be wildly popular. It's the extra 6-8 hours to ABQ that is the loser.
Click to expand...

I agree. The population density between Trinidad and Santa Fe drops to nil while the grades get big. A really really bad place to try to implement corridor service. Now a front range high speed train, on the other hand, would be packed.

Ainamkartma


----------



## railiner

And instead of going to Albuquerque, perhaps the new route would be better if it went to Amarillo and Fort Worth instead...?


----------



## Palmetto

railiner said:


> And instead of going to Albuquerque, perhaps the new route would be better if it went to Amarillo and Fort Worth instead...?


I thought of that, too. But again, there isn't much in the way of population between Amarillo and Trinidad. Another problem is that the BNSF uses directional running between the two cities, like the UP does between KC and Jefferson City. So one of the Amtrak trains would be running against opposing trains on one of the two lines. I believe that's still the situation between Jeff City and KC.


----------



## Chey

Palmetto said:


> I thought of that, too. But again, there isn't much in the way of population between Amarillo and Trinidad. Another problem is that the BNSF uses directional running between the two cities, like the UP does between KC and Jefferson City. So one of the Amtrak trains would be running against opposing trains on one of the two lines. I believe that's still the situation between Jeff City and KC.


Unless you count the traffic from Lubbock - Texas Tech students have shown much interest in any route that serviced Lubbock-Amarillo-Midland-FTW or DEN_Amarillo - in any combination. Clovis also offers more. FTW-DEN is a wonderful possibility. A close relative who works with BNSF tells me they LOVE all these possibilities. Of course they are not BNSF management but they are union...


----------



## bretton88

Chey said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought of that, too. But again, there isn't much in the way of population between Amarillo and Trinidad. Another problem is that the BNSF uses directional running between the two cities, like the UP does between KC and Jefferson City. So one of the Amtrak trains would be running against opposing trains on one of the two lines. I believe that's still the situation between Jeff City and KC.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you count the traffic from Lubbock - Texas Tech students have shown much interest in any route that serviced Lubbock-Amarillo-Midland-FTW or DEN_Amarillo - in any combination. Clovis also offers more. FTW-DEN is a wonderful possibility. A close relative who works with BNSF tells me they LOVE all these possibilities. Of course they are not BNSF management but they are union...
Click to expand...

The real problem with serving lubbock is there's then no easy way to get to Fort Worth from there. You could use the UP line from Sweetwater to FTW, but I bet the UP would demand a king's ransom for that. So the easier option that will probably have less ridership is going from Amarillo to FTW completely on BNSF. At 800 miles, it is within the scope of Amtrak to create such a route, but it would be poor for a corridor service, and most likely require sleepers.


----------



## jis

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/06/11-senators-amendment-pressures-amtrak-to-honor-southwest-chief-pledge



> A Friday news release from the office of Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said the amendment to the 2019 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations bill, offered by Udall and Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), would “strongly encourage Amtrak to consult with stakeholders before adding conditions to any grant funds.” Amtrak has recently added such conditions to its $3 million pledge to matching funds for a $16 million grant for repair and upgrading of the _Chief_ route


----------



## Lonestar648

Glad to see the Senators getting active in supporting the continuation of the SWC. I don't see Anderson rerouting this train, just eliminate it to increase the Superliner reserve inventory.


----------



## jis

I don't see Anderson rerouting or eliminating this train. They will figure out a way to keep it running. The big catch right now is New Mexico and Rail Runner's PTC progress. As for between Lamy and La Junta, Amtrak will do its SMS analysis and come to the conclusion that a single train a day each way can be handled safely and that will be the end of that. BY FRA rules that segment is Exempt anyway. If track quality issues develop they will just clobber the schedule in strange ways to accommodate. In short SWC is here to stay.

Meanwhile work on getting the Pueblo section up and running with Colorado state funding will continue to move forward.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> In short SWC is here to stay.
> 
> Meanwhile work on getting the Pueblo section up and running with Colorado state funding will continue to move forward.


I would love to see that happen. Once some kind of service is established at Pueblo, I believe that would cause strong public pressure for passenger service between there and Denver over the Joint Line.


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> I don't see Anderson rerouting or eliminating this train. They will figure out a way to keep it running. The big catch right now is New Mexico and Rail Runner's PTC progress. As for between Lamy and La Junta, Amtrak will do its SMS analysis and come to the conclusion that a single train a day each way can be handled safely and that will be the end of that. BY FRA rules that segment is Exempt anyway. If track quality issues develop they will just clobber the schedule in strange ways to accommodate. In short SWC is here to stay.
> 
> Meanwhile work on getting the Pueblo section up and running with Colorado state funding will continue to move forward.


Last summer (2017) we were on the La Junta - Trinidad segment. I noticed that BNSF was replacing the wayside signals along there with the newer so-called "Darth Vader" type and they were also retiring the open-wire signal code line. This suggested in my mind's eye that BNSF was prepping this segment for PTC but I don't know that. We did not go west of Trinidad so I cannot comment on that stretch but I did notice that west of the Trinidad stop I could still see the older AT&SF "searchlight" type signals in use.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## jis

Good point. It is actually Trinidad (actually CP Jensen a bit south of Trinidad) to Lamy that has a single pair of trains per day. So yeah, La Junta to Trinidad is likely getting PTC.


----------



## west point

Maybe BNSF wants to replace the code line ( major expense maintain it ) . Is it possible that BNSF can reuse recycled old signal system hardware that will work for track code signaling but not PTC ? Around here PTC requires another bungalow at one end of CPs and 1 or 2 Verizon satellite dishes at every signal ( CSX ) .


----------



## jis

Southwest Chief among the first to get PTC on host railroad. CZ between Chicago and Denver too.

https://media.amtrak.com/2018/06/amtrak-marks-positive-train-control-milestone/


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> Southwest Chief among the first to get PTC on host railroad. CZ between Chicago and Denver too.
> 
> https://media.amtrak.com/2018/06/amtrak-marks-positive-train-control-milestone/


Thanks, JIS. Yesterday I saw a similar article on my "Progressive Rail" e-mail newsletter. However, I couldn't see where the Hutchison-Dodge City-Trinidad-Albuquerque segment was mentioned so I wondered if they meant to include that too or what the situation is there.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## fredmcain

[SIZE=medium]You know, I’d like to say a few things about the so-called “North Line” through La Junta and Trinidad. For one thing, I have wondered what, exactly the results would be if the states and Amtrak were to really get this line into a top-notch state of good repair with _BOTH_ PTC and CTC? Would BNSF then become interested in diverting some through freight onto the line? I wonder. That’s kinda sorta what happened in North Dakota on the Devils Lake line.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]You see, the North Line across southwestern Colorado has _ALWAYS_ been just a tad bit faster than the South Line through Amarillo. That is partly why the old AT&SF Ry ran most of their crack passenger trains over the line. This sounds hard to believe from today’s perspective but the fact is that as late as 1966 there were still five daily passenger trains a day (count ‘em _FIVE_) between Chicago and California. The Santa Fe ran all but one over the north line with the fifth over the South Line to provide local service to Amarillo. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The North Line has also proven to be faster for freight although _only _if the trains are relatively short and light. The Santa Fe’s hot shot “Super C”, which they tried to bill as “The World’s Fastest Freight Train”, used the North Line. A few intermodal trains were also so diverted in the 1990s owing partly to congestion on the South Line as it was not yet fully double-tracked at that time.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So, would they? Could BNSF possibly consider this? Not without CTC. In the era of caboose-less trains, operating on single track lines with hand-thrown switches becomes highly problematic. I suppose they could run several short, intermodal trains a day in one direction only as they would only have one opposing movement to meet (The _Southwest Chief_, of course). But the D.S. could order Amtrak into the hole. Also there are a couple of short stretches of CTS west of Trinidad and near Springer, NM.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]One final thought. This line could’ve been abandoned years ago like the SPT Company’s “South Line” through Douglas, AZ. But it was actually _COAL_ that helped save the line. There were at least two, maybe three HUGE coal mines that shipped out unit trains but they closed a number of years ago. A renaissance is possible but unlikely. But new BNSF intermodal trains on the line? Also unlikely but not beyond the realm of possibility - especially with growing traffic. Time will tell.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]​Regards,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Fred M. Cain[/SIZE]


----------



## jis

fredmcain said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Southwest Chief among the first to get PTC on host railroad. CZ between Chicago and Denver too.
> 
> https://media.amtrak.com/2018/06/amtrak-marks-positive-train-control-milestone/
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, JIS. Yesterday I saw a similar article on my "Progressive Rail" e-mail newsletter. However, I couldn't see where the Hutchison-Dodge City-Trinidad-Albuquerque segment was mentioned so I wondered if they meant to include that too or what the situation is there.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
Click to expand...

I believe Trinidad to (or just south of it) to Lamy (or slightly west of it where Rail Runner joins it) is Exempt, and is not required to have PTC by the current law. This is similar to San Louis Obispo to the boundary of Caltrain operations just south of San Jose where the Coast Starlight and a couple of non-hazmat freight operates each day. The CZ has such a segment too through the mountains in Colorado and Utah, Looks like Dotsero to Price or thereabouts..

Thence to ABQ technically does not require PTC on weekends given current traffic, but does on weekdays given total traffic. If Rail Runner temporarily cuts down the number of its runs on weekdays to below the PTC threshold, it could continue to operate without PTC giving Rail Runner some breathing room to complete installation of PTC, without affecting SWC service. We'll see how it rolls.


----------



## Chey

bretton88 said:


> The real problem with serving lubbock is there's then no easy way to get to Fort Worth from there. You could use the UP line from Sweetwater to FTW, but I bet the UP would demand a king's ransom for that. So the easier option that will probably have less ridership is going from Amarillo to FTW completely on BNSF. At 800 miles, it is within the scope of Amtrak to create such a route, but it would be poor for a corridor service, and most likely require sleepers.


Amarillo would be great too, almost 200 miles closer than FTW or LMY or ABQ. If not thrufare then Greyhound is still inexpensive enough


----------



## frequentflyer

What renovations are going on at the ABQ station? Seemed cramped and dark to me. Not sure its a great idea from Amtrak to be sharing stations with Greyhound.


----------



## railiner

frequentflyer said:


> . Not sure its a great idea from Amtrak to be sharing stations with Greyhound.


Why not? Having an intermodal station benefits everyone, except perhaps taxi's....


----------



## Chey

bretton88 said:


> The real problem with serving lubbock is there's then no easy way to get to Fort Worth from there. You could use the UP line from Sweetwater to FTW, but I bet the UP would demand a king's ransom for that. So the easier option that will probably have less ridership is going from Amarillo to FTW completely on BNSF. At 800 miles, it is within the scope of Amtrak to create such a route, but it would be poor for a corridor service, and most likely require sleepers.


But even Amarillo would be a huge improvement for Lubbock, Clovis, Canyon and of course Amarillo itself.


----------



## IndyLions

railiner said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Not sure its a great idea from Amtrak to be sharing stations with Greyhound.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? Having an intermodal station benefits everyone, except perhaps taxi's....
Click to expand...

It benefits everyone if it is done fairly well - a la St. Paul MN. It is a disaster if it done poorly a la Indianapolis. What a hellhole that is for an otherwise stellar city.


----------



## VentureForth

The Alvarado Transportation Center isn't even 15 years old. I leave it and it's a dank and dark space?


----------



## gswager

It's not that old, but it's overused. Waiting room is a little too small for SWC, Greyhounds, and Mexican buses.


----------



## amtrakpass

Saw this posted on another site and since it contained the source I think it is appropriate to post for discussion.



> From: Evan Stair <[email protected]>
> 
> Date: June 21, 2018 at 10:30:22 PM CDT
> 
> Subject: Amtrak June 19 Presentation to Congress -
> 
> Buses may replace Southwest Chief Dodge City to Albuquerque
> 
> All,
> 
> The attached file shows Amtraks plan, as presented to the Kansas,
> 
> Colorado, and New Mexico Congressional contingent on Tuesday, to use
> 
> substitute bus services between Dodge City (possibly La Junta) to
> 
> Albuquerque on the Southwest Chief route. I have not received any
> 
> feedback regarding how the US Senators and US Representatives present
> 
> reacted to this presentation. Hopefully, someone in one of these
> 
> states will communicate directly with an attendee to gauge the
> 
> reaction and share this with all of us.
> 
> I suspect substitute bus service would be implemented after
> 
> the Positive Train Control (PTC) mandate date of December 31 of
> 
> this year. The effect of this would be damaging, not only to
> 
> those cities that would lose rail service, but to all Southwest
> 
> Chief cities. Slicing a route into three different segments,
> 
> two rail, one a bus, will destroy travel continuity for this
> 
> route. Understand, ridership drops substantially (I understand
> 
> by half) with every transfer. So we are really discussing
> 
> long-term the discontinuance of service. The towns that could
> 
> lose rail service initially include:
> 
> -Garden City
> 
> -Lamar
> 
> -La Junta
> 
> -Trinidad
> 
> -Raton
> 
> -Las Vegas
> 
> -Lamy
> 
> Further, Amtrak seems to have attempted to load the Congressional
> 
> contingent with statistics that in some cases are deceiving, others
> 
> confusing, and some irrelevant. For example, the capital expense
> 
> costs to establish multiple frequency services between say Chicago
> 
> and Kansas City or Los Angeles and Flagstaff/Grand Canyon are well
> 
> beyond the ability of a state compact to fund. Further, Amtraks
> 
> claim of poverty here flies in the face of the $1.3 billion, a
> 
> record amount appropriated by Congress, for operation of the national
> 
> system this year.
> 
> Most of all, as former Amtrak CEO Joseph Boardman said, Amtrak
> 
> is attempting to weaponize Positive Train Control (PTC), a collision
> 
> avoidance system. Simply put, there are mitigations and possible
> 
> waivers Amtrak is refusing to consider, that could keep the full
> 
> train route running.
> 
> My recommendation is that everyone here contact your Congressmen.
> 
> Ask them how the June 19 meeting was received and if they plan to
> 
> take any action to prevent the bus substitution from occurring.
> 
> If you would like to discuss this further feel free to call me.
> 
> Thank you for your support,
> 
> Evan Stair
> 
> President
> 
> Passenger Rail Kansas
> 
> Passenger Rail Oklahoma


LINK TO DOCUMENT: 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/397rbtfluu9uifp/Dismantling-National-System-Trains-3-4.pdf?dl=0


----------



## caravanman

I am not that aware of the politics and such mentioned in the above post, but it reads to me as if Amtrak is advocating a partial bus service to replace their train service?

Is this some sort of temporary thing while the "train control" mentioned is installed, or a permanent proposal?

Confused!


----------



## Ryan

It sounds like a “Congress, if you don’t give us the money to operate this service, we can’t continue to operate it” play.


----------



## cirdan

caravanman said:


> I am not that aware of the politics and such mentioned in the above post, but it reads to me as if Amtrak is advocating a partial bus service to replace their train service?
> 
> Is this some sort of temporary thing while the "train control" mentioned is installed, or a permanent proposal?
> 
> Confused!


Lots of things that are officially temporary drag on for ever. It's a useful way to get rid of stuff while pretending to be attempting to fix it,

So anything that's tempoarry without there being a timeline as to when it will be fixed can be consdered permanant.

That said, in this case, I still think this is a trick to hard-bargain for more money. Threaten the worst and jog people out of their lethargy. the SWC is a train a lot of people feel very emotional about, so going for this particular train seems like a calculated ploy to me.


----------



## Joeker

This is the opening salvo to the dismemberment of the LD network. Ride it soon or you will never again have the chance to travel over Raton pass.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> It sounds like a “Congress, if you don’t give us the money to operate this service, we can’t continue to operate it” play.


Except that Anderson seems to be going out of his way to provide talking points for abandoning some or all of the Southwest Chief and has worded his support for the national network to include "alternate" transportation options.


----------



## Anderson

The only problem with the argument that it's a fight for properly funding that train is that Amtrak just got a record appropriation.


----------



## bms

Amtrak's mission to provide national rail service surely includes service between the country's second- and third-largest cities. I have sleeper tickets CHI-LAX and back in April, fingers crossed!


----------



## greatcats

I tend to agree with cirdan’s last point. It would destroy the route as a through service and would not find me taking it to Chicago. Among other reasons for this dilemma, however, is the fact that a couple of hundred miles of railroad is only being used for this one train.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

Reroute it. A few conference calls with BNSF and a couple senators would do the trick. Where theres a will theres a way. Anderson is living in a bubble he needs to go.


----------



## chrsjrcj

Contemporary bus service.


----------



## CHamilton

Amtrak Plans to Kill SW Chief with Bustitution

https://www.growtrains.com/amtrak-plans-to-kill-sw-chief-with-bustitution/


----------



## saxman

Pretty much what it say's. Seems the new management doesn't understand it's own network. Ridership and revenue will plummet. While corridor service makes sense between large cities in our mega-regions, the only logical way to serve the vast expanses of the west is a LD train that creates overlapping corridors. It's sad that it's come to this. I always thought threats to Amtrak would be from Congress and our government. Never dreamed it would be from within. I've always hated how Congress likes to micromanage Amtrak, ie food and beverage. But now we need Congress to micromanage Amtrak just keep a few stations staffed and not slice up it's national network to serve those who pay for it.


----------



## bretton88

The problem is the Railrunner stretch. La Junta is the farthest Amtrak can go and have servicing and turning facilities. This also indicates Amtrak is willing to run on the PTC except tracks.


----------



## bretton88

The core part of this problem is that Railrunner has submitted a request for an extension of the PTC deadline in which Railrunner cuts back to the max the FRA will allow to get an exemption. The problem is this means Amtrak can't run on Railrunner territory because they would be outside maximum trains allowed to run. Truth be told, Rio Metro still has no idea how to pay for PTC even if they get the extension, they don't have much money and the state isn't willing to help.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

In other words, this is a little more complicated than Anderson just saying let's kill off a train (which I'm sorry to say was my first reaction)?


----------



## Seaboard92

This isn't the only route up on the block like this. I hope you ride the New River Gorge soon because it too could disappear. (And no the Broadway Limited won't come back).

Do you guys loathe Anderson and Gardner as much as I do yet? If you don't it should come soon.


----------



## jis

bretton88 said:


> The core part of this problem is that Railrunner has submitted a request for an extension of the PTC deadline in which Railrunner cuts back to the max the FRA will allow to get an exemption. The problem is this means Amtrak can't run on Railrunner territory because they would be outside maximum trains allowed to run. Truth be told, Rio Metro still has no idea how to pay for PTC even if they get the extension, they don't have much money and the state isn't willing to help.


I have been pointing out this Rail Runner problem for a while now. Glad others are starting to notice.

I just hope something gets worked out, because it will be sad (and devastating to the LD network) to lose this venerable train through fragmentation of the route.

I also hope in the worst case they will be able to run at least upto La Junta and then on to Pueblo. But one of the problem areas being east of La Junta concerns me immensely. I have no idea what the traffic situation is there. If it can be exempt, it still probably means that maintenance of tracks is left to Amtrak. However, with the changes made in appropriations that no longer differentiates between Capital and Expense appropriations, Amtrak does have quite a bit of flexibility on the matter of finding the money for such things. This is the thing that puzzles me, since the appropriation is already higher than anything Amtrak asked for. Apparently a choice is potentially being made in accelerated acquisition of new equipment while sacrificing a route or two. That should be an interesting debate in Congress if those venerable folks are awake.

BTW, this is not the first time that a proposal has been made to discontinue through service on the Raton route BTW, In my knowledge this is the third time, but there may have been others. I remember scrambling to ride the Southwest Limited back in the days fearing its imminent disappearance.


----------



## bretton88

We also have to remember 50 million (Cost of Railrunner PTC) is just a starting point. There's still several sections of the line West of La Junta that need rebuild. So we could be looking at 100 million needed in the next several years. That's a lot of capital with no reliable funding source. Trains don't run on just hope.


----------



## amtrakpass

In my opinion I think it is just Anderson and other voices within Amtrak attempting to kill the train and using PTC as cover. I don't think they actually want it to work out.

It is like trying to make plans with someone who always says they are busy. Sooner or later you get the idea that they just don't want to see you.

They know the talk about PTC requirements and waivers is confusing for most people and if they spin the debate in their favor and throw out some very high cost numbers they can cancel the service.


----------



## bretton88

amtrakpass said:


> In my opinion I think it is just Anderson and other voices within Amtrak attempting to kill the train and using PTC as cover. I don't think they actually want it to work out.
> 
> It is like trying to make plans with someone who always says they are busy. Sooner or later you get the idea that they just don't want to see you.
> 
> They know the talk about PTC requirements and waivers is confusing for most people and if they spin the debate in their favor and throw out some very high cost numbers they can cancel the service.


So why aren't we seeing this for the Coast Starlight (coast track is all exempt), the CZ (Grand Junction to SLC also exempt) or for that matter Vermont? The issue is RailRunner is tryin to get an exemption that limits the number of trains they can run, they have no interest in Amtrak taking up one of those limited slots. So Amtrak has to propose alternatives fast because the deadline for this is December 31st.


----------



## jis

bretton88 said:


> amtrakpass said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion I think it is just Anderson and other voices within Amtrak attempting to kill the train and using PTC as cover. I don't think they actually want it to work out.
> 
> It is like trying to make plans with someone who always says they are busy. Sooner or later you get the idea that they just don't want to see you.
> 
> They know the talk about PTC requirements and waivers is confusing for most people and if they spin the debate in their favor and throw out some very high cost numbers they can cancel the service.
> 
> 
> 
> So why aren't we seeing this for the Coast Starlight (coast track is all exempt), the CZ (Grand Junction to SLC also exempt) or for that matter Vermont? The issue is RailRunner is tryin to get an exemption that limits the number of trains they can run, they have no interest in Amtrak taking up one of those limited slots. So Amtrak has to propose alternatives fast because the deadline for this is December 31st.
Click to expand...

Small correction. CZ exempt section appears to be Dotsero to somewhere up in the Wasatch around Soldier Summit AFAICT, Can't figure out exactly where in detail.
Two differences between the SWC case on the Raton Line and the CZ and CS case is that in the case of the latter:

(a) Amtrak is not potentially on the hook for paying for maintenance of any tracks, and

(b) There is no non-exempt segment involved where there is any likelihood of PTC not being operative or the host not getting a legitimate extension.

Incidentally, I was unaware of the PTC issue between Las Aniams and Dodge City. Is this a segment that will be under extension pending getting PTC after the end of the year? Or is this Exempt?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

If Anderson was making overtures to migrate a fully intact Southwest Chief over to the BNSF transcontinental route and only using a bus link to maintain service with orphaned cities like Raton and Trinidad then I'd be more willing to believe he was genuinely trying to maintain the national network to the best of his ability. Playing hardball with money in a year when Amtrak was already allocated more than they asked for seems like a risky and potentially disingenuous move to me.


----------



## bretton88

Devil said:


> If Anderson was making overtures to migrate a fully intact Southwest Chief over to the BNSF transcontinental route and only using a bus link to maintain service with orphaned cities like Raton and Trinidad then I'd be more willing to believe he was genuinely trying to maintain the national network to the best of his ability. Playing hardball with money in a year when Amtrak was already allocated more than they asked for seems like a risky and potentially disingenuous move to me.


It's quite possible, but I think that ship has sailed. Since it's not really BNSFs problem that Railrunner isn't compliant with PTC, BNSF is under no obligation to offer that alternative again. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak asked and was declined.


----------



## neroden

BNSF, like all other US railroads, has a legal obligation to carry Amtrak on any track whatsoever on Amtrak's demand.

I said years ago that Amtrak should have rerouted through Amarillo. Amtrak still can.

Anderson's illegitimate and dishonest tactic needs to be called out to Congress, because this is just more lies from Anderson. They're still trying to claim shared costs as a cost of the train, which is flat-out ****.

Cutting through service from LA to Chicago will lose gobs of revenue: not just on the Southwest Chief, but on every connecting train too.

And write to Coscia. Anderson needs to be fired immediately.


----------



## Chey

bretton88 said:


> It's quite possible, but I think that ship has sailed. Since it's not really BNSFs problem that Railrunner isn't compliant with PTC, BNSF is under no obligation to offer that alternative again. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak asked and was declined.


I'm not so sure. The BNSF employees my spouse works with think it hasn't sailed just yet.



Devil said:


> If Anderson was making overtures to migrate a fully intact Southwest Chief over to the BNSF transcontinental route and only using a bus link to maintain service with orphaned cities like Raton and Trinidad then I'd be more willing to believe he was genuinely trying to maintain the national network to the best of his ability. Playing hardball with money in a year when Amtrak was already allocated more than they asked for seems like a risky and potentially disingenuous move to me.


The southern transcom route always made more sense to me; I hear that BNSF is still very amenable to the idea but I have no idea if it's true, this only comes from the union people.

Ryan and those who think it's a play for more money are probably right. It might be risky but I don't know how much pull the towns/states they propose to bustitute actually have.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

bretton88 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Anderson was making overtures to migrate a fully intact Southwest Chief over to the BNSF transcontinental route and only using a bus link to maintain service with orphaned cities like Raton and Trinidad then I'd be more willing to believe he was genuinely trying to maintain the national network to the best of his ability. Playing hardball with money in a year when Amtrak was already allocated more than they asked for seems like a risky and potentially disingenuous move to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite possible. I think that ship has sailed. Since it's not really BNSFs problem that Railrunner isn't compliant with PTC, BNSF is under no obligation to offer that alternative again. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak asked and was declined.
Click to expand...

So far as I am aware BNSF is indeed obligated to make "reasonable accommodations" in the case of abandoned lines. Moving over to the transcontinental route is likely to be seen as a reasonable accommodation in the context of a legal remedy. BNSF can charge for any services rendered/impacted by the change, including logistical considerations and recurring usage fees, but they cannot simply refuse to allow access without opening themselves up to potential litigation. That being said, what motivation would BNSF have for refusing this? The SWC already uses the transcontinental route and keeping it on track and on time instead of wondering off into a perpetually deteriorating detour of dark territory seems like a no-brainer to me. Also, what reason would Anderson have for ignoring these options or for keeping such discussions private? If he wants his threats of imminent danger to be taken seriously then Anderson needs to show he's already done everything he can to keep the route as intact as possible.


----------



## neroden

What DA said. I'm sure BNSF would prefer to run the SWC straight along the Transcon; it vastly simplifies their dispatching. It could even be done without intermediate stops, though I am very certain Wichita would pony up to restore service there. And if the route isn't fully double-tracked, it's already scheduled to be.


----------



## frequentflyer

I read that BNSF, after years of wanting Amtrak to move to the transcon line does not want Amtrak to move there now do to traffic. Apparently there is a stretch of the transcon that's still single track and is already an operations headache with freight trains.

Amtrak's intial resistance was ABQ not being on the line. But RailRunner could provide a connection in Belen. There was even talk of running the SWC to ABQ and using some Y up there to turn it. For at least 20 years BNSF wanted this to downgrade the Dodge City line. It used to be 90mph running, now I think its 79 mph.


----------



## neroden

frequentflyer said:


> I read that BNSF, after years of wanting Amtrak to move to the transcon line does not want Amtrak to move there now do to traffic. Apparently there is a stretch of the transcon that's still single track and is already an operations headache with freight trains.


Is it the bridge in Oklahoma? It would cost a lot less to double-track that (and to upgrade the chord at Belen and the wye in Albuquerque) than it would to maintain the Raton Pass route.

And it would cut an HOUR off the schedule, last I checked, which has got to be worth something to everyone involved. Plus, fewer stations mean a faster run *and* simpler dispatching for BNSF. (The only likely stations on the Transcon are Wichita, Amarillo, and maybe Clovis.)


----------



## frequentflyer

neroden said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read that BNSF, after years of wanting Amtrak to move to the transcon line does not want Amtrak to move there now do to traffic. Apparently there is a stretch of the transcon that's still single track and is already an operations headache with freight trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the bridge in Oklahoma? It would cost a lot less to double-track that (and to upgrade the chord at Belen and the wye in Albuquerque) than it would to maintain the Raton Pass route.
> 
> And it would cut an HOUR off the schedule, last I checked, which has got to be worth something to everyone involved. Plus, fewer stations mean a faster run *and* simpler dispatching for BNSF. (The only likely stations on the Transcon are Wichita, Amarillo, and maybe Clovis.)
Click to expand...

Not familiar with the area, I was suprised with how important this line is to BNSF, that the whole line was not double tracked. I know they are even triple tracking some areas. I have driven from Clovis to Ft. Sumner NM and it looked like it was double tracked.


----------



## bretton88

Devil's Advocate said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Anderson was making overtures to migrate a fully intact Southwest Chief over to the BNSF transcontinental route and only using a bus link to maintain service with orphaned cities like Raton and Trinidad then I'd be more willing to believe he was genuinely trying to maintain the national network to the best of his ability. Playing hardball with money in a year when Amtrak was already allocated more than they asked for seems like a risky and potentially disingenuous move to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite possible. I think that ship has sailed. Since it's not really BNSFs problem that Railrunner isn't compliant with PTC, BNSF is under no obligation to offer that alternative again. I wouldn't be surprised if Amtrak asked and was declined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far as I am aware BNSF is indeed obligated to make "reasonable accommodations" in the case of abandoned lines. Moving over to the transcontinental route is likely to be seen as a reasonable accommodation in the context of a legal remedy. BNSF can charge for any services rendered/impacted by the change, including logistical considerations and recurring usage fees, but they cannot simply refuse to allow access without opening themselves up to potential litigation. That being said, what motivation would BNSF have for refusing this? The SWC already uses the transcontinental route and keeping it on track and on time instead of wondering off into a perpetually deteriorating detour of dark territory seems like a no-brainer to me. Also, what reason would Anderson have for ignoring these options or for keeping such discussions private? If he wants his threats of imminent danger to be taken seriously then Anderson needs to show he's already done everything he can to keep the route as intact as possible.
Click to expand...

Because BNSF isn't abandoning anything, Amtrak can move over the PTC exempt trackage in Kansas and Colorado. This is Amtrak can't move over NMRX territory. BNSF has no obligations right now.


----------



## neroden

frequentflyer said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read that BNSF, after years of wanting Amtrak to move to the transcon line does not want Amtrak to move there now do to traffic. Apparently there is a stretch of the transcon that's still single track and is already an operations headache with freight trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the bridge in Oklahoma? It would cost a lot less to double-track that (and to upgrade the chord at Belen and the wye in Albuquerque) than it would to maintain the Raton Pass route.
> 
> And it would cut an HOUR off the schedule, last I checked, which has got to be worth something to everyone involved. Plus, fewer stations mean a faster run *and* simpler dispatching for BNSF. (The only likely stations on the Transcon are Wichita, Amarillo, and maybe Clovis.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not familiar with the area, I was suprised with how important this line is to BNSF, that the whole line was not double tracked. I know they are even triple tracking some areas. I have driven from Clovis to Ft. Sumner NM and it looked like it was double tracked.
Click to expand...

It is double tracked at least from Los Angeles to Alva, Oklahoma, and seems to have a lot of double-tracking north of that as well. Seriously, if BNSF wants some upgrades from Alva to Newton, KS, this has got to be a lot cheaper than maintaining the Raton Pass route.


----------



## Chey

frequentflyer said:


> Not familiar with the area, I was suprised with how important this line is to BNSF, that the whole line was not double tracked. I know they are even triple tracking some areas. I have driven from Clovis to Ft. Sumner NM and it looked like it was double tracked.


I am hearing it's double-tracked at least from Amarillo to Belen More than that, according to Neorden, who would know better than I.


----------



## neroden

Aaargh. This is it. I'm writing a letter to Coscia. I'm not going to outright request Anderson's firing, but I'm going to politely suggest that Anderson doesn't understand the finances or customers of Amtrak, and suggest that the Board should demand fully-allocated cost figures from management (as required by law).


----------



## bretton88

neroden said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read that BNSF, after years of wanting Amtrak to move to the transcon line does not want Amtrak to move there now do to traffic. Apparently there is a stretch of the transcon that's still single track and is already an operations headache with freight trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it the bridge in Oklahoma? It would cost a lot less to double-track that (and to upgrade the chord at Belen and the wye in Albuquerque) than it would to maintain the Raton Pass route.
> 
> And it would cut an HOUR off the schedule, last I checked, which has got to be worth something to everyone involved. Plus, fewer stations mean a faster run *and* simpler dispatching for BNSF. (The only likely stations on the Transcon are Wichita, Amarillo, and maybe Clovis.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not familiar with the area, I was suprised with how important this line is to BNSF, that the whole line was not double tracked. I know they are even triple tracking some areas. I have driven from Clovis to Ft. Sumner NM and it looked like it was double tracked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is double tracked at least from Los Angeles to Alva, Oklahoma, and seems to have a lot of double-tracking north of that as well. Seriously, if BNSF wants some upgrades from Alva to Newton, KS, this has got to be a lot cheaper than maintaining the Raton Pass route.
Click to expand...

I agree that The Chief should have been rerouted to the transcon years ago. But politics got in the way.


----------



## me_little_me

I didn't know today was April 1st!


----------



## chrsjrcj

I don't even understand why day service is proposed. Chicago to Dodge City might be possible, but you lose East Coast connections (and probably Michigan/Hiawatha too).

LA to Albuquerque is too far for a day train. You'd end up serving ABQ in the middle of the night/early morning.

Transcon isn't even mentioned in the PPT as a possibility.

Also, interesting they use the term "suspension" for the section between ABQ and La Junta. Sounds like an easy way to get around the 180 day notice, as we saw with the Sunset East.


----------



## Seaboard92

Honestly I have a little hope because this has leaked out. It means there is someone at Amtrak headquarters who knows this is detrimental to the network, and detrimental to our country. And that they would knowingly take the risk to put the information out there that could cause them to lose their job. So there is some hope that stems from this.


----------



## mjlincoln

I fully enjoyed my SWC trip ABQ - CHI in March! I bedded down in my roomette somewhere between Lamar and La Junta.

If I had to get off at La Junta I wouldn't have gotten a roomette; and then what? get on a bus for the remainder of the night... until breakfast time in Kansas City? Miserable. And I wouldn't get a roomette for KAS - CHI. So the whole trip is bust for me with this new plan, I'd rather fly than try to sleep in a bus. yuck. m--


----------



## chrsjrcj

New Mexico Senator Heinrich responds:



> Heinrich said the meeting did not go well.
> 
> 
> “I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that I’ve ever experienced,” he said. “To learn that not only are they planning to pull back their commitment to the TIGER grant, but that they're going to abandon the route I think is just outrageous.”


----------



## frequentflyer

"_“During conversations with members of the Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico congressional delegations, *Amtrak indicated that we are considering various service options for the Southwest Chie*f in response to the significant host railroad costs facing Amtrak for continued use of the middle portion of the route between Dodge City and Albuquerque."_

I would think that includes a move to the transcon route.


----------



## frequentflyer

Wasn't SWC one of the worst performing LD trains outside the SL? Why?


----------



## Palmetto

chrsjrcj said:


> New Mexico Senator Heinrich responds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heinrich said the meeting did not go well.
> 
> 
> “I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that I’ve ever experienced,” he said. “To learn that not only are they planning to pull back their commitment to the TIGER grant, but that they're going to abandon the route I think is just outrageous.”
Click to expand...

All that that means is that the meeting did not go the way he wanted it to go. Which is unfortunate.

I have not seen anything official from the BNSF that states it will not run the Southwest Chief on its Southern Transcon, but there are plenty of anecdotes that say they do not want the passenger train on the route. The single track issue in Oklahoma and over the Missouri River is not the problem. The problem is west of Waynoka, OK, because a lot of trains come onto the Panhandle Sub there from places like Tulsa, Memphis and St. Louis [and beyond], which gums up a totally double-tracked railroad all the way to L.A. There is terminal congestion at Amarillo [where they're building a FOURTH main line, BTW], Belen [where they're building a THIRD main line west to Dalies] and Clovis.

If the BNSF somehow were forced to accomodate Amtrak between Newton KS and Dalies NM, it would not be unreasonable to expect them to require double tracking between Newton and Mulvane KS where the train would join the Transcon.


----------



## Steve4031

Seaboard92 said:


> This isn't the only route up on the block like this. I hope you ride the New River Gorge soon because it too could disappear. (And no the Broadway Limited won't come back).
> 
> Do you guys loathe Anderson and Gardner as much as I do yet? If you don't it should come soon.


----------



## TinCan782

Got to wondering...how much would the "bus bridge" (multiple buses, both directions) cost vs continuing the train through that gap?

The trains on each side of the gap would still run, perhaps without sleepers?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I'm sure a big part of the cost savings is eliminating sleepers and dining cars.


----------



## cpotisch

I feel like if you take a long distance train and chop it up into three parts, the middle of which is a bus bridge, it is no longer a long distance train. It just becomes multiple stubs that connect the same stations. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if they do this, the route will be as good as gone.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> I feel like if you take a long distance train and chop it up into three parts, the middle of which is a bus bridge, it is no longer a long distance train. It just becomes multiple stubs that connect the same stations. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if they do this, the route will be as good as gone.


It'll certainly become pretty useless for anyone trying to travel from a point on one side of the bus bridge to a point on the other side. Within each segment I suppose it might still remain useful.


----------



## GBNorman

I think it is time to accept that when President Trump likely leaves office during January 2025. there will be an Amtrak, but it will hardly be "Amtrak as we know it".

Simplified Dining on LD trains will only expand. If Amtrak is successful in truncating, if not outright discontinuing, the Chief - not that it's a "basket case" so far as public acceptance, but rather because the maintenance of a good portion of its route represents "cash out the cookie jar" and not simply an assignment of costs - the "basket cases" will follow.

All told, it will be a new day - and Congress has placed it's bets with the record $1.9B, that new philosophy will result in providing intercity transportation in the markets that demonstrate the need for such - and not rolling pork barrels.


----------



## KmH

Many are betting the guy in the oval office will be departing in 942 days, January 20, *2021*.


----------



## greatcats

Hopefully sooner than 942.


----------



## Bob Dylan

greatcats said:


> Hopefully sooner than 942.


This!!!


----------



## Seaboard92

The thing is we can save the Southwest Chief, the Empire Builder, the Cardinal, and other long distance trains. We can save them by calling our senators and telling them trains matter. We can schedule meetings on the hill. You don't have to just schedule your meeting during RPA's day on the hill. You can go anytime of the year.

I schedule a meeting with both of my states (SC, OR) representatives every time I'm in DC. And it helps personalize the issue and I can keep them informed. Go to the hill be active more then just once a year. This is an election year so there is a possibility they might not be in office this time next year. Go out on the campaign trail and talk to candidates. Figure out what their opinions are and start educating them before the heritage foundation or other groups get to them.

We can do this because it's National or Nothing.


----------



## Chey

You know, I have no idea what Anderson's end game is here. The bustitutions don't make a whole lot of sense. But I don't think he's that dumb. He might be, I just don't think so.

The continuation of the route as it's been...I love Lamy, I love all the route between the Raton Pass and Albuquerque... very beautiful, and I absolutely love Lamy - but common sense has to be more important to business than sentimentality. BNSF understood that.

There are some who serve the agenda driven by people who stand to keep making money with the status quo. Others, myself included, would greatly benefit from changes to the route - if not cheaper then maybe closer - but we haven't seen the end game. Maybe Anderson's angling for more money, or maybe he's trying to make it more practical, or maybe he's trying to kill it. We don't know.

If someone here has a crystal ball, by all means tell us what it says. I don't think things are all that clear yet.


----------



## neroden

If Anderson isn't dumb, he'll get the SWC onto the Transcon route. All the evidence so far says that Anderson *is* dumb.


----------



## Seaboard92

neroden said:


> If Anderson isn't dumb, he'll get the SWC onto the Transcon route. All the evidence so far says that Anderson *is* dumb.


He is dumb in my opinion because despite hundreds of people telling him how to run a railroad. He listens to the one person who ran the corridor and that's the only one getting thru to him. And that one isn't a railroader so he's clueless if you ask me. Sack both Gardner and Anderson.


----------



## TiBike

Anderson wasn't hired so "hundreds of people" could tell him "how to run a railroad". He was hired to tell hundreds of railroaders how to run a passenger transportation business. Emphasis on "business". He seems to be doing a good job of it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

TiBike said:


> Anderson wasn't hired so "hundreds of people" could tell him "how to run a railroad". He was hired to tell hundreds of railroaders how to run a passenger transportation business. Emphasis on "business". He seems to be doing a good job of it.


Eh... I'm not sure it's that simple. Cutting the food and beverage losses were a clear part of his job. But cutting up the long distance trains into corridors? It seems he rode the coast Starlight once and decided that all long distance trains were outdated and only serving people who desire nostalgia.

If congress had given more money for "creating more corridors" or "restructuring LD trains" this would make sense. But they gave money specificaly to "long distance" trains.


----------



## TiBike

crescent-zephyr said:


> If congress had given more money for "creating more corridors" or "restructuring LD trains" this would make sense. But they gave money specificaly to "long distance" trains.


No, congress appropriated money for the "National Network". Redirecting resources and capacity to the parts of the network where traffic is highest, where the most people will be served, and the most revenue is generated for the least expense, is what his job is about. He seems to be going about it by focusing on fundamentals that are common to any passenger transportation business: safety, reliability and demand driven asset management.


----------



## keelhauled

Seaboard92 said:


> He is dumb in my opinion because despite hundreds of people telling him how to run a railroad. He listens to the one person who ran the corridor and that's the only one getting thru to him. And that one isn't a railroader so he's clueless if you ask me. Sack both Gardner and Anderson.


Were the "railroaders" the ones in charge of the infamous Chicago shops during the height of their inability to manage weather and equipment? Were they the ones who botched the negotiations for a daily Sunset Limited? Did they make the call to axe the Three Rivers and the eastern half of the SL? Under whose watch did the Silver Star and then the LSL lose diners? Is it perhaps possible that being a railroader does not implicitly make one qualified to operate a passenger transportation service?


----------



## railiner

TiBike said:


> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If congress had given more money for "creating more corridors" or "restructuring LD trains" this would make sense. But they gave money specificaly to "long distance" trains.
> 
> 
> 
> No, congress appropriated money for the "National Network". Redirecting resources and capacity to the parts of the network where traffic is highest, where the most people will be served, and the most revenue is generated for the least expense, is what his job is about. He seems to be going about it by focusing on fundamentals that are common to any passenger transportation business: safety, reliability and demand driven asset management.
Click to expand...

I guess it gets down to what Amtrak's directed "mission" is....if "redirecting resources" is supporting that mission, or going counter to it.

In case of the latter, then perhaps Amtrak's mission needs to be redefined?


----------



## Thirdrail7

TiBike said:


> Anderson wasn't hired so "hundreds of people" could tell him "how to run a railroad".


Actually, he was. You see, he works for the public and their representatives. That amounts to hundreds of people (namely, Congress) telling him how to run a railroad....which is why most railroaders shy away from the position.



TiBike said:


> He was hired to tell hundreds of railroaders how to run a passenger transportation business. Emphasis on "business". He seems to be doing a good job of it.


I'm always interested in hearing why people think he is doing a good job or a bad job. What have you seen that makes you say he is doing a good job? Is ridership up or down? Is revenue up or down? Is safety up or down? Has any equipment been released for service? Any new routes added? How are costs doing? Has OTP improved? How is our Congressional credibility?

While I know the answers to most of these questions, I STILL think it is entirely too early to say if Mr. Anderson is doing a good or bad job.



TiBike said:


> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If congress had given more money for "creating more corridors" or "restructuring LD trains" this would make sense. But they gave money specificaly to "long distance" trains.
> 
> 
> 
> No, congress appropriated money for the "National Network". Redirecting resources and capacity to the parts of the network where traffic is highest, where the most people will be served, and the most revenue is generated for the least expense, is what his job is about. He seems to be going about it by focusing on fundamentals that are common to any passenger transportation business: safety, reliability and demand driven asset management.
Click to expand...

However, Congress also enacted PRIIA and updated it in 2015. Nothing in PRIIA indicates that Amtrak one part of the network should be sacrificed for another part. That is why it deals with future high speed service, existing high speed service/NEC, state supported services as well as LD service. Indeed, it even offers to fund LD service on behalf of an outside operator. ( Shouldn't we have heard something about that by now?)

If what you described "is what the job is all about," very few people outside the Chicago hub, state supported/commuter service and the NEC would have operations....and the NEC is questionable since the states along the route would need to finance the route themselves...and with its 40+BILLION dollar backlog in repairs, it is the most expensive piece of territory.

Good luck finding the funding.


----------



## Thirdrail7

keelhauled said:


> Were the "railroaders" the ones in charge of the infamous Chicago shops during the height of their inability to manage weather and equipment?


No.




keelhauled said:


> Were they the ones who botched the negotiations for a daily Sunset Limited?


I'm not sure of that story but I would ask was it a railroader or someone who worked for the railroad? There is a difference.



keelhauled said:


> Did they make the call to axe the Three Rivers and the eastern half of the SL?


Not really and no. The call to axe the Three Rivers made sense since the entire basis for operating the train ceased to exist once the hosts slapped restrictions on the mail cars and caused massive delays to the trains. Once the mail was dropped (along with a lot of funding), it was a no brainer. The train that didn't exist without the mail was cancelled one the mail was cut.

I don't know who eats the eastern SL, but since we haven't really had a "railroader" in charge in quite some time (Mr. Moorman's cameo notwithstanding,) I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it wasn't a railroader.



keelhauled said:


> Under whose watch did the Silver Star and then the LSL lose diners?


That was the Boardman regime. I would also like to remind people that the boxed meal idea also was studied and being prepped by his regime. I wouldn't be so quick to pin this on Mr. Anderson. However, NEITHER of these men are railroaders.



keelhauled said:


> Is it perhaps possible that being a railroader does not implicitly make one qualified to operate a passenger transportation service?


Indeed. One only needs to look at Mr. Warrington's tenure to see that a railroader at the helm doesn't guarantee success.


----------



## jis

Now the pushback begins in right earnest. Should be interesting to see how all this plays out...

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/heinrich-balks-at-amtraks-plan-to-abandon-nm-route/4961142/?cat=500


----------



## bretton88

chrsjrcj said:


> New Mexico Senator Heinrich responds:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heinrich said the meeting did not go well.
> 
> 
> 
> “I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that I’ve ever experienced,” he said. “To learn that not only are they planning to pull back their commitment to the TIGER grant, but that they're going to abandon the route I think is just outrageous.”
Click to expand...

I do find this funny. All Amtrak would have to tell him is "Your state is the problem point. Why haven't you come through with the funds to fix this in the last decade?" Not like the Railrunner PTC status hasn't been known for a long time.


----------



## SanDiegan

crescent-zephyr said:


> I'm sure a big part of the cost savings is eliminating sleepers and dining cars.


The two sleepers generate almost half of the revenue


----------



## bretton88

SanDiegan said:


> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure a big part of the cost savings is eliminating sleepers and dining cars.
> 
> 
> 
> The two sleepers generate almost half of the revenue
Click to expand...

We're not sure if they are going to eliminate the sleepers. An option is sleeper train LA-ABQ and CHI-LAJ. At this point there's a lot of options on the table. The only thing they know for sure is that the Lamy to ABQ section might not be available to run on, so they need to plan for that possibility.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Chey said:


> You know, I have no idea what Anderson's end game is here. The bustitutions don't make a whole lot of sense. But I don't think he's that dumb. He might be, I just don't think so.
> 
> The continuation of the route as it's been...I love Lamy, I love all the route between the Raton Pass and Albuquerque... very beautiful, and I absolutely love Lamy - but common sense has to be more important to business than sentimentality. BNSF understood that.
> 
> There are some who serve the agenda driven by people who stand to keep making money with the status quo. Others, myself included, would greatly benefit from changes to the route - if not cheaper then maybe closer - but we haven't seen the end game. Maybe Anderson's angling for more money, or maybe he's trying to make it more practical, or maybe he's trying to kill it. We don't know.
> 
> If someone here has a crystal ball, by all means tell us what it says. I don't think things are all that clear yet.


My crystal ball is still under repair but I think things are becoming quite clear. They weren't that foggy to begin with. I've mentioned what I think the end game will be if left to the current administration.

I would like everyone to look at page 14 of the presentation that was enclosed in the first page of this thread. It is the one that says Unresolved Infrastructure issues. Behold the very last line:

*The financial investment of the magnitude needed to retain this portion of the route is not prudent given the broader needs across the network*

In other words, it isn't worth it for one train. Even if the states paid for everything else and PTC was operational, does Amrak really want to invest in 219 miles of railroad for one train when other routes could use that 3 million?

The danger here is this can be repeated along many routes across the system. Is it worth it? The presentation even includes a little bribe for future service. We're on your side and we want to run corridor trains in your state. This is consistent with a few things I've stated before:



Thirdrail7 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what RailPAC has to say based on a meeting at which Anderson spoke in California:
> 
> http://railpac.org/2018/04/21/amtrak-ceo-phasing-out-long-distance-trains-in-favor-of-corridors/
> 
> Note that these are notes of an observer in a meeting in California where Anderson spoke.... He did not explicitly say what the title claims, but one could reach such a conclusion from the reported notes if the observer's notes are unbiased.
> 
> Thirdrail, maybe we have a strong hint of an answer to your question. What have you been hearing internally that you can share?
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard worse in greater detail. However, I've noticed that how he articulates something doesn't necessarily mean it how it will turn out. A perfect example is the brouhaha that ensued with the private car message. What he said and how it came out is not how it was explained. *That is why I'm anxiously awaiting some sort of vision on the LD. front. He believes corridors are the future and he believes that operations should concentrate on the heavily used stations. Does that mean the death of the LD trains or does that mean the elimination of many, low usage stations in an effort to reduce the running times along the route?*
> 
> 
> 
> *If Congress steps in, does it mean a puny, perfunctory train with minimum services along the route or a showdown, with him waving PRIIA? The fact they gave additional money to the operation of the LD network probably doesn't make things cut and dry.*
> 
> 
> 
> *We'll see.*
Click to expand...

The capital needs are not going away. As more hosts step up and demand Amtrak assume the costs of PTC, this battle will only increase. As such I'd like to quote part of this entry from the Richard Anderson replacing Wick Moorman as Amtrak CEO thread.



Thirdrail7 said:


> <snip>
> 
> *The large elephant in the room is PTC and who will assume the costs. This is where you might have hit the nail on the head Tibike. There are hosts that have basically said, if you want to use this route, you'll have to foot the costs of PTC. If in fact Amtrak did foot those costs, then they need bang for their buck. Running as many trains over their territory is a wise investment. However, what if the costs of the investment doesn't translate into ridership and/or revenue? Should you make the investment merely to keep "the system" together?*
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, that is the ultimate question and that once again boils down to, finances, revenue, ridership and politics. What is more important...revenue or ridership?* I'm not from the west cost Tibike, so I'm going to need your help. Using the Coast Starlight as an example, you have stated that running it as separate corridor trains may stimulate ridership since the train is not helpful to people in CA. Am I understanding you correctly? If that is the case, it would make sense that the top city pairs for this train would be long distance passengers since this train isn't reliable for corridor service. Again, this makes sense. Now, the REVENUE from the LD pairs is going to be quite higher since typically, the greater the distance, the higher the fare. So, taking a train like the CS and breaking it into various trains may increase ridership but you'd have to hope the volume makes up for the potential loss in revenue from the long distance trip and the potential increase in fees. What if it doesn't?
> 
> A classic example is the Capitol Punishment....I mean errr Limited. On its own, this is dopey train. It has poor arrival times at the main city along the route (PGH) and poor connections (relatively short in one direction and too long in the other direction.) The intermediate markets are small and poorly served. However, if you attempt to change their schedules, NS has basically promised to paralyze the train....not that it should matter since they kind of do that anyway, so what harm is there in changing the times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, from a system perspective, this train is a major west-south conduit. It funnels a great deal of through traffic between the east coast and the mid west. Altering the train would impact the entire system. So, if a host wants to pass the PTC costs along, a cursory look would suggest you kill this train because as a stand alone route, the finances of the city pair wouldn't justify the investment . However, an in depth look would make you have the opposite point of view. That is because the through ridership is there and with that comes revenue not only for the route, but for the system.
> 
> *Speaking of the system, that is where politics comes into play. I know things are different now, but there are plenty of people that don't believe in trains. Period. If you want them, pay for them! That sounds logical but there are plenty of people that will not vote for funding a scattered system. In other words, it sounds good to say you're going to invest BILLIONS in the NEC....until someone in Kentucky says "Sure, as long as you continue to stop in Mayville!' and someone in Montana says "I'll allocate for a national system, which means Malta. So if you think you're turning the Empire Builder into two trains between CHI-MSP along with one SEA-SPK train, you've have another thing coming!"*[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> *The trains are shorter now then they have ever been. However, I think that is because of slightly better utilization and assignment. That may also be because revenue (higher fares) are trumping ridership numbers (lowering fares may drive up the numbers but may not translate into revenue.). Additionally, shorter trains traveling shorter distances doesn't necessarily mean less maintenance or less head count. Quite often, it means just the opposite. Short distance intercity trains must have a calendar day inspection lust like a Long Distance train ,except a long distance train can actually continue to its final repair point if a non-running gear defect is found en route. That is not the case for commuter or short distance intercity trains. Additionally, a delayed en route LD train can continue in service to its next calendar day inspection point. That is not the case with SD/COM trains. They can continue to the next inspection point, but not with the passengers. Multiple trains may need additional crews and crew bases. Again, this MAY not be an issue. It depends on the costs, the ridership and the revenue.*
> 
> 
> 
> *These are all major issues, Tibike. Where trains exist, I believe in multiple services. You already have the stations. You already have the mechanical forces available. You already have the crew base and commissary profile. If more trains can utilize them, that's better. So, I'm not saying your idea for breaking up the CS may not be a good idea. However, will the states fund it? If they kill the train, does that mean other states will fund what is left? Will Oregon willingly fork over money to invest in the NEC? Our new CEO may believe so but I really don't think that is the case. We could lose it all.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We may find out soon enough. My prediction is a push to corridor type trains, financed by the states. We may not have a choice. If that fails, you'll see a nod to sustaining the system by running a perfunctory train with minimal amenities and a puny consist. The rest of the equipment will be diverted to other places in the system to feed corridor type service.*Again, this may NOT be the end of the world, depending on how it is accomplished.



Well, it is summer. Here comes Amtrak 2.0!


----------



## TiBike

OK Thirdrail, being CEO of Amtrak is a difficult job. If railroaders don't want to take it on, that's fine. There's not a lot of overlap between the skills sets needed for running a consumer-facing service business and for running trains and managing infrastructure. I'm guessing Anderson wouldn't be reckoned an aviator (or whatever the equivalent of "railroader" is at an airline) either. But he must know how to manage them, and balance their imperatives against those of finance, marketing and other specialties, in order to meet the needs of the customers. Otherwise, he wouldn't have lasted long at Delta, let alone achieved any degree of success. Which he did.

Why do I think Anderson is doing a good job? Not because of results – it's too soon for that. It's because I see Amtrak making some of the changes it needs to make if it wants to be more than just an amusement park ride for senior citizens. You offered the best example of that: he's giving more priority, resources and supervision to maintenance. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that it needed to be done, but I was. I was also impressed by what you described. It sounded to me like a description of a CEO that's focusing on the core business, rather than juggling fiefdoms.

Other examples include modernising the supply chain (that's how I interpret the food service changes from a management perspective, in both the diners and the cafes), taking the job of targeted marketing back from affinity groups, sandboxing non core business (private cars and charters) so negative impacts on the core business are drastically reduced if not eliminated, and (perhaps) adjusting capacity to match demand (buses on some segments, self powered cars of whatever kind on others?).

I don't know whose ideas those were originally, but it doesn't matter. CEOs aren't necessarily, or even often, the source of good ideas. Their talent is to recognise good ideas and move them, and the people responsible for them, ahead.

Then there's safety. If I'm counting correctly, Amtrak has had four employees KIA in 2018, and the year isn't even half over. Since 2015, there's been two major wrecks, involving passenger fatalities, due to the same cause: employees weren't paying attention to what they were doing. Obviously, I don't know what's going on inside of Amtrak, but Anderson is saying the right things about safety and I'm inferring that he's doing something about it from the recent snow cancellations. Forgive my literary liberties, but I'm imagining a conversation:

"is it safe to run trains in this weather?"

"Yes".

"Why?"

"Because we're railroaders and that's what we do".

"I'll take that as a no. Get back to me when you understand the question".

What I see is a CEO who is making necessary major changes, and not one who is fiddling around the edges. That's why I say he's doing a good job. So far.



Thirdrail7 said:


> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson wasn't hired so "hundreds of people" could tell him "how to run a railroad".
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, he was. You see, he works for the public and their representatives. That amounts to hundreds of people (namely, Congress) telling him how to run a railroad....which is why most railroaders shy away from the position.
> 
> 
> 
> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was hired to tell hundreds of railroaders how to run a passenger transportation business. Emphasis on "business". He seems to be doing a good job of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm always interested in hearing why people think he is doing a good job or a bad job. What have you seen that makes you say he is doing a good job? Is ridership up or down? Is revenue up or down? Is safety up or down? Has any equipment been released for service? Any new routes added? How are costs doing? Has OTP improved? How is our Congressional credibility?
> 
> While I know the answers to most of these questions, I STILL think it is entirely too early to say if Mr. Anderson is doing a good or bad job.
> 
> 
> 
> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> If congress had given more money for "creating more corridors" or "restructuring LD trains" this would make sense. But they gave money specificaly to "long distance" trains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, congress appropriated money for the "National Network". Redirecting resources and capacity to the parts of the network where traffic is highest, where the most people will be served, and the most revenue is generated for the least expense, is what his job is about. He seems to be going about it by focusing on fundamentals that are common to any passenger transportation business: safety, reliability and demand driven asset management.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However, Congress also enacted PRIIA and updated it in 2015. Nothing in PRIIA indicates that Amtrak one part of the network should be sacrificed for another part. That is why it deals with future high speed service, existing high speed service/NEC, state supported services as well as LD service. Indeed, it even offers to fund LD service on behalf of an outside operator. ( Shouldn't we have heard something about that by now?)
> 
> If what you described "is what the job is all about," very few people outside the Chicago hub, state supported/commuter service and the NEC would have operations....and the NEC is questionable since the states along the route would need to finance the route themselves...and with its 40+BILLION dollar backlog in repairs, it is the most expensive piece of territory.
> 
> Good luck finding the funding.
Click to expand...


----------



## Seaboard92

Oregon might have been a bad example because when I was meeting with my delegation about the PV issue. Most of them were non committal about preserving the state's 4449 charters, and charter operators. They didn't want to rock the boat. Personally I don't just want to rock the Anderson and Gardner boat. I want to capsize the boat.

There is no reason for a state like mine which has all but one republican representatives (after all I live in SC and OR depending on the month) to fund trains for the northeast without getting things for our state. They already reluctantly fund the trains we have. And if enough of the state's losing service by Anderson and Gardner's corridor plan get together. You'll find Gateway, and several other NEC projects not getting funding.

Then we have the long haul sleeper sale which tells me Amtrak wants the money from sleeper fares to help sustain the operation till the new fiscal. So that is also an interesting development.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Thirdrail7 said:


> Chey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I have no idea what Anderson's end game is here. The bustitutions don't make a whole lot of sense. But I don't think he's that dumb. He might be, I just don't think so.
> 
> The continuation of the route as it's been...I love Lamy, I love all the route between the Raton Pass and Albuquerque... very beautiful, and I absolutely love Lamy - but common sense has to be more important to business than sentimentality. BNSF understood that.
> 
> There are some who serve the agenda driven by people who stand to keep making money with the status quo. Others, myself included, would greatly benefit from changes to the route - if not cheaper then maybe closer - but we haven't seen the end game. Maybe Anderson's angling for more money, or maybe he's trying to make it more practical, or maybe he's trying to kill it. We don't know.
> 
> If someone here has a crystal ball, by all means tell us what it says. I don't think things are all that clear yet.
> 
> 
> 
> My crystal ball is still under repair but I think things are becoming quite clear. They weren't that foggy to begin with. I've mentioned what I think the end game will be if left to the current administration.
> 
> I would like everyone to look at page 14 of the presentation that was enclosed in the first page of this thread. It is the one that says Unresolved Infrastructure issues. Behold the very last line:
> 
> *The financial investment of the magnitude needed to retain this portion of the route is not prudent given the broader needs across the network*
> 
> In other words, it isn't worth it for one train. Even if the states paid for everything else and PTC was operational, does Amrak really want to invest in 219 miles of railroad for one train when other routes could use that 3 million?
> 
> The danger here is this can be repeated along many routes across the system. Is it worth it? The presentation even includes a little bribe for future service. We're on your side and we want to run corridor trains in your state. This is consistent with a few things I've stated before:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what RailPAC has to say based on a meeting at which Anderson spoke in California:
> 
> http://railpac.org/2018/04/21/amtrak-ceo-phasing-out-long-distance-trains-in-favor-of-corridors/
> 
> Note that these are notes of an observer in a meeting in California where Anderson spoke.... He did not explicitly say what the title claims, but one could reach such a conclusion from the reported notes if the observer's notes are unbiased.
> 
> Thirdrail, maybe we have a strong hint of an answer to your question. What have you been hearing internally that you can share?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've heard worse in greater detail. However, I've noticed that how he articulates something doesn't necessarily mean it how it will turn out. A perfect example is the brouhaha that ensued with the private car message. What he said and how it came out is not how it was explained. *That is why I'm anxiously awaiting some sort of vision on the LD. front. He believes corridors are the future and he believes that operations should concentrate on the heavily used stations. Does that mean the death of the LD trains or does that mean the elimination of many, low usage stations in an effort to reduce the running times along the route?*
> 
> 
> 
> *If Congress steps in, does it mean a puny, perfunctory train with minimum services along the route or a showdown, with him waving PRIIA? The fact they gave additional money to the operation of the LD network probably doesn't make things cut and dry.*
> 
> 
> 
> *We'll see.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The capital needs are not going away. As more hosts step up and demand Amtrak assume the costs of PTC, this battle will only increase. As such I'd like to quote part of this entry from the Richard Anderson replacing Wick Moorman as Amtrak CEO thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> *The large elephant in the room is PTC and who will assume the costs. This is where you might have hit the nail on the head Tibike. There are hosts that have basically said, if you want to use this route, you'll have to foot the costs of PTC. If in fact Amtrak did foot those costs, then they need bang for their buck. Running as many trains over their territory is a wise investment. However, what if the costs of the investment doesn't translate into ridership and/or revenue? Should you make the investment merely to keep "the system" together?*
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, that is the ultimate question and that once again boils down to, finances, revenue, ridership and politics. What is more important...revenue or ridership?* I'm not from the west cost Tibike, so I'm going to need your help. Using the Coast Starlight as an example, you have stated that running it as separate corridor trains may stimulate ridership since the train is not helpful to people in CA. Am I understanding you correctly? If that is the case, it would make sense that the top city pairs for this train would be long distance passengers since this train isn't reliable for corridor service. Again, this makes sense. Now, the REVENUE from the LD pairs is going to be quite higher since typically, the greater the distance, the higher the fare. So, taking a train like the CS and breaking it into various trains may increase ridership but you'd have to hope the volume makes up for the potential loss in revenue from the long distance trip and the potential increase in fees. What if it doesn't?
> 
> A classic example is the Capitol Punishment....I mean errr Limited. On its own, this is dopey train. It has poor arrival times at the main city along the route (PGH) and poor connections (relatively short in one direction and too long in the other direction.) The intermediate markets are small and poorly served. However, if you attempt to change their schedules, NS has basically promised to paralyze the train....not that it should matter since they kind of do that anyway, so what harm is there in changing the times?
> 
> 
> 
> However, from a system perspective, this train is a major west-south conduit. It funnels a great deal of through traffic between the east coast and the mid west. Altering the train would impact the entire system. So, if a host wants to pass the PTC costs along, a cursory look would suggest you kill this train because as a stand alone route, the finances of the city pair wouldn't justify the investment . However, an in depth look would make you have the opposite point of view. That is because the through ridership is there and with that comes revenue not only for the route, but for the system.
> 
> *Speaking of the system, that is where politics comes into play. I know things are different now, but there are plenty of people that don't believe in trains. Period. If you want them, pay for them! That sounds logical but there are plenty of people that will not vote for funding a scattered system. In other words, it sounds good to say you're going to invest BILLIONS in the NEC....until someone in Kentucky says "Sure, as long as you continue to stop in Mayville!' and someone in Montana says "I'll allocate for a national system, which means Malta. So if you think you're turning the Empire Builder into two trains between CHI-MSP along with one SEA-SPK train, you've have another thing coming!"*[/b]
> 
> 
> 
> *The trains are shorter now then they have ever been. However, I think that is because of slightly better utilization and assignment. That may also be because revenue (higher fares) are trumping ridership numbers (lowering fares may drive up the numbers but may not translate into revenue.). Additionally, shorter trains traveling shorter distances doesn't necessarily mean less maintenance or less head count. Quite often, it means just the opposite. Short distance intercity trains must have a calendar day inspection lust like a Long Distance train ,except a long distance train can actually continue to its final repair point if a non-running gear defect is found en route. That is not the case for commuter or short distance intercity trains. Additionally, a delayed en route LD train can continue in service to its next calendar day inspection point. That is not the case with SD/COM trains. They can continue to the next inspection point, but not with the passengers. Multiple trains may need additional crews and crew bases. Again, this MAY not be an issue. It depends on the costs, the ridership and the revenue.*
> 
> 
> 
> *These are all major issues, Tibike. Where trains exist, I believe in multiple services. You already have the stations. You already have the mechanical forces available. You already have the crew base and commissary profile. If more trains can utilize them, that's better. So, I'm not saying your idea for breaking up the CS may not be a good idea. However, will the states fund it? If they kill the train, does that mean other states will fund what is left? Will Oregon willingly fork over money to invest in the NEC? Our new CEO may believe so but I really don't think that is the case. We could lose it all.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We may find out soon enough. My prediction is a push to corridor type trains, financed by the states. We may not have a choice. If that fails, you'll see a nod to sustaining the system by running a perfunctory train with minimal amenities and a puny consist. The rest of the equipment will be diverted to other places in the system to feed corridor type service.**Again, this may NOT be the end of the world, depending on how it is accomplished.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it is summer. Here comes Amtrak 2.0!
Click to expand...

Is this decision final or is it possible enough pressure could cause a reconsideration or reroute instead of a bus bridge? If the bus segment is implemented, but the states at some point in the future decide to pay for the infrastructure, could the train return? I don't know whether you have the answer to those questions, but this is the first decision that may actually impact me personally, although I did see some LD cuts happening. The SWC just seems like one of the least logical routes to discontinue, especially considering the problem segment has a better reroute potential than almost any other Amtrak route. A while back, I remember a thread about which trains were most likely to be cut. The only trains I foresaw outlasting the SWC were a Florida train, a NEC-Chicago train, the CS, and possibly the CZ. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but this seems like one of the least logical routes to turn into a corridor service as it has little population from Kansas City to California, so I doubt either corridor train would last. The route's strengths lie in it's endpoints and connections. I'm sure other members here know more than I do on this topic, but it seems to me that this is either a stupid decision or there is much more to it than simply implementing a bus bridge on the SWC.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Tibike,

You are entitled to your opinions (which I have a great deal of respect for), so if these are the reasons you think he is doing a good job,I accept that information and will offer no dispute. Some of the things you mentioned are some of the things I like about his tactics....and one more thing.

However, I DO want to address one of the things you mentioned and it cuts to the core of why people believe he is "weaponizing" PTC as a means to kill of trains he may not want to run. Allow me to add on to your post:



TiBike said:


> Then there's safety. If I'm counting correctly, Amtrak has had four employees KIA in 2018, and the year isn't even half over. Since 2015, there's been two major wrecks, involving passenger fatalities, due to the same cause: employees weren't paying attention to what they were doing. Obviously, I don't know what's going on inside of Amtrak, but Anderson is saying the right things about safety and I'm inferring that he's doing something about it from the recent snow cancellations. Forgive my literary liberties, but I'm imagining a conversation:
> 
> "is it safe to run trains in this weather?"
> 
> "Yes".
> 
> "Why?"
> 
> "Because we're railroaders and that's what we do".
> 
> "I'll take that as a no. Get back to me when you understand the question".


I think I understand your question, boss. I'm just curious: What makes a train more dangerous in the snow than in the sun? The incidents like 501 and the train (514?) that launched itself through the split derail and almost launched itself into the drink occurred in broad daylight.

What makes the snow more dangerous than darkness? 188 derailed in the dark, in clear conditions. As a matter of fact, snow may be a little safer. There are less people driving on the roads. That means there is less chance of one of our biggest equipment issues....grade crossing incidents....like the Congressional Special to White Sulphur Springs. We may not get the equipment back for years to come. There are also less people walking along the tracks in a blizzard, so we won't have as many trespasser incidents, which causes delays and expenses to rise on almost a daily basis. These are incidents that PTC is extremely unlikely to help. After all, a train operating at 125 mph struck a car on a sealed corridor and did extensive damage...and that was just a normal night.

I'm pretty sure you don't want to talk about trees and our equipment, boss, so I guess the confusion lies in trains operate on the ground, where the incidents are likely to occur. If your concern is safety, the safest thing to is to not operate....anywhere. It's cheap too! There will always be risk and I'm curious as to why you are singling out one weather event over another. We operate during heat restrictions even though heat kinks have derailed trains and cause massive delays.

This is what I'm getting at Tibike. If you're looking for an excuse to do something or not do something, it is easy to find. Sometimes, all you need is a title to fit your agenda. If you're not interested in running the service, you can blame PTC. If they fund PTC, you can blame the expense of maintaining the track for one train (heaven forbid you attempt to add another train somehow.) If funding becomes available for that, well we really think that money should go somewhere else.

It goes on and on. State you proposal and your agenda. However, people are watching and it is getting difficult.


----------



## Thirdrail7

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Is this decision final or is it possible enough pressure could cause a reconsideration or reroute instead of a bus bridge? If the bus segment is implemented, but the states at some point in the future decide to pay for the infrastructure, could the train return? I


These are just proposals. Nothing is firm yet. There is plenty of time for negotiation, politics, ploys and other shenanigans. That being said, I still have high hopes we are dealing with an evil genius. I've mentioned it before. Sometimes, you have to give people what they want and let them see how it plays out. In this case, the 'people" are "Congress,' and instead of sidestepping the issues, he's diving right into it...and people are taking notice:



Thirdrail7 said:


> Maybe we're underestimating Mr. Anderson. Consider:
> 
> 
> 
> Mystic River Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Anderson's overall vision is to save as much money as possible by removing anything left that is not a basic train necessity and making Amtrak into essentially the equivalent of an NJ Transit bus, but on the rails. No frills, no courtesy, no service. Just pay us a lot of money, then sit down and don't bother us til we throw you off at your stop. Exactly why I don't fly, and will probably not do much train travel this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see. He's overseeing the cuts in amenities, services and sooner or later, probably routes or stops. However, it is also going after things like specials, charters and pet projects of supporters. He wants to get back to the "core" business, but wants to make a profit.
> 
> *As such, people are writing their representatives, high profile groups are starting to complain and that leads to lobbying.*
> 
> * *
> 
> *All the while, he's clutching PRIIA and saying this is what you want!*
> 
> * *
> 
> *At that point, they'll either say continue on and he'll be justified or they'll either have to fund what he cuts or write it into some kind of law, at which point he'll say "stop complaining."*
> 
> * *
> 
> *This was similar to Gunn's way of doing things. Perhaps he is starting to push the right buttons.*
> 
> Continue to write....and soon!
Click to expand...

People are writing ( I hope) which means Congress will start paying attention. They already are. A senator already proposed adding staffing requirements to the funding. Who knows what the next person will add/ It may say you WILL operate the SW Chief.....

There may never be a better time to take action.


----------



## bretton88

We've seen the PTC scenario play out in smaller situations. For example in Utah, The UP told The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) that the UTA was going to have to pay to install PTC on a stretch of line they used North of Ogden. UTA decided that it wasn't worth paying the cost for 35 passengers a day and is discontinuing train service North of ogden, replacing it with buses. There's finite money and not easy decisions for what to do with that money.


----------



## frequentflyer

bretton88 said:


> We've seen the PTC scenario play out in smaller situations. For example in Utah, The UP told The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) that the UTA was going to have to pay to install PTC on a stretch of line they used North of Ogden. UTA decided that it wasn't worth paying the cost for 35 passengers a day and is discontinuing train service North of ogden, replacing it with buses. There's finite money and not easy decisions for what to do with that money.


I like your quote from Railroad.net that sums up the situation simply.

"The state is unwilling to cough up more money for Railrunner, so the current plan coming from NMRX is to cut down to the maximum allowable trains (6 RTs) for an exemption and gain more time to install PTC. NMRX is not including Amtrak or freight in those 6 slots, all 6 trips will be Railrunners. Rio Metro is already warning about service cuts for the forseeable future because of this, they aren't going to accommodate Amtrak at the expense of their tax paying citizens. Therefore Amtrak will not be allowed to run in NMRX territory until PTC is installed or another way is approved by the FRA."

BNSF doesn't want Amtrak on the Transcon, so what is Amtrak to do?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

frequentflyer said:


> BNSF doesn't want Amtrak on the Transcon, so what is Amtrak to do?


Source?


----------



## frequentflyer

Devil's Advocate said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> BNSF doesn't want Amtrak on the Transcon, so what is Amtrak to do?
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...

Years of reading Trains mag and during the internet era different forums with posts from actual BNSF employees.

Just one example. Read RRspatch replies to this subject

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=93631&start=660

I sometimes forget this is not a rail fan site, there are posters here new to the situation. This idea of moving the SWC to the transcon is nothing new. For the longest Sante Fe then BNSF wanted to move the SWC off the little used line through Raton. And this is not the first time the SWC has been threatened with extinction because of the route it takes. Amtrak balked for years because the transcon route would bypass ABQ, even though the SWC would gain Amarillo. Now there is RailRunner to make the connection at Belen to ABQ and directly into Santa Fe.

From five years ago, about rerouting the SWC

http://www.amarillo.com/news/local-news/2013-05-25/amtrak-mulls-amarillo-route

I hope the reroute happens, should happened back in the 90s. Gaining a major population like Amarillo (some extent Lubbock) and still servicing ABQ and Santa Fe is a winner for this financially low performing train.


----------



## jis

I guess few remember when a choice was made way back when the Desert Wind was axed instead of the SWC. I remember it was a very close call.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> I guess few remember when a choice was made way back when the Desert Wind was axed instead of the SWC. I remember it was a very close call.


I'm far to young to remember that, but I can easily think of a few good reasons that the Desert Wind could be preferred over the Southwest Chief. Las Vegas was a much bigger loss than Albuquerque. Denver and Salt Lake City would also provide more traffic than Kansas City to/from the west, while if I remember correctly Kansas City had direct corridor service to Chicago via St. Louis at the time. Because the route ran fewer miles as a stand-alone train, it would likely also be cheaper to operate. However, it took about 8 hours longer than the Southwest Chief. It is a similar situation to the Florida trains, with the SM being a popular express train serving no major cities between Washington and Jacksonville, while bypassing Florida's second largest metro area. The SS is more lightly used and takes longer, but it serves Raleigh and Tampa. I would support preserving it over the SM, as many SM passengers would switch to the SS if it were the only option, as most popular city pairs are still served, even if it is a little slower. Meanwhile, many of the popular city pairs on the SS are not served by the SM, so those passengers would be lost if the SS was lost. 
While I would be disappointed by the loss of the SWC, if it resulted in the gain of the Desert Wind that would be essentially net neutral in my opinion. However, having no direct route between the second and third (and indirectly the first) largest cities as well as the largest Amtrak corridor hubs would be terrible. The TE would still exist, but that is only tri-weekly and takes almost a full day longer. There are so many complaints about losing the LSL NYP branch, which is just a cross-platform transfer and takes slightly longer. I can't imagine what it would be like on this forum if the LSL and CL were to disappear so the only CHI-NYP option was the Cardinal, which would essentially be what is happening to the Southwest-Midwest/Northeast market if the SWC was cut up.


----------



## Chey

Devil's Advocate said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> BNSF doesn't want Amtrak on the Transcon, so what is Amtrak to do?
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...

I clicked over to that board but had to scroll a lot farther down to see the answer to this. The quotes provided here favor the reroute but further down the page it discusses BNSF's reasons for its opposition. Still coming from rank-and-file, but they sound like valid considerations.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

frequentflyer said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> BNSF doesn't want Amtrak on the Transcon, so what is Amtrak to do?
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Years of reading Trains mag and during the internet era different forums with posts from actual BNSF employees.
> 
> Just one example. Read RRspatch replies to this subject
Click to expand...

RRspatch can make a great case for why his former coworkers don't want Amtrak on this or that segment of the transcontinental line, but dispatchers don't write access contracts or dictate corporate obligations and legal remedies. Right now Amtrak is on BNSF track and if BNSF refuses to maintain that track they'll have to provide some other reasonable accommodation prior to the current line becoming impassible. That could be today or next week or several years from now, but the obligation does not cease to exist unless BNSF takes Amtrak to court to force the issue or Anderson sabotages Amtrak's side of the contract.


----------



## Seaboard92

Well don't forget the Southwest Chief serves more unique markets than a City of Los Angeles (I don't use crappy Amtrak made names where it's possible) because amtraks version was combined with the California Zephyr for the tenure. So serving the ex ATSF gave more service to more areas.

I bet Philly would be majorly peeved if the only Chicago train was the Cardinal. It should be noted Byrd had it out in legislation that protects that route.


----------



## bretton88

Devil's Advocate said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> BNSF doesn't want Amtrak on the Transcon, so what is Amtrak to do?
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Years of reading Trains mag and during the internet era different forums with posts from actual BNSF employees.Just one example. Read RRspatch replies to this subject
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RRspatch can make a great case for why his former coworkers don't want Amtrak on this or that segment of the transcontinental line, but dispatchers don't write access contracts or dictate corporate obligations and legal remedies. Right now Amtrak is on BNSF track and if BNSF refuses to maintain that track they'll have to provide some other reasonable accommodation prior to the current line becoming impassible. That could be today or next week or several years from now, but the obligation does not cease to exist unless BNSF takes Amtrak to court to force the issue or Anderson sabotages Amtrak's side of the contract.
Click to expand...

Not true, actually. The problem stretch is on NMRX territory, not BNSF. So BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative in this case. This is different than when BNSF proposed to downgrade the raton route.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

bretton88 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> BNSF doesn't want Amtrak on the Transcon, so what is Amtrak to do?
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Years of reading Trains mag and during the internet era different forums with posts from actual BNSF employees.Just one example. Read RRspatch replies to this subject
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RRspatch can make a great case for why his former coworkers don't want Amtrak on this or that segment of the transcontinental line, but dispatchers don't write access contracts or dictate corporate obligations and legal remedies. Right now Amtrak is on BNSF track and if BNSF refuses to maintain that track they'll have to provide some other reasonable accommodation prior to the current line becoming impassible. That could be today or next week or several years from now, but the obligation does not cease to exist unless BNSF takes Amtrak to court to force the issue or Anderson sabotages Amtrak's side of the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true, actually. The problem stretch is on NMRX territory, not BNSF. So BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative in this case. This is different than when BNSF proposed to downgrade the raton route.
Click to expand...

I think I see what you're getting at. So for now the BNSF portion remains intact (at reduced speed), and the PTC can be waived due to limited PAX traffic and lack of HZMT, but on the NMRX portion all of the available waivers will be used up on local traffic leaving nothing for Amtrak. Even if Amtrak lobbied for moving to the transcontinental route they would still be forced to give up ABQ without NMRX. Do I have this right?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Seaboard92 said:


> Well don't forget the Southwest Chief serves more unique markets than a City of Los Angeles (I don't use crappy Amtrak made names where it's possible) because amtraks version was combined with the California Zephyr for the tenure. So serving the ex ATSF gave more service to more areas.


That's true, but the SWC is more dominated by Long-Distance passengers than most other trains. The only major corridor served during the day is Chicago-Kansas City, with Albuquerque being overnight to Los Angeles, Riverside/San Bernardino, Kansas City, and Chicago. This can be seen in the ridership statistics, which show that the primary destinations for Albuquerque passengers are Los Angeles and Chicago, with only 2 of the top 8 destinations being under 800 miles. On comparable routes such as the CZ, shorter distance travel is more popular. For example, some of the most popular destinations from Denver include Grand Junction, Glenwood Springs, Lincoln, and Omaha. This is because the CZ has many cities that are destinations and not just towns that happen to be on the railroad route. Stations with at least 15,000 annual passengers exclusively served by the CZ include Osceola, Omaha, Lincoln, Denver, Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, Salt Lake City, and Reno, for a total of eight . On the SWC, there is only Newton, Raton, Albuquerque, Gallup, and Flagstaff that generate 15,000+ passengers and that are on this route alone. If the criteria becomes 40,000+, 4 CZ stations and 2 SWC make the list. The busiest of these stops on the SWC is Albuquerque, which has barely over half of Denver's passengers and is comparable to Reno. Meanwhile, the EB travels through even more rural territory than the SWC, but in that case the lack of highway access drastically increases train ridership. Of course the smaller markets can add up, but that is true of any route. When considering the distance it travels and the relatively lightly populated areas it travels though, it easy to see how the route is undervalued until the endpoints are considered as well as the connection possibilities. I would be happy to see evidence otherwise, but it seems to me that if this plan is implemented both trains will fail to last more than a couple of years.


----------



## frequentflyer

If the rumored split does happen, ABQ-LAX could stay an overnite train or a day train. The CHI to somewhere in KS train could swing south and re instate the Texas Chief to FTW absorbing the Heartland Flyer. Just an idea.


----------



## Seaboard92

The better plan is to keep the Chief whole and force both Gardner and Anderson out. And get someone who appreciates the National Network for what it is.


----------



## jebr

Seaboard92 said:


> The better plan is to keep the Chief whole and force both Gardner and Anderson out. And get someone who appreciates the National Network for what it is.


And what does that do for Amtrak's future? I doubt there's anyone internally that will want to rock the boat or drastically change things, even if it seems to be for the better. Any external candidates would likely be spooked away if they see someone was forced out, especially if they were following the direction of the board and what the law requires.

I don't agree with this idea to make the middle part of the SWC a bus bridge. It'll kill through ridership, probably won't really save much money after accounting for lost income, and it adds to the complexity of the trip. However, I'm not sure if there's something behind the scenes that makes the Transcon impossible or impractical (I'd _hope _Anderson reached out to BNSF to discuss a move to the transcon) or if he truly thinks that this is the best move considering the factors involved. I also think that Amtrak needs someone to rock the boat, question old habits, and try some truly new ideas, even if it'll anger some people. Anderson is doing that, and that really needs to happen to Amtrak if it wants to be relevant for the general public, at least outside of a few corridors. Whether Anderson will be a net positive for Amtrak and intercity public transportation relevancy remains to be seen. However, other than this particular proposal I haven't seen any actions that make me think he's trying to make rail travel irrelevant; rather, he's trying to find ways to make and keep Amtrak relevant to a broader section of the population. Private cars and sit-down diner service don't matter to most of the traveling public; on-time performance, convenient schedules, and safe and reliable travel are much larger factors, and so far he seems to be focusing on at least some of those aspects to improve them.


----------



## Seaboard92

Remember a key thing first they came for the southwest chief and people stood silently except those directly effected. Next they came for the Builder and people stayed quiet except for those directly effected. Then they come for your home train and no one comes. That's why it's important that we fight tooth and nail for the southwest chief, and other trains. You may never ride them but they are all equally important.

Gateway with the national network or no Gateway.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Next up on the chopping block, the Sunset Ltd.


----------



## bretton88

Devil's Advocate said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> BNSF doesn't want Amtrak on the Transcon, so what is Amtrak to do?
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Years of reading Trains mag and during the internet era different forums with posts from actual BNSF employees.Just one example. Read RRspatch replies to this subject
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RRspatch can make a great case for why his former coworkers don't want Amtrak on this or that segment of the transcontinental line, but dispatchers don't write access contracts or dictate corporate obligations and legal remedies. Right now Amtrak is on BNSF track and if BNSF refuses to maintain that track they'll have to provide some other reasonable accommodation prior to the current line becoming impassible. That could be today or next week or several years from now, but the obligation does not cease to exist unless BNSF takes Amtrak to court to force the issue or Anderson sabotages Amtrak's side of the contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true, actually. The problem stretch is on NMRX territory, not BNSF. So BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative in this case. This is different than when BNSF proposed to downgrade the raton route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I see what you're getting at. So for now the BNSF portion remains intact (at reduced speed), and the PTC can be waived due to limited PAX traffic and lack of HZMT, but on the NMRX portion all of the available waivers will be used up on local traffic leaving nothing for Amtrak. Even if Amtrak lobbied for moving to the transcontinental route they would still be forced to give up ABQ without NMRX. Do I have this right?
Click to expand...

At least there would still be a train connection at Belen to get to ABQ. So not a complete give up of ABQ, just less convenient. I would think Amtrak has asked about the Transcon but probably didn't mention it in the presentation to the states for 2 reasons:

1. It significantly decreases any motivation for KS to extend the Heartland Flyer north to Newton.

2. Colorado has been the one cooperative partner in this situation, a move to the transcon burns that bridge and the possible corridor build out that Colorado (and Amtrak) have been looking at. So Amtrak probably doesn't prefer the transcon option.


----------



## frequentflyer

Bob Dylan said:


> Next up on the chopping block, the Sunset Ltd.


When has it _*not*_ been on the chopping block?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jebr said:


> I don't agree with this idea to make the middle part of the SWC a bus bridge. It'll kill through ridership, probably won't really save much money after accounting for lost income, and it adds to the complexity of the trip. However, I'm not sure if there's something behind the scenes that makes the Transcon impossible or impractical (I'd _hope _Anderson reached out to BNSF to discuss a move to the transcon) or if he truly thinks that this is the best move considering the factors involved.


If there is a major problem with moving to the transcon then why would Anderson choose to keep that information to himself? It helps Amtrak to mention this so that politicians and supporters alike can see that he's already exhausted every option in good faith before slicing and dicing a major route on the national network.



jebr said:


> I also think that Amtrak needs someone to rock the boat, question old habits, and try some truly new ideas, even if it'll anger some people. Anderson is doing that, and that really needs to happen to Amtrak if it wants to be relevant for the general public, at least outside of a few corridors. Whether Anderson will be a net positive for Amtrak and intercity public transportation relevancy remains to be seen.


Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead? Prior to Anderson Amtrak passenger numbers just kept going up and up. It was already as relevant as it had ever been with a network of this size. I wasn't a fan of the things they cut but I couldn't really argue with the results. How much you want to bet that Amtrak's first system wide sleeper sale is a sign of lower numbers ahead?



jebr said:


> I haven't seen any actions that make me think he's trying to make rail travel irrelevant; rather, he's trying to find ways to make and keep Amtrak relevant to a broader section of the population. Private cars and sit-down diner service don't matter to most of the traveling public; on-time performance, convenient schedules, and safe and reliable travel are much larger factors, and so far he seems to be focusing on at least some of those aspects to improve them.


So by removing hot meals, checked luggage, and staffed stations Anderson is making Amtrak more appealing to people who were previously turned off by these features? How many additional long distance sleeper trips do you plan on booking now that Amtrak is becoming so much more modern and relevant to your section of the population? I don't have a problem with everything Anderson is doing, and some of it I'm willing to let ride while we wait and see, but this mid-route bus nonsense with the Southwest Chief is a major support killing turnoff. The fact that it's one of his first major projects does not bode well for the future.


----------



## RPC

Bob Dylan said:


> Next up on the chopping block, the Sunset Ltd.


Well, if PTC is the issue, next up is the Cardinal (Buckingham Branch).


----------



## Ryan

bretton88 said:


> I would think Amtrak has asked about the Transcon but probably didn't mention it in the presentation to the states for 2 reasons:


You are assuming what we’ve seen *was* the entire presentation. I’m not sure that it was. What if only the portion of the presentation containing the “nuclear” option was posted, leaving out all of the other courses of action that are on the table? Someone on the inside that wants to make his/her boss look bad might do such a thing to generate the exact reaction we’re seeing.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

I think the Senator summed up it by his quote:

I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that Ive ever experienced, Senator Heinrich after meeting with Anderson.


----------



## Thirdrail7

AmtrakFlyer said:


> I think the Senator summed up it by his quote:
> 
> I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that Ive ever experienced, Senator Heinrich after meeting with Anderson.


And that was from a Congressperson. If he is calling the meeting unproductive, then it must have REALLY been a mess!


----------



## jis

Basically all that it means is he did not get what he wanted. Not even enough to be able to obfuscate about it. [emoji57]


----------



## bretton88

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/6/study-amtrak-shift-would-cause-new-mexico-losses/

Here's a fun article. This was the financial analysis NM did on the line. 9 million a year in maintenance, only 3 million a year in benefits, not very good. The capital costs have only gone up since too.

Edit: Here's the other news article I was looking for, on why NM pulled the plug on the Raton purchase: https://www.abqjournal.com/179214/governor-nm-scrapping-deal-to-buy-bnsf-track.html


----------



## keelhauled

Thirdrail7 said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were they the ones who botched the negotiations for a daily Sunset Limited?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure of that story but I would ask was it a railroader or someone who worked for the railroad? There is a difference.
Click to expand...

The way I had heard it was that a deal was within reach, but Amtrak overreached or somesuch and it fell apart thereafter with little love left between the two sides.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

bretton88 said:


> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/6/study-amtrak-shift-would-cause-new-mexico-losses/ Here's a fun article. This was the financial analysis NM did on the line. 9 million a year in maintenance, only 3 million a year in benefits, not very good. The capital costs have only gone up since too. Edit: Here's the other news article I was looking for, on why NM pulled the plug on the Raton purchase: https://www.abqjournal.com/179214/governor-nm-scrapping-deal-to-buy-bnsf-track.html


Just as an FYI the "Washington Times" is about as neutral toward public transportation as Fox News or AM talk radio.


----------



## bretton88

Devil's Advocate said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/6/study-amtrak-shift-would-cause-new-mexico-losses/ Here's a fun article. This was the financial analysis NM did on the line. 9 million a year in maintenance, only 3 million a year in benefits, not very good. The capital costs have only gone up since too. Edit: Here's the other news article I was looking for, on why NM pulled the plug on the Raton purchase: https://www.abqjournal.com/179214/governor-nm-scrapping-deal-to-buy-bnsf-track.html
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an FYI the "Washington Times" is about as neutral toward public transportation as Fox News or AM talk radio.
Click to expand...

I do acknowledge the bias that can be present in the Times, which is why I provided the second source. Those numbers are accurate and from the state commissioned study. I found the direct link:https://www.codot.gov/about/southwest-chief-commission/swchief-interim-leg-sub-comm-110614-v8-final


----------



## CHvision

https://www.scivision.co/amtrak-southwest-chief-drastic-service-cuts/

With the Lake Shore Limited and Capitol Limited, the Southwest Chief is next for the virus


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Seaboard92 said:


> Remember a key thing first they came for the southwest chief and people stood silently except those directly effected. Next they came for the Builder and people stayed quiet except for those directly effected. Then they come for your home train and no one comes. That's why it's important that we fight tooth and nail for the southwest chief, and other trains. You may never ride them but they are all equally important.
> 
> Gateway with the national network or no Gateway.


They already came for and stole my train so your plea for me that all trains are important is falling on deaf ears. Now I have no problems fighting for the SWC but you know I'm not fighting for some of the more worthless LD trains. And if there's no Gateway, there not only won't be any NEC trains there won't be any LD trains getting into NYP (or they'd have to stop in Newark or even WAS). Like it or not, this country can't survive without trains getting into New York. They can survive without trains getting into Thurmond, West Virginia.

And what exactly is this "national network"? Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus aren't part of it at all. The only practical way to go from East of the Mississippi to West of the Mississippi is via Chicago. If there was a transcontinental train from the east coast to California or you can connect somewhere down south, then Philadelphia-Chicago or Los Angeles-Chicago trains wouldn't be as important as they are now. But the problem is if the entire Amtrak network is based in Chicago if you cut a major city like Philly or Los Angeles from Chicago you are separating them from the network. I know most of you tell me Philadelphia isn't that bad but imagine how bad CHI-LAX travel will be if the SWC is gone or replaced with the bus bridge. If you don't have daily service from Philly and Los Angeles (two of the busiest Amtrak stations in the country) to Chicago, you don't have much of a national network anyway. The most popular western destination from Chicago would then be Sacramento.

Now if you want to expand and have a national network that actually is a national network I'm all ears. But save trains that aren't national at all, count me out.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess few remember when a choice was made way back when the Desert Wind was axed instead of the SWC. I remember it was a very close call.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm far to young to remember that, but I can easily think of a few good reasons that the Desert Wind could be preferred over the Southwest Chief. Las Vegas was a much bigger loss than Albuquerque. Denver and Salt Lake City would also provide more traffic than Kansas City to/from the west, while if I remember correctly Kansas City had direct corridor service to Chicago via St. Louis at the time. Because the route ran fewer miles as a stand-alone train, it would likely also be cheaper to operate. However, it took about 8 hours longer than the Southwest Chief. It is a similar situation to the Florida trains, with the SM being a popular express train serving no major cities between Washington and Jacksonville, while bypassing Florida's second largest metro area. The SS is more lightly used and takes longer, but it serves Raleigh and Tampa. I would support preserving it over the SM, as many SM passengers would switch to the SS if it were the only option, as most popular city pairs are still served, even if it is a little slower. Meanwhile, many of the popular city pairs on the SS are not served by the SM, so those passengers would be lost if the SS was lost.
> While I would be disappointed by the loss of the SWC, if it resulted in the gain of the Desert Wind that would be essentially net neutral in my opinion. However, having no direct route between the second and third (and indirectly the first) largest cities as well as the largest Amtrak corridor hubs would be terrible. The TE would still exist, but that is only tri-weekly and takes almost a full day longer. There are so many complaints about losing the LSL NYP branch, which is just a cross-platform transfer and takes slightly longer. I can't imagine what it would be like on this forum if the LSL and CL were to disappear so the only CHI-NYP option was the Cardinal, which would essentially be what is happening to the Southwest-Midwest/Northeast market if the SWC was cut up.
Click to expand...

Totally agree on the SWC vs. DW (more cities vs. faster).

In the last timetable at timetables.org before the DW and Pioneer were canceled (November 1996), it is worth noting that the SWC was daily, CZ and EB (west of MSP) was 4x/week, and DW and Pioneer were 3x/week. That was probably a good sign that was going to be the one kept.

SWC:

http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0040

CZ and DW:

http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0038

EB (and TE, was on same page):

http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0037

Pioneer:

http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0039

When I first went to LAX (summer 1997), the DW was already gone.

If Amtrak would reinstate the DW (or through cars off the CZ) that would be a reasonable substitution for losing the SWC/rerouting it on the Transcon.

Another possibility (although much longer) would be extending the CS to LAX).


----------



## Palmetto

AmtrakFlyer said:


> I think the Senator summed up it by his quote:
> 
> I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that Ive ever experienced, Senator Heinrich after meeting with Anderson.


I don't know how long he's been in office. If it's a year, it bears little significance; if it's twenty years, well, then..........

Just checked. SInce 2013


----------



## tricia

bretton88 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/6/study-amtrak-shift-would-cause-new-mexico-losses/ Here's a fun article. This was the financial analysis NM did on the line. 9 million a year in maintenance, only 3 million a year in benefits, not very good. The capital costs have only gone up since too. Edit: Here's the other news article I was looking for, on why NM pulled the plug on the Raton purchase: https://www.abqjournal.com/179214/governor-nm-scrapping-deal-to-buy-bnsf-track.html
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an FYI the "Washington Times" is about as neutral toward public transportation as Fox News or AM talk radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do acknowledge the bias that can be present in the Times, which is why I provided the second source. Those numbers are accurate and from the state commissioned study. I found the direct link:https://www.codot.gov/about/southwest-chief-commission/swchief-interim-leg-sub-comm-110614-v8-final
Click to expand...

"Those numbers" are specifically about economic loss in New Mexico and do not account for the cost that losing or truncating the SW Chief would have for the US as a whole. I surely would have a significant effect on national transportation network connectivity.


----------



## railiner

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If Amtrak would reinstate the DW (or through cars off the CZ) that would be a reasonable substitution for losing the SWC/rerouting it on the Transcon.
> 
> Another possibility (although much longer) would be extending the CS to LAX).


I suppose that was a 'typo'...you meant extending the CZ, not the CS to LAX?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

tricia said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/6/study-amtrak-shift-would-cause-new-mexico-losses/ Here's a fun article. This was the financial analysis NM did on the line. 9 million a year in maintenance, only 3 million a year in benefits, not very good. The capital costs have only gone up since too. Edit: Here's the other news article I was looking for, on why NM pulled the plug on the Raton purchase: https://www.abqjournal.com/179214/governor-nm-scrapping-deal-to-buy-bnsf-track.html
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an FYI the "Washington Times" is about as neutral toward public transportation as Fox News or AM talk radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do acknowledge the bias that can be present in the Times, which is why I provided the second source. Those numbers are accurate and from the state commissioned study. I found the direct link:https://www.codot.gov/about/southwest-chief-commission/swchief-interim-leg-sub-comm-110614-v8-final
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Those numbers" are specifically about economic loss in New Mexico and do not account for the cost that losing or truncating the SW Chief would have for the US as a whole. I surely would have a significant effect on national transportation network connectivity.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it shouldn't be New Mexico's job to fund benefits for the rest of the US. If the project does have benefits anywhere near the costs, most of the benefits are out of state. In that case, the federal government should either pay for it or New Mexico should make more efficient use of the corridor by adding more service on it.


----------



## railiner

If the worst happens, and they do kill the SWC from Kansas to Albuquerque, another alternative would be to extend a St. Louis-Kansas City train to Omaha or Lincoln to connect with the CZ.

I like the idea of running the remnant of the SWC down to connect with (and replace) the Heartland Flyer. In addition, they could save more if instead of running that train via Ft. Madison, they instead just extended one of the Quincy trains on to Kansas City.

At the other end, it is always possible to connect from the CZ to a San Joaquin to reach LAX, on a daily basis, rather than rely only on the TE-SL, as an alternative...


----------



## ciship

So, are prices going to go way down since all this mess is happening? No hot meals anymore in the dining car?


----------



## jis

I am sure prices will get adjusted to a point where there is sufficient willingness to pay to get maximum yield under the circumstances. As for whther that will mean prices going up or down or staying the same, I have no clue. I have learned a long time back that I have no idea what people are willing to pay for an how much.


----------



## frequentflyer

railiner said:


> If the worst happens, and they do kill the SWC from Kansas to Albuquerque, another alternative would be to extend a St. Louis-Kansas City train to Omaha or Lincoln to connect with the CZ.
> 
> I like the idea of running the remnant of the SWC down to connect with (and replace) the Heartland Flyer. In addition, they could save more if instead of running that train via Ft. Madison, they instead just extended one of the Quincy trains on to Kansas City.
> 
> At the other end, it is always possible to connect from the CZ to a San Joaquin to reach LAX, on a daily basis, rather than rely only on the TE-SL, as an alternative...


1. How do you figure Amtrak will save money extending the Quincy train to KC? It would not be competitive time wise than the direct route taken now for KC.

2. Agree with reinstating the DW, but that means dealing with UP, an almost non starter but it would bring an important city back to the Amtrak route map, Las Vegas. And what CHI-LAX traffic there was on the SWC would bolster the CZ ridershp.

3. The only negative of sending the remnants of SWC south to DFW is the temptation to have it replace the Texas Eagle which would leave Arkansas and east Texas without service.


----------



## railiner

frequentflyer said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the worst happens, and they do kill the SWC from Kansas to Albuquerque, another alternative would be to extend a St. Louis-Kansas City train to Omaha or Lincoln to connect with the CZ.
> 
> I like the idea of running the remnant of the SWC down to connect with (and replace) the Heartland Flyer. In addition, they could save more if instead of running that train via Ft. Madison, they instead just extended one of the Quincy trains on to Kansas City.
> 
> At the other end, it is always possible to connect from the CZ to a San Joaquin to reach LAX, on a daily basis, rather than rely only on the TE-SL, as an alternative...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How do you figure Amtrak will save money extending the Quincy train to KC? It would not be competitive time wise than the direct route taken now for KC.
Click to expand...

They could eliminate the SWC, and instead extend a Quincy train...one less train, and most of the current route would still be served. Agreed, it would add some time, but not that much. And they could move the staff over to Quincy, and have a larger city, and with more trains, have a staffed station.


----------



## jis

I guess the State of Illinois will have to agree to that scheme of extending the Quincy train to KC now, wouldn't they?

Redirecting the rump of the SWC to Fort Worth would essentially b reestablishing the Lone Star or pre-Amtrak Texas Chief.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

Speculation is great and provides us a interesting (frustrating with the current situation) debate here. As far as a new route taking the SWC place I just dont see it. Id be excited with a new DW as a consolation prize I just dont see it happening.

Unless Congress gets involved now Amtrak as a cohesive transportation system is toast. How many times has Anderson said or insinuated he doesnt see LDT as viable. He talked about a experimental train ala the Canadian but then again thats what the Coast Starlight was with the PPC, wine tastings, all refreshed superliners. He killed that as one of his first acts.

Andersons reassurance on the national network is no perminate changes until 2020? Thats only 18 months away! And doesnt mention possible temporary reductions such as the SWC senerio. How long as the eastern Sunset been temporarily discontinued?

We need to get congress involved ASAP and hope some resemblance of the national system lives to fight another day in better times.


----------



## Seaboard92

I'm not willing to accept a compromise to saving the southwest chief. It's national or nothing. Now once we save the southwest chief I'm open to talking about new service. I have my pet train that was cancelled in the 1970s Carter Cuts. I'll see if you can figure out which trains are mine.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

railiner said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Amtrak would reinstate the DW (or through cars off the CZ) that would be a reasonable substitution for losing the SWC/rerouting it on the Transcon.
> 
> Another possibility (although much longer) would be extending the CS to LAX).
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that was a 'typo'...you meant extending the CZ, not the CS to LAX?
Click to expand...

Right.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> I'm not willing to accept a compromise to saving the southwest chief. It's national or nothing. Now once we save the southwest chief I'm open to talking about new service. I have my pet train that was cancelled in the 1970s Carter Cuts. I'll see if you can figure out which trains are mine.


Let me guess... it would have to serve either SC or OR, right?Since SC didnt lose any, and the Pioneer outlasted those cuts, it would have to be....the North Coast Hiawatha?


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> Now the pushback begins in right earnest. Should be interesting to see how all this plays out...
> 
> https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/heinrich-balks-at-amtraks-plan-to-abandon-nm-route/4961142/?cat=500


I think what we need to know is _EXACTLY_ what it would cost to make this route viable again. By "viable" I mean CTC, PTC and longer sidings. The grades on Raton and Glorieta passes would still remain unaddressed but I don't feel like they would be that much of an issue for lighter, faster intermodal trains. This could, in turn, get BNSF interested and they might just decide to keep the route after all. Such an outcome is not unprecedented.

I hate to say it, but Anderson's position that spending several hundred million dollars to really get the line up to snuff for a single daily, money-losing passenger train does not really make all that much sense. What the line needs more than anything else is more traffic. It _CAN_ be done. What I would envision would be several daily and very hot but rather short Chicago-Los Angeles intermodal trains and maybe one hot Denver-El Paso intermodal train.

If Amtrak and the states involved would be willing to make a bigger commitment then perhaps BNSF would also step up to the plate and throw some of their own money at it.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not willing to accept a compromise to saving the southwest chief. It's national or nothing. Now once we save the southwest chief I'm open to talking about new service. I have my pet train that was cancelled in the 1970s Carter Cuts. I'll see if you can figure out which trains are mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess... it would have to serve either SC or OR, right?Since SC didnt lose any, and the Pioneer outlasted those cuts, it would have to be....the North Coast Hiawatha?
Click to expand...

You would be correct. Even though I would settle for the southern Railway Carolina Special.


----------



## jis

North Coast Hiawatha served Oregon?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> North Coast Hiawatha served Oregon?


Not according to the old timetables. In the old Pioneer days, there was no need to have a SPK-PDX leg. But even before the Pioneer (pre 1977), the NCH still didn't serve Portland (back then neither did the Empire Builder).

http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19760615&item=0050

http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19790729&item=0043


----------



## railiner

I guess my memory failed me....I thought there was a Portland section, but that was prior to Amtrak.

Thanks for the correction.


----------



## jis

What is more interesting is that the Amtrak North Coast Hiawatha actually took the more northerly Stevens Pass route through Washington, while the Empire Builder took the southerly Stampede Pass route.

When the NCH was discontinued, the Portand section of the Empire Builder was added to continue serving Pasco while the main train was moved to the Stevens Pass route. Of course it also added a very usefule set of city pairs including Portland as a destination for the entire Empire Builder route upto Spokane from the east. While the NCH ran there was no Portland section


----------



## cpotisch

frequentflyer said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next up on the chopping block, the Sunset Ltd.
> 
> 
> 
> When has it _*not*_ been on the chopping block?
Click to expand...

I would mention that if they axe the Sunset, and the Chief gets chopped up, Los Angeles would no longer have ANY through service east. If that happens, the farthest east you'll be able to go by train will be Albuquerque.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer

Call your house reps and senators have your friends and family call too!


----------



## bretton88

Amtrak and BNSF requested a 10 year commitment from the 3 states to maintain the line, they didn't get it. Instead you have this patchwork setup of federal grants that get awarded some years and other years rejected. Amtrak has decided they can no longer accept this unreliability. Heck, New Mexico can't even install the necessary PTC on its own commuter line.

On another note, I've heard rumblings from Colorado that they may not be opposed to dropping the NM leg, especially if it allows Amtrak to provide more reliable service to Colorado (ahem, Pueblo, possibly Denver).


----------



## Seaboard92

As much as I would like the North Coast Limited I would never advocate cutting the Southwest Chief to get it back. We have the Empire Builder for now. And we will be alright. The southwest chief has no other daily train serving similar markets.


----------



## Chey

bretton88 said:


> On another note, I've heard rumblings from Colorado that they may not be opposed to dropping the NM leg, especially if it allows Amtrak to provide more reliable service to Colorado (ahem, Pueblo, possibly Denver).


Wow. The plot thickens. Can you tell us where you heard this?

What would that look like? La Junta to Pueblo? No more Trinidad?


----------



## Seaboard92

If they want a train for Pueblo and Denver I'm all for that. Except only after we save the Southwest Chief.


----------



## jebr

Devil's Advocate said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any actions that make me think he's trying to make rail travel irrelevant; rather, he's trying to find ways to make and keep Amtrak relevant to a broader section of the population. Private cars and sit-down diner service don't matter to most of the traveling public; on-time performance, convenient schedules, and safe and reliable travel are much larger factors, and so far he seems to be focusing on at least some of those aspects to improve them.
> 
> 
> 
> So by removing hot meals, checked luggage, and staffed stations Anderson is making Amtrak more appealing to people who were previously turned off by these features? How many additional long distance sleeper trips do you plan on booking now that Amtrak is becoming so much more modern and relevant to your section of the population?
Click to expand...

To answer your question directly: I've planned zero new long distance sleeper trips have been planned due to Amtrak's changes.

But if your measure of success for Amtrak is "how strong is their long distance sleeper ridership," then our standards for what Amtrak should be focusing on are quite different. If that's our standard, then we can look north to the Canadian to see what that would likely result in; a very pleasant journey, but one that only runs a couple times a week and is quite expensive. (There's also the much larger issue that the schedule is so long that it's faster to get between the two endpoints on Amtrak than it is VIA, but I'm willing to concede that part of that is due to legacy laws that give Amtrak theoretical priority where VIA does not.)

However, Amtrak's goal should be some mix of maximizing ridership for general transportation while offering basic transportation services to communities that don't have other (non-personal-vehicle) options. _If _(and admittedly this is a big if, especially given the SWC proposal) the funds saved from reducing staffed stations and diner service results in funds being used to make Amtrak safer, more reliable, more accessible, or grow the network, then that's a net win. There's some small rumblings of that from what I've heard (mainly with maintenance getting more funding and potentially being held to higher standards.) Amtrak may not have the cash flow to improve the other aspects before (or immediately when) cutting amenities, so I'm a bit willing to wait and see on some of the staffing cuts to see how that money is used.

I totally agree that the SWC proposal is a nightmare, and it deserves to be pushed back against with fervor. The problem is that I feel that the outrage over a lot of the other cuts (especially the food service reconfiguration to save money) makes it so that when big things do come out and need to be spoken out against, it just gets thrown into the same ignore bin as the outrage over things that most people in Congress (and probably on Amtrak's board) are either fine with or may have even pushed Anderson to do.


----------



## mlanoue

With Anderson showing interest in a Front Range corridor, would it be entirely unreasonable to consider extending that corridor from at least Denver south to Albuquerque? That could possibly provide multiple trains using the New Mexico segment and might make generate more revenue to help pay for upkeep. I'm sure there are multiple challenges with that, but it seems like those two cities should be connected if he is serious about creating corridors--especially if he considers LA to Albuquerque a corridor.


----------



## bretton88

mlanoue said:


> With Anderson showing interest in a Front Range corridor, would it be entirely unreasonable to consider extending that corridor from at least Denver south to Albuquerque? That could possibly provide multiple trains using the New Mexico segment and might make generate more revenue to help pay for upkeep. I'm sure there are multiple challenges with that, but it seems like those two cities should be connected if he is serious about creating corridors--especially if he considers LA to Albuquerque a corridor.


A stand alone corridor would be well short of the 750 mile rule. So it would require buy in from Colorado and NM. NM has zero interest in this, and even if they did, the massive loan payments on the Railrunner are going to NM's ability to pay for a very long time.


----------



## bretton88

Chey said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, I've heard rumblings from Colorado that they may not be opposed to dropping the NM leg, especially if it allows Amtrak to provide more reliable service to Colorado (ahem, Pueblo, possibly Denver).
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. The plot thickens. Can you tell us where you heard this?
> 
> What would that look like? La Junta to Pueblo? No more Trinidad?
Click to expand...

This is one of a lot of options Colorado, via the Southwest Chief and Front Range commission, is looking at. It would be La Junta-Pueblo, then turn north to Colorado Springs, and terminate in Denver. I highly doubt this happens, UP and BNSF won't like it and there's a lot of logistical challenges in it. However this is a good indicator of how state's think, not in the national interest, but what's in it for them.


----------



## railiner

bretton88 said:


> Chey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, I've heard rumblings from Colorado that they may not be opposed to dropping the NM leg, especially if it allows Amtrak to provide more reliable service to Colorado (ahem, Pueblo, possibly Denver).
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. The plot thickens. Can you tell us where you heard this?
> 
> What would that look like? La Junta to Pueblo? No more Trinidad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of a lot of options Colorado, via the Southwest Chief and Front Range commission, is looking at. It would be La Junta-Pueblo, then turn north to Colorado Springs, and terminate in Denver. I highly doubt this happens, UP and BNSF won't like it and there's a lot of logistical challenges in it. However this is a good indicator of how state's think, not in the national interest, but what's in it for them.
Click to expand...

Well you can't say that Colorado didn't at least try to keep the original train going, before it became harder and harder....at least they are still trying to maintain some semblance of service, that will benefit themselves, and some other places as well.


----------



## DSS&A

fredmcain said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the pushback begins in right earnest. Should be interesting to see how all this plays out...
> 
> https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/heinrich-balks-at-amtraks-plan-to-abandon-nm-route/4961142/?cat=500
> 
> 
> 
> I think what we need to know is _EXACTLY_ what it would cost to make this route viable again. By "viable" I mean CTC, PTC and longer sidings. The grades on Raton and Glorieta passes would still remain unaddressed but I don't feel like they would be that much of an issue for lighter, faster intermodal trains. This could, in turn, get BNSF interested and they might just decide to keep the route after all. Such an outcome is not unprecedented.
> I hate to say it, but Anderson's position that spending several hundred million dollars to really get the line up to snuff for a single daily, money-losing passenger train does not really make all that much sense. What the line needs more than anything else is more traffic. It _CAN_ be done. What I would envision would be several daily and very hot but rather short Chicago-Los Angeles intermodal trains and maybe one hot Denver-El Paso intermodal train.
> 
> If Amtrak and the states involved would be willing to make a bigger commitment then perhaps BNSF would also step up to the plate and throw some of their own money at it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
Click to expand...

I agree that this solution to get more trains over the route to share the costs is a good option. The states are going to have to take the front lead with funding and effort and the BNSF could then join the program at uts cost effective level.


----------



## Tarm

Since I believe that the future of passenger rail in this country is to restructure the LD trains into corridors I would solve the SWC situation by truncating the route at Kansas City on the east end and Albuquerque on the west end. That would free up 904 route miles a day. The 904 miles could be reallocated to a second Chicago- Kansas City frequency (437 miles) plus a second Chicago-St.Paul frequency (410 miles). The Albuquerque-Los Angeles train could be flipped to a daytime schedule. All of these routes would be coach trains with their lower costs.

More frequencies, lower cost, better boarding times, higher ridership. Is Amtrak in the business of hauling passengers or is it just a rolling museum of 1950's train travel?

If we can't have more Amtrak we can at least have better Amtrak.

Tarm


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

RPC said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next up on the chopping block, the Sunset Ltd.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if PTC is the issue, next up is the Cardinal (Buckingham Branch).
Click to expand...

How many other LD trains would PTC affect?


----------



## keelhauled

Tarm said:


> Since I believe that the future of passenger rail in this country is to restructure the LD trains into corridors I would solve the SWC situation by truncating the route at Kansas City on the east end and Albuquerque on the west end. That would free up 904 route miles a day. The 904 miles could be reallocated to a second Chicago- Kansas City frequency (437 miles) plus a second Chicago-St.Paul frequency (410 miles). The Albuquerque-Los Angeles train could be flipped to a daytime schedule. All of these routes would be coach trains with their lower costs.
> 
> More frequencies, lower cost, better boarding times, higher ridership. Is Amtrak in the business of hauling passengers or is it just a rolling museum of 1950's train travel?
> 
> If we can't have more Amtrak we can at least have better Amtrak.
> 
> Tarm


I tend to agree in principle, but adding CHI-KC/MSP trains would require state funding, which seems unlikely in at least the near future, as well as cooperation from BNSF and CP respectively. Restructuring the route is much easier said than done.


----------



## fredmcain

There's a little bit more information in this article which I feel like paint a pretty accurate picture as to where we stand right now. I still feel like there's hope to save the train as a through route. But what might just prove to be even more important from a long-term perspective is saving the line itself for future traffic needs (both passenger and freight).

http://www.hutchnews.com/news/20180626/amtrak-exploring-ending-southwest-chief-through-service 



> During a meeting last week between Amtrak’s CEO and a small Congressional delegation that included Kansas’ two Senators, it was revealed that the train operator is exploring ending passenger train service between Dodge City and Albuquerque, and implementing a bus connection on the route instead.
> 
> The proposal did not go over well with any of the lawmakers there, who had called the meeting to ask Amtrak to stand behind agreements it had previously made to upgrade and maintain its route through the south-central U.S.
> 
> ...


----------



## railiner

Tarm said:


> Since I believe that the future of passenger rail in this country is to restructure the LD trains into corridors I would solve the SWC situation by truncating the route at Kansas City on the east end and Albuquerque on the west end. That would free up 904 route miles a day. The 904 miles could be reallocated to a second Chicago- Kansas City frequency (437 miles) plus a second Chicago-St.Paul frequency (410 miles). The Albuquerque-Los Angeles train could be flipped to a daytime schedule. All of these routes would be coach trains with their lower costs.
> 
> More frequencies, lower cost, better boarding times, higher ridership. Is Amtrak in the business of hauling passengers or is it just a rolling museum of 1950's train travel?
> 
> If we can't have more Amtrak we can at least have better Amtrak.
> 
> Tarm


If they do cut the SWC from Kansas City to Albuquerque, do you really believe they would "reallocate" those "904 miles" into other trains?

I doubt it. Be careful what you wish for...


----------



## TinCan782

railiner said:


> Tarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I believe that the future of passenger rail in this country is to restructure the LD trains into corridors I would solve the SWC situation by truncating the route at Kansas City on the east end and Albuquerque on the west end. That would free up 904 route miles a day. The 904 miles could be reallocated to a second Chicago- Kansas City frequency (437 miles) plus a second Chicago-St.Paul frequency (410 miles). The Albuquerque-Los Angeles train could be flipped to a daytime schedule. All of these routes would be coach trains with their lower costs.
> 
> More frequencies, lower cost, better boarding times, higher ridership. Is Amtrak in the business of hauling passengers or is it just a rolling museum of 1950's train travel?
> 
> If we can't have more Amtrak we can at least have better Amtrak.
> 
> Tarm
> 
> 
> 
> If they do cut the SWC from Kansas City to Albuquerque, do you really believe they would "reallocate" those "904 miles" into other trains?
> 
> I doubt it. Be careful what you wish for...
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be that easy. Wouldn't that ("reallocation") need to be ok'd by the host RR? Besides, time slots (on the host RR) are a factor as well.


----------



## MikefromCrete

I don't think it works that way. It's just like Philly's dream to replace the Cardinal with the Broadway. Each train is its own entity. Any lose of mileage in breaking up the SWC doesn't count for establishing a second CHI-KC train.


----------



## chrsjrcj

I don’t think Albuquerque to LA makes much sense as a day train. The running time is an hour longer than the Palmetto and an hour shorter than the Cap Limited. Add in the time change headed east, and you end up having to leave LA before any connecting trains arrive and still end up arriving late at night in Albuquerque. The schedule is best kept the way it is.

Kansas City to Chicago is pretty appealing. It doesn’t really parallel any highways, so the train is probably faster than driving (and some 90 moh running helps too). Beyond that, I’m not sure what the travel market really is between the two cities. The intermediate stops are pretty rural areas too, so I’m sure there is only so much additional train service they can support.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> RPC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next up on the chopping block, the Sunset Ltd.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if PTC is the issue, next up is the Cardinal (Buckingham Branch).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many other LD trains would PTC affect?
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

chrsjrcj said:


> Kansas City to Chicago is pretty appealing. It doesnt really parallel any highways, so the train is probably faster than driving (and some 90 moh running helps too). Beyond that, Im not sure what the travel market really is between the two cities. The intermediate stops are pretty rural areas too, so Im sure there is only so much additional train service they can support.


According to Google Maps, the train takes 25 fewer minutes than driving. Obviously the train can be late, but there is also often road traffic and extended stops on such a lengthy car trip. However, as has been explained here, that is unlikely to be significantly helped by what could happen to the SWC and would require state funding. The Midwest does have a lot of potential for corridor expansion (Duluth, MSP, Green Bay, Madison, Rockford, Quad Cities, Des Moines, Omaha, Lincoln, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, Cleveland), but these need to be state ventures that should add to the LD network rather than replacing it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Seaboard... Here's a freebie idea for you. Buy the old Santa Fe high levels... Buy some old E-8's and paint em in war bonnet, buy the raton route, and get a deal with BNSF for the rest of the route and re-establish the Super Chief.

Honestly if the service was done right, you could charge good money for the experience. I'd say run it out to the Grand Canyon either (I mean actually run it all the way to the canyon and let people transfer to the hotels there at the canyon...)

It's actually not that far-fetched of an idea, you'd just have to get the right funding for it.


----------



## bcanedy

If only we had more equitable funding for rail transportation like we do for highways and airports we probably never would have been in this mess.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

crescent-zephyr said:


> Seaboard... Here's a freebie idea for you. Buy the old Santa Fe high levels... Buy some old E-8's and paint em in war bonnet, buy the raton route, and get a deal with BNSF for the rest of the route and re-establish the Super Chief. Honestly if the service was done right, you could charge good money for the experience. I'd say run it out to the Grand Canyon either (I mean actually run it all the way to the canyon and let people transfer to the hotels there at the canyon...) It's actually not that far-fetched of an idea, you'd just have to get the right funding for it.


Where will he find passenger rail liability insurance that can cover dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries, loss of property, and hazardous materials recovery on fully indemnified foreign track? BNSF doesn't have it and won't sell access to anyone without it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

$$$. Ha. Ed Ellis could buy it, so it is something you can purchase, it's just apparently very expensive.

The most unrealistic part of that idea, in my opinion, is getting BNSF to agree to run the trains at all. You'd have to get the states involved to put political pressure on them I would think.


----------



## MikefromCrete

crescent-zephyr said:


> $$$. Ha. Ed Ellis could buy it, so it is something you can purchase, it's just apparently very expensive.
> 
> The most unrealistic part of that idea, in my opinion, is getting BNSF to agree to run the trains at all. You'd have to get the states involved to put political pressure on them I would think.


Yeah and look at the financial shape Ed Ellis is in now.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MikefromCrete said:


> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> $$$. Ha. Ed Ellis could buy it, so it is something you can purchase, it's just apparently very expensive.
> 
> The most unrealistic part of that idea, in my opinion, is getting BNSF to agree to run the trains at all. You'd have to get the states involved to put political pressure on them I would think.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and look at the financial shape Ed Ellis is in now.
Click to expand...

It's a shame it went that way... he was trying to do exactly what we all wanted. Dome cars. "Pullman Service." Food cooked on board. I was hoping it would last a little longer than it did at least.

I rode the Chicago to New Orleans route once and the Hoosier State twice.


----------



## Ryan

Indeed. As much as the self selecting group of people here post about wanting nice things, the market (in both aviation and rail travel) has shown that cheap wins every time. There just isn’t a market for moderately luxurious service at prices us mere mortals can afford.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I think the market might be there. No one has really tested it. I don't think Amtrak as a brand can ever compete in an moderately upscale market, yet look at what they can sell deluxe bedrooms for? (Meaning even if Amtrak tried something truly upscale, they're brand image is so bad, they wouldn't be able to attract new customers from that market easily.)

Ed Ellis's train didn't last long enough to see if a market was there, but even if it had lasted longer, chicago to New Orleans is not going to be the best route for that type of service. I heard from one of his employees when I rode, that they wanted to move the service to the capitol, lake shore, or Cardinal but amtrak wasn't being cooperative.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ryan said:


> Indeed. As much as the self selecting group of people here post about wanting nice things, the market (in both aviation and rail travel) has shown that cheap wins every time. There just isn’t a market for moderately luxurious service at prices us mere mortals can afford.


Many of the luxury rail companies that previously existed eventually perished not because there was no market for their services but because they operated at the pleasure of a finicky host that may or may not welcome their business from one quarter to the next. They also weren't large and diversified enough to survive extended downturns in our disaster prone financial system. Amtrak's wishy-washy attitude toward luxury rolling stock is itself a symptom of this extremely uneven playing field. If VIA's Canadian wasn't forced to humor an adversarial host they might be able to attract more luxury customers and increase frequencies instead of suffering worsening delays and operational complications. Legend Airlines and Virgin America are examples of people actually paying more for better service. Until the momentum threatened bigger fish who either flooded the market with dumped inventory or simply swallowed up their much smaller competitor.

The hotel and restaurant market is a more practical market to enter, which helps promote competition and leads to more diversity at different prices and service standards. Unfortunately, starting a new self-sustaining passenger rail or airline service isn't like opening a new hotel or restaurant. It requires a lot more time and money, most of which will need to come from investment banks and venture capitalists, who are generally unwilling to stay the course for over a decade or more that it would take to build and establish a major force in the marketplace. The moment they see an opportunity to sell at a profit they'll gladly hand their investment over to anyone regardless of the impact or outcome. For these and other reasons it's lazy and disingenuous to blame the consumer for lack of meaningful choice in a supply side industry with an extreme cost of entry. If "cheap wins every time" was actually true then Amtrak wouldn't be able to charge more than first class airfare.


----------



## Anthony V

Back to the topic matter. I have a SICK feeling that Anderson's plan for the SWC is going to become reality by Jan 1, 2019 because he isn't even bowing to the pressure of any of the local politicians along the route that would be affected by this plan telling him that this is NOT a good idea. There's little we can do to save the train if Amtrak won't even listen to the concerned politicians. My advice is to ride it while you can because Anderson's plan will ultimately result in the complete discontinuance of the train forever and ever.


----------



## railiner

Anthony V said:


> Back to the topic matter. I have a SICK feeling that Anderson's plan for the SWC is going to become reality by Jan 1, 2019 because he isn't even bowing to the pressure of any of the local politicians along the route that would be affected by this plan telling him that this is NOT a good idea. There's little we can do to save the train if Amtrak won't even listen to the concerned politicians. My advice is to ride it while you can because Anderson's plan will ultimately result in the complete discontinuance of the train forever and ever.


You very well may be correct. But I am still hoping this is some subterfuge to either get a lot more funding to save it, or at least move it over to the Transcon.

We'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out...


----------



## acelafan

Anthony V said:


> Back to the topic matter. I have a SICK feeling that Anderson's plan for the SWC is going to become reality by Jan 1, 2019 because he isn't even bowing to the pressure of any of the local politicians along the route that would be affected by this plan telling him that this is NOT a good idea. There's little we can do to save the train if Amtrak won't even listen to the concerned politicians. My advice is to ride it while you can because Anderson's plan will ultimately result in the complete discontinuance of the train forever and ever.


I have to agree with you, the default Amtrak position is clearly "no can do" rather than "this is what we need" in order to save this route. Amtrak is in the business of running trains, right? Or only the trains they want?

I booked a trip in July to ride #4 LAX > CHI before it and/or the traditional dining service goes away...and likely not to return.


----------



## jis

The big elephant in the room is still Rail Runner. Even if every other issue is resolved, according to FRA's latest missives based on their latest status review. Rail Runner has very little chance of meeting the requirements for getting an extension. So much so that they are basically working on trying to get an exemption by cutting service to below some threshold that may be acceptable to FRA, and their plan at present does not include the Amtrak frequency.

And all this horse manure about using ATS to meet PTC requirements? Well that is what it is. FRA says so in a more pleasant round about way hiding behind the wording of the relevant legislation in their letter to the Governor of New Mexico.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

As a side note... is the Raton Pass route nota potential viable shortline? If Strasburg Railroad can make money moving freight cars over 4 miles of track it seems there would be SOME potential industries on that route. Obviously BNSF isn't going to be looking for those industries, they just care about the big money on the transcon... but a shortline operation could buy it, build a freight business AND make money leasing the line to amtrak each year. (obviously amtrak would have to keep running that route...)


----------



## jis

More on Southwest Chief happenings ... http://www.thekansan.com/news/20180627/moran-amtrak-pulled-out-of-tiger-grant


----------



## Trogdor

jis said:


> The big elephant in the room is still Rail Runner. Even if every other issue is resolved, according to FRA's latest missives based on their latest status review. Rail Runner has very little chance of meeting the requirements for getting an extension. So much so that they are basically working on trying to get an exemption by cutting service to below some threshold that may be acceptable to FRA, and their plan at present does not include the Amtrak frequency. All this while the Senator from new Mexico is huffing and puffing at Amtrak, instead of at least getting Rail Runner to make one slot available to Amtrak.
> 
> And all this horse manure about using ATS to meet PTC requirements? Well that is what it is. FRA says so in a more pleasant round about way hiding behind the wording of the relevant legislation in their letter to the Governor of New Mexico.


The sad irony here is, I recall a few years ago that Amtrak was Rail Runner's biggest source of revenue.



crescent-zephyr said:


> As a side note... is the Raton Pass route nota potential viable shortline? If Strasburg Railroad can make money moving freight cars over 4 miles of track it seems there would be SOME potential industries on that route. Obviously BNSF isn't going to be looking for those industries, they just care about the big money on the transcon... but a shortline operation could buy it, build a freight business AND make money leasing the line to amtrak each year. (obviously amtrak would have to keep running that route...)


_What_ potential industries? There are none, as far as I can tell. That's why the railroads don't run anything there.


----------



## TinCan782

jis said:


> More on Southwest Chief happenings ... http://www.thekansan.com/news/20180627/moran-amtrak-pulled-out-of-tiger-grant


Interesting ... thanks.

“After that moment of excitement, Amtrak announced they would not keep their commitment,” Moran said. ”... What caught my attention was Amtrak intending to renege on their commitment to contribute $3 million for a track upgrade.”

"Moran said he and other senators are trying to work with their staff and Amtrak staff on the next response. In the meantime, Moran has placed a hold on two nominations for new people on the Amtrak board."

"Moran and Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) have also placed language in an appropriations bill to require consultation with affected communities before Amtrak can make any changes to “terms of service.”"


----------



## crescent-zephyr

"What potential industries? There are none, as far as I can tell. That's why the railroads don't run anything there."

That's like saying "no one rides passenger trains anymore. That's why they don't run anymore."


----------



## ehbowen

crescent-zephyr said:


> "What potential industries? There are none, as far as I can tell. That's why the railroads don't run anything there."
> 
> That's like saying "no one rides passenger trains anymore. That's why they don't run anymore."


Duh! Don't you know that all potential industries are based in either China or Mexico? And if for some outlandish reason you did want to establish one in the United States, you would have no choice but to place it on cheap land near an Interstate or major highway on the outskirts of a large city with airline service! Actually _developing_ a productive industrial facility with the thought of establishing synergy with railroad transport...and in a remote location to boot? Why, the nerve of some people! You'd think this was the nineteenth century!

[/sarcasm off] I wish.


----------



## Trogdor

Answer me this: Why would any potential industry want to set up shop in the middle of nowhere with no population around to draw from for a workforce, just because an underutilized railroad was bought by a hypothetical short line?

And youre right, this isnt the 19th century. It didnt really work back then, either, which is why there were tons of railroad bankruptcies, lots of fraud in the industry to hide astronomical losses, and and effectively brought on a lot of the corporate regulations that we see today (or at least, up until recently).

If industry wanted to develop along this rail line, it had a hundred or so years to do so, and it didnt. Now when a major railroad decided years ago they didnt really want/need the line any more, someone is supposed to just pop up and start shipping profitable trainloads hundreds of miles (a heck of a lot more than the four miles of this other short-line railroad), just because a short-line asked them to? This isnt Railroad Tycoon.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I'm talking about shortline railroad industries... they are already there. A quick google map search shows lumber yard, concrete manufacturing, gravel yard, multiple gas / propane companies, welding supply manufacturing, etc. around the tracks in Raton and Las Vegas (only towns I searched in).

Now of course a typical shortline isn't going to have PTC unless someone else pays for it... so that doesn't exactly help Amtrak out.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Of course that middle of nowhere shortline would maintain its tracks for 25 mph.


----------



## DSS&A

FrensicPic said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> More on Southwest Chief happenings ... http://www.thekansan.com/news/20180627/moran-amtrak-pulled-out-of-tiger-grant
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting ... thanks.After that moment of excitement, Amtrak announced they would not keep their commitment, Moran said. ... What caught my attention was Amtrak intending to renege on their commitment to contribute $3 million for a track upgrade.
> 
> "Moran said he and other senators are trying to work with their staff and Amtrak staff on the next response. In the meantime, Moran has placed a hold on two nominations for new people on the Amtrak board."
> 
> "Moran and Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) have also placed language in an appropriations bill to require consultation with affected communities before Amtrak can make any changes to terms of service."
Click to expand...

Instead of the next board members from the Heritage group and or sonbody else who hates trains, the senators should push for someone like Wick or a recently retired commuter railroad or rail transit agency CEO who KNOWS the business of customer service and passenger railroading.


----------



## Seaboard92

They also need to put someone in who continues to follow agreements between multiple stakeholders. Anderson and Garnder (I'm not sure he's played a part in it but it looks like something he would do) have withdrawn agreed upon funds to save the route. While the other stakeholders BNSF, Colorado, Kansas, And New Mexico have made made commitments to save the line.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I agree about the commitments. I think this is the larger issue--that something that Amtrak agreed to is now being reneged on, with the impression given (rightly or wrongly) that Amtrak's current leadership doesn't think that reneging on an agreement is a big deal. How can any state, railroad, or any other entity dealing with Amtrak currently feel that their negotiations/decisions will be done in good faith and promises kept?

I agree, too, about putting someone on the board who knows more about passenger railroading. However, I was a great fan of Wick Moorman, and still think he sounds like a terrific person, but I was disappointed that he seemed just fine with the appointment of the new CEO (and might even have had a hand in choosing him?) and praised him in the press. You don't have to be nasty about someone, but you can give a lukewarm endorsement so people realize this was not what you wanted. But his endorsement of the new CEO seemed quite enthusiastic, and I was disappointed about that.


----------



## amtrakpass

I would add Wick may have been respected from corporate types, the railfan press and maybe is a genuinely nice guy in person.

However, it should be noted that the workers in the industry that I know were no fan of him and NS and freight railroads in general, and especially NS are not known to be well managed or efficient organizations.

They work because railroads are a great and efficient idea to start with, current government regulations are in their favor and they have lots of good people who work for them in the various crafts.

I do not know first hand, but my feeling is that Wick knew of Andersons plans and that is why he endorsed him. To me his silence now speaks volumes. Happy to change my mind if I hear him speak against the service cuts but I haven't seen anything from him as we have from his predecessor Boardman.


----------



## RPC

Mystic River Dragon said:


> I agree about the commitments. I think this is the larger issue--that something that Amtrak agreed to is now being reneged on, with the impression given (rightly or wrongly) that Amtrak's current leadership doesn't think that reneging on an agreement is a big deal. How can any state, railroad, or any other entity dealing with Amtrak currently feel that their negotiations/decisions will be done in good faith and promises kept?
> 
> <snip/>


I think this is an important point. If Amtrak had, for instance, honored their existing private car trips and charters while implementing the new rules for all future contracts they might have engendered less ill will. And in the case of the SWC, $3 million may be a small price to pay to convince three Congressional delegations that Amtrak is doing its best to find a solution.

More generally, I think Anderson needs to realize that getting a 10 year commitment for ANYTHING Amtrak related is a pipe dream. Amtrak has always been a scavenger (funding wise).

EDIT: spelling!


----------



## railiner

Mystic River Dragon said:


> I agree, too, about putting someone on the board who knows more about passenger railroading. However, I was a great fan of Wick Moorman, and still think he sounds like a terrific person, but I was disappointed that he seemed just fine with the appointment of the new CEO (and might even have had a hand in choosing him?) and praised him in the press. You don't have to be nasty about someone, but you can give a lukewarm endorsement so people realize this was not what you wanted. But his endorsement of the new CEO seemed quite enthusiastic, and I was disappointed about that.


Perhaps because he was so happy to get out of the job?


----------



## jis

More on the Southwest Chief saga. Requires Train login:

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/06/29-senator-demands-transparency-on-chief-bnsf-remains-ready-to-support-route

Has nice photo of Boardman (with no mice, even though he tried to catch a few



)from four years back.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Darn--I can't log into Trains, and I really wanted to see the photo of Boardman with some pet mice.



(Sorry, jis, I just had to get that in before you caught the typo!



)

Seriously, though, title sounds like BNSF is going to help? That would be wonderful.


----------



## Seaboard92

As the person who actually has talked to Mr. Moorman multiple times I can say that he is a great person. And talk in the PV industry says that he is very dissatisfied with the Anderson/Gardner regime. And I would honestly believe that.

The big issue with honoring commitments like this will be expanding state supported services. Especially if Amtrak makes an agreement for day two new round trips at ten million. Operates them for a few months then comes back and says. "You know that ten million we signed an agreement on awhile back well that wasn't enough. We need twenty million to maintain the service." By pulling out of the SWC deal Anderson has effectively eliminated any credibility Amtrak has in negotiations. Especially with states, and politicians. It was a bad gamble on his part.


----------



## jis

I didn't realize Amtrak had much credibility left to squander away. Maybe that's why they don't care either way?

We heard this same song and dance about credibility and what not after the long running saga of the Turboliners, where Boardman was first on one side of the fence and then on the other side of it. That was fascinating.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Mystic River Dragon said:


> I agree about the commitments. I think this is the larger issue--that something that Amtrak agreed to is now being reneged on, with the impression given (rightly or wrongly) that Amtrak's current leadership doesn't think that reneging on an agreement is a big deal. How can any state, railroad, or any other entity dealing with Amtrak currently feel that their negotiations/decisions will be done in good faith and promises kept?



This is indeed a problem and it also leads to things like this:



FrensicPic said:


> "Moran said he and other senators are trying to work with their staff and Amtrak staff on the next response.* In the meantime, Moran has placed a hold on two nominations for new people on the Amtrak board."*
> 
> *"Moran and Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) have also placed language in an appropriations bill to require consultation with affected communities before Amtrak can make any changes to “terms of service.”"*


Now, you have stipulations attached to your funding. It is still cool to see bipartisan support. If only Pennsylvania and Ohio showed this much support, we may still have............


----------



## cpotisch

Thirdrail7 said:


> If only Pennsylvania and Ohio showed this much support, we may still have............


Don't you say it! Don't you summon him!


----------



## Seaboard92

Don't forget West Virginia is adding all sorts of stipulations as well to the Amtrak reauthorization and any bill with Amtrak involved. All of us at New River have worked far too hard to accomplish that.

Honestly what all of us rail advocates should be promoting is codifying protections for the National Network. Make it law that trains must run on certain routes as part of the law. Now of course there are occasions where that can be worked around. But that is for someone far more intelligent than me to work on.


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> Don't forget West Virginia is adding all sorts of stipulations as well to the Amtrak reauthorization and any bill with Amtrak involved. All of us at New River have worked far too hard to accomplish that.
> 
> Honestly what all of us rail advocates should be promoting is codifying protections for the National Network. Make it law that trains must run on certain routes as part of the law.


The original Railpax Act did specify end points between which trains must run, without specifying routing. Something like that is necessary, though I suspect the reason that it has not happened yet is because it may not pass in Congress, at least not until enough member's oxen are gored.


----------



## keelhauled

Seaboard92 said:


> Honestly what all of us rail advocates should be promoting is codifying protections for the National Network. Make it law that trains must run on certain routes as part of the law.


Why? I used to lean towards this position, but have gotten steadily less wedded to it over the past few years. Long distance trains as they exist now, and have existed for the past several decades, seem to me to be fundamentally flawed as a matter of public policy in most areas. What is the justification for long distance trains? Is it to provide basic transportation? If so, how do you justify the difference in service levels? What gives Grand Junction, CO the right to a train and not Green River, WY? Even within a route, the once daily schedules make trains largely irrelevant for about a third of stops--sometimes more in terms of population. An ostensibly national system has broad gaps.

I used to compare it to something like the Coast Guard--despite the fact that there are no coasts in Kansas, say, Kansas taxpayers still fund it as having a safe marine industry is important to the national economy and flow of goods. Even if Kansans have some degrees of separation to the Coast Guard directly, they still benefit by having access to goods imported through the nation's ports. But there is no evidence that long distance trains have any kind of an impact to the national economy in that way. If long distance trains are, as Senator Heinrich says, "vital to the economic well-being of our communities," you would expect to see that reflected statistically. But if you look at the regions of the nation that are growing the fastest, there is no correlation to train service.

If you look at the fastest growing cities in the US, they in fact track mostly opposite to the amount of rail service. Six of the 15 fastest growing cities have no rail service at all in their MSAs. Two more have 3x weekly service. Only three cities (two MSAs) have more than one train a day--and they are 2x daily. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Amtrak in promoting economic growth.

Speaking in terms of publicly funded basic transportation, the only train that fulfills that role over any significant distance is the Empire Builder, where there is no Interstate access for almost the entire route across North Dakota and Montana. Otherwise, with the exception of relatively short segments on the CZ in western CO and eastern UT and the SWC around southern CO, western KS, and most of MO, the routes roughly parallel Interstate highways.

So where do trains make sense? The research has kinda already been done. Rail's advantages of high capacity in a narrow footprint when compared to highway right of ways, but low speed when compared to air travel, lends itself well to journeys of several hundred miles with strong O&D anchors at each end, especially where population growth has constrained highway expansion and increased demand for air travel. Holistically, you would want to promote personal vehicle travel (make 'em self driving if you want it to sound sexier) in outlying areas to a rail corridor that services large cities with frequent service, thus reducing traffic in urban cores and freeing up airspace for long-haul flights that in many cases is being used for short-distance connecting service.

I don't mean to say that long distance trains are incompatible, because much of the east would benefit from a system like that. Northeast to Chicago and southern corridors make perfect sense as long distance trains that can turn over passenger space multiple times across individual markets, eg New York to Richmond, Richmond to Raleigh, Raleigh to Atlanta, to use a hypothetical new train on tracks that already see passenger service.

But the flyover states! you say. The money is all going to those rich people on the NEC! Where is the equality? But the general flow of money in the government is from the coast inwards. There is already huge subsidization of the heartland in the form of highways, agricultural subsidies, health care, etc. These are all paid for by the strength of the megaregions in which mass transit is a major factor in their economic output. As a national policy, to maximize the impact of transportation funding, it should be directed at projects that will serve high passenger numbers in areas where existing infrastructure is constrained.

There is zero reason for the Sunset Limited to exist. At 3x/weekly, it is of no functional use in passenger movement between large cities (one of which it completely misses) and it is paralleled by I-10 the entire distance. You want basic transportation in West Texas? Stick a bus there. Run it daily and it will be more useful than the SL has ever been. Houston, Austin, and DFW are some of the fastest growing regions in the country. Start trying to connect them, fling money at Texas Central if it helps get the project of the ground faster. I have not quite reached Philly Amtrak Fan levels of antipathy towards certain routes, but I'm close.

In an attempt to drag this back to the Southwest Chief, the idea of splitting the route as it has been presented is about the only thing that could make the situation worse. You don't improve equipment utilization, you will almost certainly see ridership drop, and you don't improve transportation options for a single person. If you want to kill the train, do it right, kill the entire thing west of KC, rebuild the rolling stock to a whole pile of coaches, and run as many trains CHI-KC as you possibly can. It's a perfect market, large cities at both ends, maybe a hair longer than the textbook corridor, but there's no direct interstate, so a train would be far and away the most timely form of ground transportation.

Unfortunately, as it stands now, that's legally impossible. The whole transportation system is fundamentally flawed, and at odds with what I would consider good policy in many cases, but I don't think for a second that the answer is to stick our collective head in the ground and run trains the same way we did the better part of a century ago. It's just not good public policy, both in terms of the use of taxpayer dollars and in terms of how to efficiently move people.


----------



## Seaboard92

Here is the reason why the Southwest Chief is not the only train Anderson and Gardner have their eyes on. The pair of them have eyes for every train including the ones all of us use more often than the Southwest Chief.

However the Chief will set a bad precedent if we allow it to be bus bridged and discontinued. By allowing the Chief to succumb to that fate we are ourselves opening the door to truncating the Cardinal, the Empire Builder, Sunset Limited, Capitol Limited. And that is a dangerous precedent to set.

We are also setting the precedent that deals with Amtrak are not valued or honored. If you don't want to support the Chief that's on you. But when it's your train in the cross hairs don't be surprised when no one comes to your aid.

Me personally I've never ridden the Chief but it doesn't mean I'm not going to fight for it. I recognize one that by Truncating the Chief like that Anderson and Gardner could then harm my Silver Star because of the precedent. Or they could do serious irreparable damage to my two Portland Long Distance Trains.

And the precedent they are standing by backing out of the Tiger Grant will be harmful in getting new state supported services. So I say lets codify protections for the routes we have because they are essential to mobility in our country. And in the entire system not imploding on itself. Yes they might have limited use to the populous on the route. But they still can and do use it.

We've lost hundreds of trains in our country and the Chief could be the stepping stone to losing them all.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

The cynical part of me thinks that Amtrak is doomed to a big service cut every 20 years. First, 1979 with the Floridian, NC Hiawatha, Cardinal (before resuscitated), etc. Then 1997 with the Pioneer, Desert Wind, Broadway Limited, etc with the Three Rivers shortly after. I think we're due in for another one pretty soon...


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

ParanoidAndroid said:


> The cynical part of me thinks that Amtrak is doomed to a big service cut every 20 years. First, 1979 with the Floridian, NC Hiawatha, Cardinal (before resuscitated), etc. Then 1997 with the Pioneer, Desert Wind, Broadway Limited, etc with the Three Rivers shortly after. I think we're due in for another one pretty soon...


2004-2005 also brought a few significant losses, including the Three Rivers, the Palmetto south of Savannah, and the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans.


----------



## cpotisch

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> ParanoidAndroid said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cynical part of me thinks that Amtrak is doomed to a big service cut every 20 years. First, 1979 with the Floridian, NC Hiawatha, Cardinal (before resuscitated), etc. Then 1997 with the Pioneer, Desert Wind, Broadway Limited, etc with the Three Rivers shortly after. I think we're due in for another one pretty soon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2004-2005 also brought a few significant losses, including the Three Rivers, the Palmetto south of Savannah, and the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans.
Click to expand...

Well that last one can't really be blamed on Amtrak...


----------



## lordsigma

If I had to predict what the national network would look like if Anderson got his way this is some thoughts (don't support this direction but just trying to look from his perspective):

1) SW Chief and Sunset probably gone or broken up with some corridors. He'd probably keep one Chicago to west coast through train pretty much intact maybe even with full dining service which would fulfill "some room for experiential trains" and give people that still want to go coast to coast an option. Having just one through train left would theoretically increase its utilization and make it less of a money loser. I'd say the likely candidate would probably be the California Zephyr being in the center. Maybe Empire Builder too if lucky. The Coast Starlight could serve to bring passengers to and from the CZ that would have previously taken the other trains.

2) Coast Starlight would probably remain.

3) Auto Train and Silver Meteor would probably remain. Northeast to Florida remains a good market.

4) Silver Star maybe trimmed to maybe a Florida corridor train and a Savannah to Rocky Mount NC corridor connecting to the Meteor.

5) Probably retain Capitol Limited and Lake Shore Limited...maybe Cardinal get axed.

6) Crescent, City of New Orleans, and Texas Eagle I am not sure about...


----------



## Ryan

cpotisch said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ParanoidAndroid said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cynical part of me thinks that Amtrak is doomed to a big service cut every 20 years. First, 1979 with the Floridian, NC Hiawatha, Cardinal (before resuscitated), etc. Then 1997 with the Pioneer, Desert Wind, Broadway Limited, etc with the Three Rivers shortly after. I think we're due in for another one pretty soon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2004-2005 also brought a few significant losses, including the Three Rivers, the Palmetto south of Savannah, and the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that lost one can't really be blamed on Amtrak...
Click to expand...

The fact that the train didn't return when the storm damage was repaired absolutely can be.


----------



## TiBike

Seaboard92 said:


> And the precedent they are standing by backing out of the Tiger Grant will be harmful in getting new state supported services. So I say lets codify protections for the routes we have because they are essential to mobility in our country. And in the entire system not imploding on itself. Yes they might have limited use to the populous on the route. But they still can and do use it.


You're going to have come up with a better argument for freezing the long distance network than "essential to mobility in our country". It's not. Last fiscal year, there were 4.6 million passengers on long distance trains, an increase of less than 1%. That's two days worth of airline passengers in 2017 (741.6 million, a 3% increase). And that's only 6 minutes worth of motor vehicle trips (of all kinds) in the U.S. (392 billion annually - 1.1 billion a day - in 2009).

As keelhauled well explains above, there are only a handful of _portions _of LD routes that are even arguably essential. Relatively few communities in the country have long distance train service – there are 19,000 incorporated cities in 3,000 counties in the U.S.

If Amtrak service is going to be judged on the basis of "essential to mobility", then you should be looking at chopping up long distance routes, not preserving them in amber. Consider "our" train – the Starlight. Caltrans has train and bus service along that route, from Redding all the way to LA, with more and better scheduled runs, better on time performance, newer and cleaner trains, a more consistent standard of onboard service and better food and drinks (and roll on bike service, for no additional charge, at every station, I must add . The Cascades between Eugene and Seattle is arguably better than the California service.

That leaves us with Eugene to Redding. You don't need an overnight train from Seattle to LA to provide essential mobility in Dunsmuir, Klamath Falls or Chemult. Particularly an overnight train that bypasses dozens of other communities along the corridor – where does their essential mobility come from? Not from the Starlight.

Amtrak is a passenger transportation company. Like any company (or public agency if you prefer), it has limited resources. Those resources should be put to use where they will generate the greatest value. Profit (or reduced loss) is one way to measure value. Another is the greatest good for the greatest number of people – serving the greatest number of people and producing the greatest overall economic impact.

There's a good argument to be made that rationally designed rail transportation can have a disproportionately greater economic benefit in rural communities than in already well served urban areas. So passenger rail can serve the greater good in rural areas, too. But it has to be rationally designed to maximise the benefit those communities receive. Simply being a random stop at random hours on a random schedule somewhere between Seattle and LA, or Chicago and LA, doesn't achieve that.


----------



## bretton88

TiBike said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the precedent they are standing by backing out of the Tiger Grant will be harmful in getting new state supported services. So I say lets codify protections for the routes we have because they are essential to mobility in our country. And in the entire system not imploding on itself. Yes they might have limited use to the populous on the route. But they still can and do use it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have come up with a better argument for freezing the long distance network than "essential to mobility in our country". It's not. Last fiscal year, there were 4.6 million passengers on long distance trains, an increase of less than 1%. That's two days worth of airline passengers in 2017 (741.6 million, a 3% increase). And that's only 6 minutes worth of motor vehicle trips (of all kinds) in the U.S. (392 billion annually - 1.1 billion a day - in 2009).
> 
> As keelhauled well explains above, there are only a handful of _portions _of LD routes that are even arguably essential. Relatively few communities in the country have long distance train service – there are 19,000 incorporated cities in 3,000 counties in the U.S.
> 
> If Amtrak service is going to be judged on the basis of "essential to mobility", then you should be looking at chopping up long distance routes, not preserving them in amber. Consider "our" train – the Starlight. Caltrans has train and bus service along that route, from Redding all the way to LA, with more and better scheduled runs, better on time performance, newer and cleaner trains, a more consistent standard of onboard service and better food and drinks (and roll on bike service, for no additional charge, at every station, I must add . The Cascades between Eugene and Seattle is arguably better than the California service.
> 
> That leaves us with Eugene to Redding. You don't need an overnight train from Seattle to LA to provide essential mobility in Dunsmuir, Klamath Falls or Chemult. Particularly an overnight train that bypasses dozens of other communities along the corridor – where does their essential mobility come from? Not from the Starlight.
> 
> Amtrak is a passenger transportation company. Like any company (or public agency if you prefer), it has limited resources. Those resources should be put to use where they will generate the greatest value. Profit (or reduced loss) is one way to measure value. Another is the greatest good for the greatest number of people – serving the greatest number of people and producing the greatest overall economic impact.
> 
> There's a good argument to be made that rationally designed rail transportation can have a disproportionately greater economic benefit in rural communities than in already well served urban areas. So passenger rail can serve the greater good in rural areas, too. But it has to be rationally designed to maximise the benefit those communities receive. Simply being a random stop at random hours on a random schedule somewhere between Seattle and LA, or Chicago and LA, doesn't achieve that.
Click to expand...

Nice ideas, however the 750 mile PRIAA minimum is a problem. A lot of these corridors would have to be left up to the states with no guarantee they'll fund them. That's one of the problems Amtrak has to deal with, any train under 750 miles has to be left to the states.


----------



## TiBike

bretton88 said:


> Nice ideas, however the 750 mile PRIAA minimum is a problem. A lot of these corridors would have to be left up to the states with no guarantee they'll fund them. That's one of the problems Amtrak has to deal with, any train under 750 miles has to be left to the states.


OK, there are problems to be solved. I can think of several possibilities:

1. Change the law.

2. Leave it up to the states – let them decide if Amtrak is important. Those that do, get.

3. Work with the states to, as Caltrans puts it, "[develop] contract language that insures consistency with PRIIA Section 209 requirements".

4. Recognise, as Amtrak has, that the law specifies "routes" (i.e. "between endpoints") of 750 miles and not "trains". That's how Amtrak can have trains that run between Portland and Spokane, Boston and Albany and San Antonio and New Orleans. By the way, the definition of "long distance routes" does not include "train" or "rail", in contrast to the definitions of other elements of the system. The law also allows Amtrak to contract with "motor carriers" over "routes".

I'm sure Amtrak has actual lawyers who can parse this far better than I can, accountants who can more creatively allocate costs, and planners who can think of more and better ideas. But it's a start. Problems are meant to be solved.


----------



## cpotisch

TiBike said:


> 4. Recognise, as Amtrak has, that the law specifies "routes" (i.e. "between endpoints") of 750 miles and not "trains". That's how Amtrak can have trains that run between Portland and Spokane, Boston and Albany and San Antonio and New Orleans.


Sorry, the Empire Builder doesn't stop at Spokane, so why would it matter in the slightest that Spokane is less than 750 miles from Portland? Same thing applies with the other routes you mentioned. I just don't see the connection.


----------



## bmjhagen9426

There is a post circulating on the AU FB group 6 hours old with a link to a Youtube video of an interview with former CEO David Gunn.


----------



## Seaboard92

I can think of another reason why the national network trains are important. If Amtrak goes ahead with plans and states lose their service. Who says that the senators and representatives that already reluctantly vote for Amtrak continue to do so. If I was from day Kansas who is basically losing the only rail service in the state.

I can be certain if I was their representative to strike down any funding for the Northeast Corridor and Gateway. And I am likely not alone in that. Cut the rural routes and you might end up cutting the NEC.

We are facing a gigantic threat to our network and instead of doing things productive to save it we don't do anything till it's our train. I have a large problem with that.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

cpotisch said:


> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Recognise, as Amtrak has, that the law specifies "routes" (i.e. "between endpoints") of 750 miles and not "trains". That's how Amtrak can have trains that run between Portland and Spokane, Boston and Albany and San Antonio and New Orleans.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the Empire Builder doesn't stop at Spokane, so why would it matter in the slightest that Spokane is less than 750 miles from Portland? Same thing applies with the other routes you mentioned. I just don't see the connection.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t? Does that mean they attach 8/28 on the run? And detach 7/27 on the run?


----------



## Anderson

One thing I'm wondering is whether there shouldn't be a push to force Amtrak to pay back money provided for/used for improving a given route if they axe the route within a given timeframe (at least, for reasons other than "Act of God" where the tracks aren't replaced or due to some sort of specific Congressional mandate). That would, in at least a few cases (notably the Builder), make it harder for Amtrak to pull a train.


----------



## JayPea

cpotisch said:


> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Recognise, as Amtrak has, that the law specifies "routes" (i.e. "between endpoints") of 750 miles and not "trains". That's how Amtrak can have trains that run between Portland and Spokane, Boston and Albany and San Antonio and New Orleans.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the Empire Builder doesn't stop at Spokane, so why would it matter in the slightest that Spokane is less than 750 miles from Portland? Same thing applies with the other routes you mentioned. I just don't see the connection.
Click to expand...

It most certainly does stop in Spokane.


----------



## jis

It is possible that what he meant to say is"terminate", not "stop",

However, the reason that it still remains relevant is that the Portland section because it is a section of the Builder, can continue to operate under the National System with national funding. If it was just a Portland - Spokane train it would cease to exist as soon as Washington and/or Oregon pulled the funding for it.


----------



## Chey

cpotisch said:


> Well that last one can't really be blamed on Amtrak...


Couple of years ago Amtrak did an "inspection" train from NOL - JAX which was met with great fanfare at each stop. it could be done if they wanted to - if it could be funded I guess.

https://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2016/02/10_years_after_katrina_amtrak.html


----------



## bmjhagen9426

Seaboard92 said:


> I can think of another reason why the national network trains are important. If Amtrak goes ahead with plans and states lose their service. Who says that the senators and representatives that already reluctantly vote for Amtrak continue to do so. If I was from day Kansas who is basically losing the only rail service in the state.
> 
> I can be certain if I was their representative to strike down any funding for the Northeast Corridor and Gateway. And I am likely not alone in that. Cut the rural routes and you might end up cutting the NEC.
> 
> We are facing a gigantic threat to our network and instead of doing things productive to save it we don't do anything till it's our train. I have a large problem with that.


Last year, the threats was mainly from the without, and this year, the threats mainly seems to come from the within.


----------



## TiBike

jis said:


> However, the reason that it still remains relevant is that the Portland section because it is a section of the Builder, can continue to operate under the National System with national funding. If it was just a Portland - Spokane train it would cease to exist as soon as Washington and/or Oregon pulled the funding for it.


Correct. Portland to Spokane is defined as a section of the Builder. East of Spokane, it's one train set carrying two train numbers. In both cases, it's simply bookkeeping, not an operational imperative. It's not about switching cars either, it's about labelling a particular service – Boston to Albany was still defined as the LSL even when passengers had to get off of one train set and get on another.

If the Chief is broken into three segments – train-bus-train – Amtrak can define it with a single train number all the way from Chicago to LA, or give it three numbers, as it chooses.

It's the route that has to be 750 miles – e.g. Portland to Chicago, Seattle to Chicago – not the train set. Amtrak could make everyone on both sections of the Builder get off at Spokane and get on a completely different train set if it wanted, and still be in compliance. I'm not suggesting there's a good reason to do so, but there's nothing in the law that says they can't.


----------



## PRR 60

JayPea said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Recognise, as Amtrak has, that the law specifies "routes" (i.e. "between endpoints") of 750 miles and not "trains". That's how Amtrak can have trains that run between Portland and Spokane, Boston and Albany and San Antonio and New Orleans.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the Empire Builder doesn't stop at Spokane, so why would it matter in the slightest that Spokane is less than 750 miles from Portland? Same thing applies with the other routes you mentioned. I just don't see the connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It most certainly does stop in Spokane.
Click to expand...

I believe he meant that it does not "end" in Spokane, as in terminate there. Thus it does not fall under the endpoints less than 750 mile standard. 27/28 is considered a CHI-PDX train, and 448/449 is a BOS-CHI train.


----------



## bmjhagen9426

PRR 60 said:


> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Recognise, as Amtrak has, that the law specifies "routes" (i.e. "between endpoints") of 750 miles and not "trains". That's how Amtrak can have trains that run between Portland and Spokane, Boston and Albany and San Antonio and New Orleans.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the Empire Builder doesn't stop at Spokane, so why would it matter in the slightest that Spokane is less than 750 miles from Portland? Same thing applies with the other routes you mentioned. I just don't see the connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It most certainly does stop in Spokane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe he meant that it does not "end" in Spokane, as in terminate there. Thus it does not fall under the endpoints less than 750 mile standard. 27/28 is considered a CHI-PDX train, and 448/449 is a BOS-CHI train.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree on that. The car number for the Portland section does not change east for SPK, so for instance, 2830 does not become 0830.


----------



## Seaboard92

TiBike said:


> It's the route that has to be 750 miles – e.g. Portland to Chicago, Seattle to Chicago – not the train set. Amtrak could make everyone on both sections of the Builder get off at Spokane and get on a completely different train set if it wanted, and still be in compliance. I'm not suggesting there's a good reason to do so, but there's nothing in the law that says they can't.


Someone's getting closer to what some people in the PNW PV community are talking about. Except it might not just be the Portland section.

It's national or nothing. And Anderson and Gardner need to go yesterday.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

TiBike said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the precedent they are standing by backing out of the Tiger Grant will be harmful in getting new state supported services. So I say lets codify protections for the routes we have because they are essential to mobility in our country. And in the entire system not imploding on itself. Yes they might have limited use to the populous on the route. But they still can and do use it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have come up with a better argument for freezing the long distance network than "essential to mobility in our country". It's not. Last fiscal year, there were 4.6 million passengers on long distance trains, an increase of less than 1%. That's two days worth of airline passengers in 2017 (741.6 million, a 3% increase). And that's only 6 minutes worth of motor vehicle trips (of all kinds) in the U.S. (392 billion annually - 1.1 billion a day - in 2009).
> 
> As keelhauled well explains above, there are only a handful of _portions _of LD routes that are even arguably essential. Relatively few communities in the country have long distance train service – there are 19,000 incorporated cities in 3,000 counties in the U.S.
> 
> If Amtrak service is going to be judged on the basis of "essential to mobility", then you should be looking at chopping up long distance routes, not preserving them in amber. Consider "our" train – the Starlight. Caltrans has train and bus service along that route, from Redding all the way to LA, with more and better scheduled runs, better on time performance, newer and cleaner trains, a more consistent standard of onboard service and better food and drinks (and roll on bike service, for no additional charge, at every station, I must add . The Cascades between Eugene and Seattle is arguably better than the California service.
> 
> That leaves us with Eugene to Redding. You don't need an overnight train from Seattle to LA to provide essential mobility in Dunsmuir, Klamath Falls or Chemult. Particularly an overnight train that bypasses dozens of other communities along the corridor – where does their essential mobility come from? Not from the Starlight.
> 
> Amtrak is a passenger transportation company. Like any company (or public agency if you prefer), it has limited resources. Those resources should be put to use where they will generate the greatest value. Profit (or reduced loss) is one way to measure value. Another is the greatest good for the greatest number of people – serving the greatest number of people and producing the greatest overall economic impact.
> 
> There's a good argument to be made that rationally designed rail transportation can have a disproportionately greater economic benefit in rural communities than in already well served urban areas. So passenger rail can serve the greater good in rural areas, too. But it has to be rationally designed to maximise the benefit those communities receive. Simply being a random stop at random hours on a random schedule somewhere between Seattle and LA, or Chicago and LA, doesn't achieve that.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that transferring 3 or 4 times to get from LA to Southern Oregon is good mobility? I don't think so. The other option is having a bus run that, but Greyhound doesn't stop everywhere, either. 
I point to the Transsiberian Railway. There are the big, prestigious transcontinental trains from Moscow to Vladivostok, but there are also countless other local trains and connecting trains effectively serving at least the more populated regions of the country. It's not a fragmented train-bus-train-bus transferring ordeal. Hell, there's a direct train from Moscow to every single CIS (former Soviet) nation, including all the -stan countries. We just need more frequencies to make the train a viable option for residents; an overnight LA to Sacramento train would do wonders for connectivity compared to the current Starlight schedule. Maybe add a few more stops, for example at Mt. Shasta, Yuba City, or Oakridge. But we need more trains, both long-distance and corridor-style, for trains to be useful. And of course, they should be fast enough and have infrequent delays.


----------



## bretton88

I find the Russia comparison a bit disingenuous, about the only thing Russia has in common with the USA is size. There you have a much less developed highway system, extremely unreliable bus services, and the economic realities of the country mean flying between cities is often too expensive for the majority of people (though it is getting cheaper). That makes the LD train a much more viable proposition in Russia, since it is the most reliable and affordable option for transportation there.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> I can think of another reason why the national network trains are important. If Amtrak goes ahead with plans and states lose their service. Who says that the senators and representatives that already reluctantly vote for Amtrak continue to do so. If I was from day Kansas who is basically losing the only rail service in the state.
> 
> I can be certain if I was their representative to strike down any funding for the Northeast Corridor and Gateway. And I am likely not alone in that. Cut the rural routes and you might end up cutting the NEC.
> 
> We are facing a gigantic threat to our network and instead of doing things productive to save it we don't do anything till it's our train. I have a large problem with that.


While I recognize that you feel very strongly on this issue, and are going above and beyond to foster support to keep the SWC and other "national network" intact, I must say that in reality, no matter what ever happens to Amtrak in the future, the NEC in one form or another will survive, and will receive federal support in one way or another...

Don't get me wrong, I do support keeping our long distance trains intact, and it behooves all of us to get involved, insofar as communicating that to our government representatives.


----------



## Seaboard92

When you look at the Southwest Chiefs route historically back in the 1952 Official Guide. You have four pairs of trains doing the Newton-Albuquerque route. Then there are two pairs on the southern transcon. But other parts of the route are seeing far more frequent service.

Chicago-Kansas City is seeing six or seven pairs of trains. Kansas City to different points in Kansas is also seeing that. South of Newton to Fort Worth sees three pairs a day. Once I finish mapping the Santa Fe passenger trains. I'll post a link to it so you can see what the route used to have.


----------



## TiBike

I'm saying that the California services provide "essential mobility" for people who, for whatever reason, can't drive or fly, and better mobility than the Starlight.

You can get on the San Joaquins service (thruway and train) at 6:25 am and arrive in Sacramento at 2:25 p.m., in time for an afternoon meeting or to catch another thruway to Redding, and arrive there at 5:50 p.m. Or leave at 9:25 a.m. and get in at 5:45 p.m., in time for dinner (or catch a bus that'll get you to Redding that evening). Extending bus service to Klamath Falls or Ashland would get you in before 9 p.m.

Contrast that to the Starlight, which leaves LA at 10:10 am and gets into Sacramento at midnight, and arrives in Redding at 3 a.m. and K Falls at 8 a.m. the next day. You've lost at least a day, maybe two if you can't get enough sleep. Maybe the California service is less comfortable – depends on how you balance a one seat ride against transfers – but it's better mobility.

Is it good mobility? Not compared to flying. You can leave LA and get to Sacramento in an hour, pretty much any time you want, for about the same cost as a Starlight coach ticket. There are fewer flights to Redding and it's usually more expensive, but it'll get you there faster. Driving will get you to Sacramento and Redding well ahead of the San Joaquins too, let alone the Starlight, for the cost of about a tank of gas (plus/minus).

The Starlight is a more comfortable and scenic ride, but in terms of mobility – pure transportation utility – it's last on the list.



ParanoidAndroid said:


> So you're saying that transferring 3 or 4 times to get from LA to Southern Oregon is good mobility? I don't think so. The other option is having a bus run that, but Greyhound doesn't stop everywhere, either.
> 
> I point to the Transsiberian Railway. There are the big, prestigious transcontinental trains from Moscow to Vladivostok, but there are also countless other local trains and connecting trains effectively serving at least the more populated regions of the country. It's not a fragmented train-bus-train-bus transferring ordeal. Hell, there's a direct train from Moscow to every single CIS (former Soviet) nation, including all the -stan countries. We just need more frequencies to make the train a viable option for residents; an overnight LA to Sacramento train would do wonders for connectivity compared to the current Starlight schedule. Maybe add a few more stops, for example at Mt. Shasta, Yuba City, or Oakridge. But we need more trains, both long-distance and corridor-style, for trains to be useful. And of course, they should be fast enough and have infrequent delays.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> It is possible that what he meant to say is"terminate", not "stop",
> 
> However, the reason that it still remains relevant is that the Portland section because it is a section of the Builder, can continue to operate under the National System with national funding. If it was just a Portland - Spokane train it would cease to exist as soon as Washington and/or Oregon pulled the funding for it.


Thank you. "Terminate" is indeed what I meant, and that clears things up for me. So they might be considering chopping the EB to just Spokane east?


----------



## cpotisch

bretton88 said:


> I find the Russia comparison a bit disingenuous, about the only thing Russia has in common with the USA is size.


Isn't Russia way bigger than the US in size, and about half of the US in population. Either way, the size of the two nations really aren't similar at all.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

cpotisch said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that what he meant to say is"terminate", not "stop",
> 
> However, the reason that it still remains relevant is that the Portland section because it is a section of the Builder, can continue to operate under the National System with national funding. If it was just a Portland - Spokane train it would cease to exist as soon as Washington and/or Oregon pulled the funding for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. "Terminate" is indeed what I meant, and that clears things up for me. So they might be considering chopping the EB to just Spokane east?
Click to expand...

If Anderson were to chop up the EB, I highly doubt he would make it just Spokane east. More likely, he would try the same thing as with the SWC, with it probably being Spokane or Whitefish to Seattle/Portland and St. Paul or Grand Forks to Chicago that survives.


----------



## cpotisch

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> If Anderson were to chop up the EB, I highly doubt he would make it just Spokane east. More likely, he would try the same thing as with the SWC, with it probably being Spokane or Whitefish to Seattle/Portland and St. Paul or Grand Forks to Chicago that survives.


Do you highly doubt it, or do most people highly doubt it? I ask because if there isn't any concern that it gets truncated to Spokane, then what would be the relevance of Seattle/Portland to Spokane being less than 750 miles.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

cpotisch said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Anderson were to chop up the EB, I highly doubt he would make it just Spokane east. More likely, he would try the same thing as with the SWC, with it probably being Spokane or Whitefish to Seattle/Portland and St. Paul or Grand Forks to Chicago that survives.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you highly doubt it, or do most people highly doubt it? I ask because if there isn't any concern that it gets truncated to Spokane, then what would be the relevance of Seattle/Portland to Spokane being less than 750 miles.
Click to expand...

The fact that it could be canceled east of Spokane makes the fact that the route west of Spokane is less than 750 miles relavent. If Amtrak defines route as multiple train/bus services under the same name, they could run the trains from Seattle/Portland to Spokane and MSP to Chicago with a bus in between, despite both trains running under 750 miles.


----------



## cpotisch

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Anderson were to chop up the EB, I highly doubt he would make it just Spokane east. More likely, he would try the same thing as with the SWC, with it probably being Spokane or Whitefish to Seattle/Portland and St. Paul or Grand Forks to Chicago that survives.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you highly doubt it, or do most people highly doubt it? I ask because if there isn't any concern that it gets truncated to Spokane, then what would be the relevance of Seattle/Portland to Spokane being less than 750 miles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that it could be canceled east of Spokane makes the fact that the route west of Spokane is less than 750 miles relavent. If Amtrak defines route as multiple train/bus services under the same name, they could run the trains from Seattle/Portland to Spokane and MSP to Chicago with a bus in between, despite both trains running under 750 miles.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry! I was thinking Spokane west, but typed east. So I guess we agree but I typed the exact opposite.



cpotisch said:


> Thank you. "Terminate" is indeed what I meant, and that clears things up for me. So they might be considering chopping the EB to just Spokane *east*?


----------



## jis

It is interesting that AU has now moved along from "Adding fantasy trains" to "fantasies about chopping up every train".


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> When you look at the Southwest Chiefs route historically back in the 1952 Official Guide. You have four pairs of trains doing the Newton-Albuquerque route. Then there are two pairs on the southern transcon. But other parts of the route are seeing far more frequent service.
> 
> Chicago-Kansas City is seeing six or seven pairs of trains. Kansas City to different points in Kansas is also seeing that. South of Newton to Fort Worth sees three pairs a day. Once I finish mapping the Santa Fe passenger trains. I'll post a link to it so you can see what the route used to have.


Not just the Southwest Chief route...look (with envy), at almost any 1952 timetable in the Official Guide...and there were an incredible number of trains on mainline routes across the country...


----------



## KmH

Yep.

When Amtrak took over May 1, 1971 they did not continue some 50% of the intercity passenger rail routes that ran on and prior to April 30, 1971.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

jis said:


> It is interesting that AU has now moved along from "Adding fantasy trains" to "fantasies about chopping up every train".


If you're referring to my posts, I completely oppose chopping up the EB, but was just explaining how it could be done. However, I am surprised by the number of posters who have come out against LDs since the SWC news was made public.


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at the Southwest Chiefs route historically back in the 1952 Official Guide. You have four pairs of trains doing the Newton-Albuquerque route. Then there are two pairs on the southern transcon. But other parts of the route are seeing far more frequent service.
> 
> Chicago-Kansas City is seeing six or seven pairs of trains. Kansas City to different points in Kansas is also seeing that. South of Newton to Fort Worth sees three pairs a day. Once I finish mapping the Santa Fe passenger trains. I'll post a link to it so you can see what the route used to have.
> 
> 
> 
> Not just the Southwest Chief route...look (with envy), at almost any 1952 timetable in the Official Guide...and there were an incredible number of trains on mainline routes across the country...
Click to expand...

I know I've been plotting all of the inter-city trains operating in the Official Guide of 1952. So far the railroads I have completed are the Atlantic Coastline, Seaboard Airline, Southern Railway, and most of the A section. I'm still working on the Santa Fe who had 90 something timetables in their section. I'm in the 70s currently. After that it'll be the Baltimore and Ohio coming up next and some eastern roads.


----------



## railiner

Seaboard92 said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at the Southwest Chiefs route historically back in the 1952 Official Guide. You have four pairs of trains doing the Newton-Albuquerque route. Then there are two pairs on the southern transcon. But other parts of the route are seeing far more frequent service.
> 
> Chicago-Kansas City is seeing six or seven pairs of trains. Kansas City to different points in Kansas is also seeing that. South of Newton to Fort Worth sees three pairs a day. Once I finish mapping the Santa Fe passenger trains. I'll post a link to it so you can see what the route used to have.
> 
> 
> 
> Not just the Southwest Chief route...look (with envy), at almost any 1952 timetable in the Official Guide...and there were an incredible number of trains on mainline routes across the country...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know I've been plotting all of the inter-city trains operating in the Official Guide of 1952. So far the railroads I have completed are the Atlantic Coastline, Seaboard Airline, Southern Railway, and most of the A section. I'm still working on the Santa Fe who had 90 something timetables in their section. I'm in the 70s currently. After that it'll be the Baltimore and Ohio coming up next and some eastern roads.
Click to expand...

By 1952, many of those "higher numbered" timetables were for "freight service only", but I'd gladly like to "turn back the clock"


----------



## Seaboard92

railiner said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at the Southwest Chiefs route historically back in the 1952 Official Guide. You have four pairs of trains doing the Newton-Albuquerque route. Then there are two pairs on the southern transcon. But other parts of the route are seeing far more frequent service.
> 
> Chicago-Kansas City is seeing six or seven pairs of trains. Kansas City to different points in Kansas is also seeing that. South of Newton to Fort Worth sees three pairs a day. Once I finish mapping the Santa Fe passenger trains. I'll post a link to it so you can see what the route used to have.
> 
> 
> 
> Not just the Southwest Chief route...look (with envy), at almost any 1952 timetable in the Official Guide...and there were an incredible number of trains on mainline routes across the country...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know I've been plotting all of the inter-city trains operating in the Official Guide of 1952. So far the railroads I have completed are the Atlantic Coastline, Seaboard Airline, Southern Railway, and most of the A section. I'm still working on the Santa Fe who had 90 something timetables in their section. I'm in the 70s currently. After that it'll be the Baltimore and Ohio coming up next and some eastern roads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By 1952, many of those "higher numbered" timetables were for "freight service only", but I'd gladly like to "turn back the clock"
Click to expand...

Surpringly there were a lot of mixed trains. The Texas chief was table 70. I'll send you a link to it when it's done.


----------



## GBNorman

The only economic blow to be inflicted should all LD routes be discontinued will be to those whose investments and livelihoods are tied to the Private Car excursion industry. Otherwise, those who ride trains for "experiential" reasons, which of course means a lot of folk who participate at this and other passenger rail discussion sites, will have lost the means to pursue a pastime.

Amtrak employees will be affected, but not deprived of livelihood. Specific legislation, PRIAA 2015 provides no F&B employee will be "on the street". If other employees are adversely affected, Appendix C-2, now part of collectively bargained Agreements, provides for payments. If a displaced employee needs to relocate in.order to exercise seniority, then relocation expenses under New York Dock will apply.

There is no community on the Amtrak system inaccessible by highway; same of course cannot be said of Alaska, Canada, Russia, China, and of course others where rail represents the only way in or out. There are of course some folk who ride the LD trains for other than "experiential" reasons. There are the "can't drives", and a few who cannot fly account medical reasons. But the arguments of "I don't like flying or driving" simply do not justify $300M (Amtrak likes to say $700M) of taxpayer funds expended as well as the interference such trains cause to freight operations of investor owned railroads.

Being in the industry on A-Day, I assure you the washroom walls heard the intent was to have the LD trains gone by, say, 1976. That incidentally was the date that roads choosing not to join Amtrak could have petitioned regulatory authorities to discontinue their services. The 1979 Carter Cuts were the first step in an orderly discontinuance of the trains, as no end point having service lost such.

So I have no idea to what extent the apparent Anderson initiative to "whack 'em all" will be successful. I think he is of thought that funding for "the stuff that counts" i.e. reequipping, track and signaling upgrades, the Gateway project (to the extent such is REALLY an Amtrak project), creating the "Safety Culture" he fostered during his airline years, and seeking other economies and efficiencies about the System. As others have noted, Amtrak is a passenger transportation provider. Even if the need for funding to move trains over the road is reduced, the needs of infrastructure will never be satisfied. I'm certain that Anderson is of thought that if he shows an economic and efficient passenger railroad, the record levels of funding will continue.


----------



## lordsigma

What it will probably take to save the SWC is for the affected states to pony up more money to pay for the required work and to draft more comprehensive long term plans to satisfy Anderson’s demands. Anderson would probably continue the train if Amtrak had less skin in the game and received more state support and if there was a sustainable path to solving the problem. Whether the states should have to is another discussion but thats what it comes down to.


----------



## Seaboard92

Honestly with Anderson/Gardner reniging on this agreement I wouldn't be surprised if companies like Herzog, Patriot Rail, and other companies in the space start attempting to win over state supported routes from Amtrak.

Let's face it if I'm Washington State, California, Illinois, Missouri, or Indiana I would be looking actively for other options. As what's to say Anderson/Gardner who are happily operating a train today but decide in a month down the line "you know that million you pay us to run the train. That numbers changed five million please." And the scary thing is the price of the train might not go up they just want the money to sink into the messed up NEC.

The thing is they've proved they don't care about stated agreements. And there other companies who I'm sure would happily take over the business. California, Oregon, Washington, and North Carolina being likely the most lucrative for one of those companies. Each one owns their own fleet of cars, and has agreements with the class ones. Lastly they benefit from Amtrak not owning the stations so they can't do the crap they are doing with Metra and Iowa Pacific.


----------



## dlagrua

While we have seen Amtrak revenue rise, their subsidies rise, and their losses diminish; the response has been to cut back on amenities and service. If the SWC line is discontinued as intended; this might be the straw that broke the camels back for Anderson. The scary thing appears to be that Anderson is given free reign to do whatever he wishes without oversight by congress. If this is a correct assumption, then expect Anderson to change the name to the Regional Railroad Passenger Corporation. The man doesn't understand why Amtrak was created in the first place.


----------



## Seaboard92

What I think will sign his pink slip is if he band New Jersey Transit from the corridor due to PTC concerns.


----------



## cpotisch

lordsigma said:


> What it will probably take to save the SWC is for the affected states to pony up more money to pay for the required work and to draft more comprehensive long term plans to satisfy Anderson’s demands. Anderson would probably continue the train if Amtrak had less skin in the game and received more state support and if there was a sustainable path to solving the problem. Whether the states should have to is another discussion but thats what it comes down to.


The issue is that Anderson already abandoned several grants and deals with the states, and lost a lot of credibility in the process. So to say that he (and Amtrak) want even more money to save a route that shouldn't have needed saving in the first place, probably won't seem particularly authentic or appealing.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> lordsigma said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it will probably take to save the SWC is for the affected states to pony up more money to pay for the required work and to draft more comprehensive long term plans to satisfy Anderson’s demands. Anderson would probably continue the train if Amtrak had less skin in the game and received more state support and if there was a sustainable path to solving the problem. Whether the states should have to is another discussion but thats what it comes down to.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that Anderson already abandoned several grants and deals with the states, and lost a lot of credibility in the process. So to say that he (and Amtrak) want even more money to save a route that shouldn't have needed saving in the first place, probably won't seem particularly authentic or appealing.
Click to expand...

That is only partly true. While I categorically disagree with Anderson's approach we should be accurate about the facts of the situation. The facts AFAIK are:

1. The financial plan for continuing service is incomplete, with various parties pointing fingers at each other as to who is/should be responsible.

2. Amtrak failing to take responsibility for continuing service is not something that started with Anderson. It started with Boardman as we descended into this piecemeal attempts to fix this segment or that segment based on jerry-rigged plans for funding through a mix of uncertain TIGER grants, Amtrak, BNSF and small contributions from various other interested parties.

3. What Anderson changed AFAICT is that he has refused to continue this current jerryrigged arrangement and replace it with a more complete plan and commitments. His method is to withdraw from the last such arrangement, which IMHO is not very gentlemanly in that it breaks a gentleman's agreement.

4. I think it is also true that what he is looking for, he cannot get because of the nature of the funding process for all government agencies. Indeed if someone asked Anderson for a funding commitment for all of Gateway over 12 years, he could not produce one either. So he is being a bit disingenuous.

5. This what raises questions about his true intentions regarding the LD network. Again there, he may be deliberately trying to get the Congresspeople upset, so that they'd stop pussyfooting around, get off their butts and make a solid commitment to the LD network. Right now Congressional endorsement for the LD network is lukewarm at best what with their inability to fund even a small gap filling on the Gulf Coast.

Given all this, my guess is that irrespective of what happens to the SWC or Anderson, we may have come to a point that Amtrak will not continue as is for too much longer.

I suspect that Anderson is OK with making a Hail Mary pass on this. If it succeeds the future of Amtrak will become clearer. If he fails he will quit and let things be. We will just a get a proper even more incompetent Trump appointee. All in all things are not looking good no matter what happens.

The cogent thing for us to do at this point is to get the Congress people all aligned to recommit to the national network and legislate such. The rest has to then follow in terms of targeted funding for this (and possibly other) endangered routes. RPA has started this effort and it is moving along. Will it succeed or not only time will tell. Attempts to get Anderson fired by itself is unlikely to create a good solution to this problem, irrespective of whether it succeeds or not.

BTW, the Rail Runner PTC issue is the current iceberg that presents the greatest danger in a statutory sense. Anderson can huff and puff all he wants, but there is no statutory requirement for Amtrak to stop operating on the non-PTC sections between Dodge and Lamy, since those are all Exempted or exemptable, and it is hard to make an argument that things that have operated fine will suddenly stop doing so. Only the section between Lamy and Dailies becomes statutorily inoperable unless Rail Runner reduces its level of service on weekdays leaving room for the SWC, which at present they do not plan to. They plan to reduce just enough to be able to ask the FRA for an exemption. And all this business about using ATS etc. etc. is all possible only if Congress passes a law exempting that segment. The current PTC law is pretty water-tight giving no authority to the FRA to make exceptions, which FRA has pointed out to the Governor of NM in a letter a couple of weeks back. So question becomes, who is going to bell the NM cat?


----------



## cpotisch

dlagrua said:


> The scary thing appears to be that Anderson is given free reign to do whatever he wishes without oversight by congress.


He and the board can indeed do what they whatever they wish without oversight be congress, so as long as Amtrak meets established statutes and policies. That's nothing new.


----------



## jis

Seaboard92 said:


> What I think will sign his pink slip is if he band New Jersey Transit from the corridor due to PTC concerns.


He won't get an opportunity to do so since NJT and FRA have come to the conclusion that NJT will get a legal extension based on work that will be completed by December. NJT will meet the statutory requirements for getting an extension. Anderson has said that he will not run service that would be illegal to run under current law.

The fear before March was that NJT will not have enough locomotives and cab cars equipped to operate under ACSES to maintain service to Penn Station. After NJT's summer of pain with massive schedule disruption that is ongoing, it is now almost certain that NJT will have 100% hardware installation, as required for gaining an extension. That together with completion of cross-testing of ASES and ACSES, which is reportedly progressing well, will mean that NJT will be capable of operating on the NEC with full ACSES operational. Hence this whole issue becomes moot.


----------



## henrycjohnson

I have taken the Southwest Chief many times. I am incredibly concerned by the news that that train may be turned into three segments - one of which won't even be a train!

P.S. I'm new here as a member, but I've been on this site many times before, and decided I should finally join. Thank you for having me!


----------



## zepherdude

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/ea5078d3-5158-3e6d-803d-1b92aa9fa7d7/ss_amtrak-explores-ending.html

I found this on Yahoo. News just now. This eliminates the Bus, West.

Moderator Note: This topic "Amtrak Explores Ending Passenger Service from Dodge City" was merged with this existing topic.


----------



## frequentflyer

Seeing the SWC with three sleepers and five coaches on the Flagstaff and La Platta railcams, is that normal?


----------



## railiner

But seriously, ending at Dodge City? What a bizarre location to end, especially if the train maintains its current schedule to and from there...


----------



## railiner

frequentflyer said:


> Seeing the SWC with three sleepers and five coaches on the Flagstaff and La Platta railcams, is that normal?


I don't know what the seasonal consist is, now...could be some group movement? Scouts?

But then again, whenever any train is "on the block", that in of itself, generates extra "ride-it-while-you-can" business....


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Dodge City KS is a crew change point.

The initial chatter was a day light run is possible.

Dodge City to Albuquerque is travel basically during day light hours.

However general this is a poor plan. If you want to use PTC as excuse then send the train down to Amarillo on detour. Done it in the past, can do it again.


----------



## jis

Except for the Lamy - Dailies portion the PTC excuse is no excuse at all. It is just obfuscation.


----------



## RPC

jis said:


> Except for the Lamy - Dailies portion the PTC excuse is no excuse at all. It is just obfuscation.


...but if the eastern segment of the train is truncated at Dodge City instead of Lamy then Amtrak doesn't have to contribute the $3 million...


----------



## jis

RPC said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the Lamy - Dailies portion the PTC excuse is no excuse at all. It is just obfuscation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...but if the eastern segment of the train is truncated at Dodge City instead of Lamy then Amtrak doesn't have to contribute the $3 million...
Click to expand...

That is why the PTC bit is irrelevant to that discussion. It is just a non-excuse to try to justify something that would otherwise look like breaking of a commitment to all reasonable people.

The real solution is to reroute via Amarillo if a deal cannot be struck with Rail Runner to have them set aside a slot for the SWC. This is something that the good senator from New Mexico could work on in addition to blowing hot air and huffing and puffing about various other things.


----------



## bretton88

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/House-Democrats-warn-FRA-against-PTC-exemptions--55023

I don't know if anything will come of this, but it's just more of a headache for Amtrak, especially if this causes the FRA to take a closer look at existing waivers. It's definitely bad news for the Railrunner PTC request.


----------



## jis

bretton88 said:


> https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/House-Democrats-warn-FRA-against-PTC-exemptions--55023
> 
> I don't know if anything will come of this, but it's just more of a headache for Amtrak, especially if this causes the FRA to take a closer look at existing waivers. It's definitely bad news for the Railrunner PTC request.


I am hopeful that the current FRA will ignore that piece of dubious advice, given that it is entirely coming from the Democrats






Here is another example where Democrats are working hard, under the pretext of the elusive greater good, to make sure that the whole issue becomes moot due to discontinuance of service never to return.


----------



## SubwayNut

Ive been wondering what the plans were for the Music City Star, I see there just going to plan for an exemption as well.


----------



## jis

SubwayNut said:


> Ive been wondering what the plans were for the Music City Star, I see there just going to plan for an exemption as well.


Looks like they will need to eliminate a couple of frequencies, or bribe someone extra at FRA or something.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> RPC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the Lamy - Dailies portion the PTC excuse is no excuse at all. It is just obfuscation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...but if the eastern segment of the train is truncated at Dodge City instead of Lamy then Amtrak doesn't have to contribute the $3 million...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is why the PTC bit is irrelevant to that discussion. It is just a non-excuse to try to justify something that would otherwise look like breaking of a commitment to all reasonable people.
> 
> The real solution is to reroute via Amarillo if a deal cannot be struck with Rail Runner to have them set aside a slot for the SWC. This is something that the good senator from New Mexico could work on in addition to blowing hot air and huffing and puffing about various other things.
Click to expand...

It's funny that PTC, which is objectively good for safety and which would have prevented many derailments and crashes, is being weaponized and used as an excuse to chop up trains. Fun, isn't it.


----------



## DSS&A

I have always felt that the multi-billion dollar unfunded mandate was always means to kill some passenger trains under the disguise of "more safety" in addition to the train operational safety reasons stated publically. If the federal government truly believed it was a safety improvement, they would have found a way to provide a reasonable share of funding for passenger train operators from year one of the mandate. The small amounts recently provided funds may help slightly, but a true funding commitment was needed within the first four years after the mandate was passed if they truly believed it was a safety improvement.

The Feds were putting huge amounts of money into the new air traffic control system (NEXTGEN) to DEVELOP and INSTALL it when they not not providing one penny towards PTC. If safety was the true and only reason, they would have equivalent efforts to funds both PTC and the new air traffic control sysytem. The FED Department of Transportation did not do this. Also, NEXTGEN will reduce the operating costs for airlines.

Information on the FAA website: "Starting with our initial 2007 investments and continuing through to 2030, NextGen is projected to cost the FAA and taxpayers about $20.6 billion and aviation industry partners about $15 billion for new equipment and training.

Here is the breakdown of direct costs to the FAA and taxpayers:

$16 billion for facilities and equipment

$3.1 billion for operations

$1.5 billion for research and development"

BENEFITS: "The FAA estimates that NextGen's implemented improvements have accrued $4.7 billion worth of benefits from 2010-2017, which consists of $2.6 billion in decreased passenger travel time, $1.8 billion in lower aircraft operating expenses, and $300 million in safety benefits."

Link: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/faqs/#q7


----------



## jis

Unfortunately, all that huge amount of money in the "new" air traffic control system has not on the whole been bungled any less than the whole PTC episode. We are all still waiting for both to actually work in the way they are intended to. Yes bits and pieces work, but we are quite a ways from fully integrated operation. Hence the "alternate schedule" thing for another two years.


----------



## Tennessee Traveler

frequentflyer said:


> Seeing the SWC with three sleepers and five coaches on the Flagstaff and La Platta railcams, is that normal?


Actually, the SWC is currently running two regular sleepers and one transition crew sleeper and four coaches. In between is the dining car and sightseer lounge car.


----------



## lordsigma

I would say that the current ridership numbers being used to justify plans like this can only be taken with a grain of salt. It isn't that difficult for Amtrak to manipulate its ridership numbers to meet this narrative. An easy way is by tinkering with consists. If you intentionally and strategically run trains with less capacity at times you know demand is higher you can force lower ridership as you're going to have less cheaper seats and sleepers.


----------



## cpotisch

Tennessee Traveler said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing the SWC with three sleepers and five coaches on the Flagstaff and La Platta railcams, is that normal?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the SWC is currently running two regular sleepers and one transition crew sleeper and four coaches. In between is the dining car and sightseer lounge car.
Click to expand...

It could have been a special case, though. As railiner said, it could be some group movement or Boy Scouts.


----------



## niemi24s

While your supposition sounds plausible. . .



lordsigma said:


> If you intentionally and strategically run trains with less capacity at times you know demand is higher you can force lower ridership as you're going to have less cheaper seats and sleepers.


. . .do you have any evidence showing this has actually occurred?


----------



## amtrakpass

Regarding the previous post I did take the Southwest Chief from L.A. to Chicago during the height of spring Break time this year and the train was running with 2 coaches and 2 sleepers.

Coach was sold out, and sleeper prices for a roommette were the highest I'd ever seen them for the route.

I did not post the original question but I am also concerned that if Congress doesn't regulate prices charged or mandate reasonable length consists Amtrak will be able to reduce ridership on their own by charging way too high of prices to the point where the service is unpopular.


----------



## railiner

Another possibility is to move an extra cars(s) to/from Beech Grove for heavy maintenance?


----------



## KmH

Amtrak pricing is demand, or dynamic pricing, like the airlines but with far fewer levels.

As fewer and fewer seats/sleeper berths are available - prices go up.


----------



## lordsigma

No actual evidence, just saying it wouldn’t surprise me.


----------



## railiner

Perhaps this thread should be merged into the "Southwest Chief News" thread?


----------



## the_traveler

The 2 separate threads about the operation and future of the SWC have been combined together.


----------



## lordsigma

lordsigma said:


> No actual evidence, just saying it wouldn’t surprise me.


I will add though I was looking into taking an LSL trip while its in its temporary configuration this summer. I noticed an awful lot of sleeper sold out days and most remaining are in the highest most expensive buckets - really couldn't find an affordable time to go. And the consist seems to still be running with only two sleepers, yes the NY segment is absent but people still seem to be riding the train. When you see lots of sold out trains while Amtrak is whining about ridership it does make you suspicious.


----------



## jis

When has Amtrak whined about ridership on the Lake Shore?


----------



## lordsigma

I more was referring to Long Distance in general that was just an example. There has been very negative language lately in Amtrak performance reports since Anderson began regarding long distance ridership and blaming LD exclusively for lower ridership this year however Northeast Corridor ridership is also down. Merely saying its interesting when you see sold out trains but that type of rhetoric.


----------



## Bob Dylan

There is an interesting Post on today's (7/07)trainorders by the Vice Chair of the Rail Passenger Association, Carl Fowler.

In addition to discussing all of the the known and speculative info about Andersons proposal for chopping up the Chief Route into 2 Day Trains with a Bustitution bridge, he mentions that Amtrak is in negotiation with UP to reroute the Zephyr through Wyoming between Denver and Salt Lake City, thus eliminating the current routing through the Colorado Rockies between Denver and Salt Lake City!

"Say it ain't so Joe!"


----------



## TrakFan

California Zephyr

I sure hope that it the CZ is NOT rerouted. Going through the Rockies is a National Treasure. I believe that all must contact our legislators to prevent this and the chop up of the SWC. The dining car menu is right up theirs with it too. Our great country can rebuild in foreign countries...lets rebuild our National Passenger Railroad too .


----------



## cpotisch

Bob Dylan said:


> There is an interesting Post on today's (7/07)trainorders by the Vice Chair of the Rail Passenger Association, Carl Fowler.
> 
> In addition to discussing all of the the known and speculative info about Andersons proposal for chopping up the Chief Route into 2 Day Trains with a Bustitution bridge, he mentions that Amtrak is in negotiation with UP to reroute the Zephyr through Wyoming between Denver and Salt Lake City, thus eliminating the current routing through the Colorado Rockies between Denver and Salt Lake City!
> 
> "Say it ain't so Joe!"


Oh no. This is getting out of hand.


----------



## jis

Meanwhile the CZ out of Denver of yesterday is going through a rather bad fiasco of its own just outside Denver today.


----------



## KmH

Oh! How so?


----------



## jis

Two engine failures including HEP failure east of Fort Morgan after being 11 hours late into Denver due to detour via the Lucine Cutoff. Finally backed into Fort Morgan. The last I heard there was talk of backing it to Denver. Haven’t followed it since then. No HEP in 90+ temp could not have been pleasant in those Steel containers.


----------



## margo

We're planning a trip from Raton to LAX the end of Sept. Do you think the bus stitution will be in effect then? Thank you.


----------



## jis

margo said:


> We're planning a trip from Raton to LAX the end of Sept. Do you think the bus stitution will be in effect then? Thank you.


As far as we know, it is unlikely that any change will happen before the end of the year.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> margo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're planning a trip from Raton to LAX the end of Sept. Do you think the bus stitution will be in effect then? Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as we know, it is unlikely that any change will happen before the end of the year.
Click to expand...

It isn't 100% confirmed yet, right?


----------



## railiner

Bob Dylan said:


> There is an interesting Post on today's (7/07)trainorders by the Vice Chair of the Rail Passenger Association, Carl Fowler.
> 
> In addition to discussing all of the the known and speculative info about Andersons proposal for chopping up the Chief Route into 2 Day Trains with a Bustitution bridge, he mentions that Amtrak is in negotiation with UP to reroute the Zephyr through Wyoming between Denver and Salt Lake City, thus eliminating the current routing through the Colorado Rockies between Denver and Salt Lake City!
> 
> "Say it ain't so Joe!"


I wonder how he learned of something as radical as that?

What could possibly be the motive of doing something so unpopular? Is there a chance the UP wants to abandon the route?

First I have heard of any mention of this...hope it's just a wild rumor that someone started.....


----------



## chrsjrcj

There's a PTC gap on part of the Zephyr's route through the Rockies. If the rumor is substantiated, Anderson is holding true to his word about eliminating service over routes that do not have PTC.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/73068-ups-ptc-deployment-plans-and-status-as-of-dec-2017/


----------



## jis

That would either mean no more Coast Starlight or one that runs on the inland route via Bakersfield. Both options seem unlikely. I.e. no change seems most likely. And then there is the Cardinal of course. [emoji57]


----------



## NativeSon5859

Certainly would be an unpopular move from a rail enthusiast point of view, but from a pure transportation standpoint, wouldn’t this detour be the quicker route? I don’t know if this would help the CZ’s poor bottom line, but who knows? I suppose it would cause some to stay away, but if it shaved a couple of hours off the DEN-SLC trip time, it might lead to more business between those cities. Losing some popular mountain stops wouldn’t be good, though.


----------



## railiner

NativeSon5859 said:


> Certainly would be an unpopular move from a rail enthusiast point of view, but from a pure transportation standpoint, wouldn’t this detour be the quicker route? I don’t know if this would help the CZ’s poor bottom line, but who knows?


Let's face it...the CZ is all about the 'scenery', and for now at least, the total 'experience'. Take that away, and the trains value as 'transportation', would pale in comparison. Anyone wanting speed will drive or fly....


----------



## fredmcain

Bob Dylan said:


> There is an interesting Post on today's (7/07)trainorders by the Vice Chair of the Rail Passenger Association, Carl Fowler.
> 
> In addition to discussing all of the the known and speculative info about Andersons proposal for chopping up the Chief Route into 2 Day Trains with a Bustitution bridge, he mentions that Amtrak is in negotiation with UP to reroute the Zephyr through Wyoming between Denver and Salt Lake City, thus eliminating the current routing through the Colorado Rockies between Denver and Salt Lake City!
> 
> "Say it ain't so Joe!"


Bob,

You know, I have to say that this whole fiasco was created entirely by Congress. First they pass this PTC mandate but provide no funding for it. Then they yell and scream that they are losing Amtrak service in their Congressional districts. Duh!

You know, the thought has occurred to me - and this is _ONLY_ a thought - that Anderson is doing this deliberately in a kind of "Trump-like" move to get a better deal.

How many "gaps" are there on the CZ route and are they expected to be temporary or permanent?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## frequentflyer

NativeSon5859 said:


> Certainly would be an unpopular move from a rail enthusiast point of view, but from a pure transportation standpoint, wouldn’t this detour be the quicker route? I don’t know if this would help the CZ’s poor bottom line, but who knows? I suppose it would cause some to stay away, but if it shaved a couple of hours off the DEN-SLC trip time, it might lead to more business between those cities. Losing some popular mountain stops wouldn’t be good, though.


Yes, it would be quicker to take the "northern" route. The Old San Francisco Zephyr took this route and it was two to three hours quicker.

If this rumor comes true, I expect a day train to be talked about from Denver to Grand Junction.


----------



## fredmcain

'Course, the "You Pee" would have to go along with this change. With the heavy freight traffic on the Green River, WY line, they might not be all that thrilled over such an idea. How long is the "gap" on the ex D&RGW route? I can almost see it now. How 'bout train service from Chicago to Denver and Salt Lake to Oakland, with another "bus bridge" connecting the two?

I would almost bet the farm on one thing: If Anderson succeeds in implementing such so-called "bus bridges" it will completely destroy the long-distance trains. I wouldn't even give them two years because ridership will completely and totally collapse. People are _NOT_ going to do that, plain and simple. Either it is a back-door attempt to get rid of the L-D trains *OR* a clever ploy to get more money out of Congress to pay for PTC on these lines. Time will tell, I guess.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## railiner

frequentflyer said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly would be an unpopular move from a rail enthusiast point of view, but from a pure transportation standpoint, wouldn’t this detour be the quicker route? I don’t know if this would help the CZ’s poor bottom line, but who knows? I suppose it would cause some to stay away, but if it shaved a couple of hours off the DEN-SLC trip time, it might lead to more business between those cities. Losing some popular mountain stops wouldn’t be good, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be quicker to take the "northern" route. The Old San Francisco Zephyr took this route and it was two to three hours quicker.
> 
> If this rumor comes true, I expect a day train to be talked about from Denver to Grand Junction.
Click to expand...

The SFZ also bypassed SLC. And if they wanted to go even faster, they could revert to an all-UP Overland Route, bypassing Denver too, and get back to the City of San Francisco timings...

That won't happen...





http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track8/citysanfran193809.html


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly would be an unpopular move from a rail enthusiast point of view, but from a pure transportation standpoint, wouldn’t this detour be the quicker route? I don’t know if this would help the CZ’s poor bottom line, but who knows? I suppose it would cause some to stay away, but if it shaved a couple of hours off the DEN-SLC trip time, it might lead to more business between those cities. Losing some popular mountain stops wouldn’t be good, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be quicker to take the "northern" route. The Old San Francisco Zephyr took this route and it was two to three hours quicker.
> 
> If this rumor comes true, I expect a day train to be talked about from Denver to Grand Junction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SFZ also bypassed SLC. And if they wanted to go even faster, they could revert to an all-UP Overland Route, bypassing Denver too, and get back to the City of San Francisco timings...
> 
> That won't happen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track8/citysanfran193809.html
Click to expand...

Wow. About 39 hours from Chicago to Oakland. That's pretty amazing.


----------



## DavidJustinLynch

TiBike said:


> Anderson wasn't hired so "hundreds of people" could tell him "how to run a railroad". He was hired to tell hundreds of railroaders how to run a passenger transportation business. Emphasis on "business". He seems to be doing a good job of it.


It should not be a business. It is an amenity of a civilized country.


----------



## railiner

cpotisch said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly would be an unpopular move from a rail enthusiast point of view, but from a pure transportation standpoint, wouldn’t this detour be the quicker route? I don’t know if this would help the CZ’s poor bottom line, but who knows? I suppose it would cause some to stay away, but if it shaved a couple of hours off the DEN-SLC trip time, it might lead to more business between those cities. Losing some popular mountain stops wouldn’t be good, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it would be quicker to take the "northern" route. The Old San Francisco Zephyr took this route and it was two to three hours quicker.
> 
> If this rumor comes true, I expect a day train to be talked about from Denver to Grand Junction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SFZ also bypassed SLC. And if they wanted to go even faster, they could revert to an all-UP Overland Route, bypassing Denver too, and get back to the City of San Francisco timings...
> 
> That won't happen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track8/citysanfran193809.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. About 39 hours from Chicago to Oakland. That's pretty amazing.
Click to expand...

And the eastward Broadway Limited for a while ran Chicago to New York in 15', 30". See?...you were "born too late"


----------



## Seaboard92

Heck there was a day train Chicago to New Orleans too that did the run similar to the palmetto in time. It also made the century mark.


----------



## cpotisch

Seaboard92 said:


> It also made the century mark.


What do you mean?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

cpotisch said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also made the century mark.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...

100 MPH


----------



## MikefromCrete

The City of New Orleans, back in Illinois Central days, operated at 100 mph through certain areas in Illinois.


----------



## ehbowen

MikefromCrete said:


> The City of New Orleans, back in Illinois Central days, operated at 100 mph through certain areas in Illinois.


I was on an Amtrak _City of New Orleans_ in the Christmas 1981 time frame (In Other Words, the statute of limitations has long since expired), and we pulled into Carbondale 45 minutes late. The crew changed, and when we resumed our way south it was obvious that we were traveling faster than (at that time) I'd ever done on rails before. I sought out the conductor and asked him, privately, "How fast are we going?"

He answered, "The speed limit on this section of track is ninety miles per hour."

I said, "I didn't ask that. I asked, 'How fast are we going?'"

He said, "Knowing this engineer...probably about one seventeen!"

We were early into Cairo....


----------



## railiner

The "Good ole days"....






http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track1/cityneworl194706.html

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track5/panamaltd196801.html

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track5/broadway195607.html

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track2/orangeblossom194112.html


----------



## railiner

ehbowen said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> The City of New Orleans, back in Illinois Central days, operated at 100 mph through certain areas in Illinois.
> 
> 
> 
> I was on an Amtrak _City of New Orleans_ in the Christmas 1981 time frame (In Other Words, the statute of limitations has long since expired), and we pulled into Carbondale 45 minutes late. The crew changed, and when we resumed our way south it was obvious that we were traveling faster than (at that time) I'd ever done on rails before. I sought out the conductor and asked him, privately, "How fast are we going?"
> 
> He answered, "The speed limit on this section of track is ninety miles per hour."
> 
> I said, "I didn't ask that. I asked, 'How fast are we going?'"
> 
> He said, "Knowing this engineer...probably about one seventeen!"
> 
> We were early into Cairo....
Click to expand...

The road of:


----------



## cpotisch

ehbowen said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> The City of New Orleans, back in Illinois Central days, operated at 100 mph through certain areas in Illinois.
> 
> 
> 
> I was on an Amtrak _City of New Orleans_ in the Christmas 1981 time frame (In Other Words, the statute of limitations has long since expired), and we pulled into Carbondale 45 minutes late. The crew changed, and when we resumed our way south it was obvious that we were traveling faster than (at that time) I'd ever done on rails before. I sought out the conductor and asked him, privately, "How fast are we going?"
> 
> He answered, "The speed limit on this section of track is ninety miles per hour."
> 
> I said, "I didn't ask that. I asked, 'How fast are we going?'"
> 
> He said, "Knowing this engineer...probably about one seventeen!"
> 
> We were early into Cairo....
Click to expand...

That would have been running F40s and Superliners, right? How would anything even close to that be possible?


----------



## ehbowen

cpotisch said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> The City of New Orleans, back in Illinois Central days, operated at 100 mph through certain areas in Illinois.
> 
> 
> 
> I was on an Amtrak _City of New Orleans_ in the Christmas 1981 time frame (In Other Words, the statute of limitations has long since expired), and we pulled into Carbondale 45 minutes late. The crew changed, and when we resumed our way south it was obvious that we were traveling faster than (at that time) I'd ever done on rails before. I sought out the conductor and asked him, privately, "How fast are we going?"
> 
> He answered, "The speed limit on this section of track is ninety miles per hour."
> 
> I said, "I didn't ask that. I asked, 'How fast are we going?'"
> 
> He said, "Knowing this engineer...probably about one seventeen!"
> 
> We were early into Cairo....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would have been running F40s and Superliners, right? How would anything even close to that be possible?
Click to expand...

The train was running Heritage equipment...I believe it was recently refurbished (HEP) Heritage equipment. I don't know what locomotives were being used, but with 90 MPH limits it means that Cab Signals/ATS was still in service. I feel confident that the locomotives regularly assigned were equipped and geared accordingly.


----------



## frequentflyer

cpotisch said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> The City of New Orleans, back in Illinois Central days, operated at 100 mph through certain areas in Illinois.
> 
> 
> 
> I was on an Amtrak _City of New Orleans_ in the Christmas 1981 time frame (In Other Words, the statute of limitations has long since expired), and we pulled into Carbondale 45 minutes late. The crew changed, and when we resumed our way south it was obvious that we were traveling faster than (at that time) I'd ever done on rails before. I sought out the conductor and asked him, privately, "How fast are we going?"
> 
> He answered, "The speed limit on this section of track is ninety miles per hour."
> 
> I said, "I didn't ask that. I asked, 'How fast are we going?'"
> 
> He said, "Knowing this engineer...probably about one seventeen!"
> 
> We were early into Cairo....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would have been running F40s and Superliners, right? How would anything even close to that be possible?
Click to expand...

Heritage cars with F40s or P30s on the head end in the early 1980s. A F40 would run like a spotted ape.


----------



## frequentflyer

ehbowen said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> The City of New Orleans, back in Illinois Central days, operated at 100 mph through certain areas in Illinois.
> 
> 
> 
> I was on an Amtrak _City of New Orleans_ in the Christmas 1981 time frame (In Other Words, the statute of limitations has long since expired), and we pulled into Carbondale 45 minutes late. The crew changed, and when we resumed our way south it was obvious that we were traveling faster than (at that time) I'd ever done on rails before. I sought out the conductor and asked him, privately, "How fast are we going?"
> 
> He answered, "The speed limit on this section of track is ninety miles per hour."
> 
> I said, "I didn't ask that. I asked, 'How fast are we going?'"
> 
> He said, "Knowing this engineer...probably about one seventeen!"
> 
> We were early into Cairo....
Click to expand...

Ah, the days before "event recorders" in locomotives.


----------



## ehbowen

frequentflyer said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> 
> The City of New Orleans, back in Illinois Central days, operated at 100 mph through certain areas in Illinois.
> 
> 
> 
> I was on an Amtrak _City of New Orleans_ in the Christmas 1981 time frame (In Other Words, the statute of limitations has long since expired), and we pulled into Carbondale 45 minutes late. The crew changed, and when we resumed our way south it was obvious that we were traveling faster than (at that time) I'd ever done on rails before. I sought out the conductor and asked him, privately, "How fast are we going?"
> 
> He answered, "The speed limit on this section of track is ninety miles per hour."
> 
> I said, "I didn't ask that. I asked, 'How fast are we going?'"
> 
> He said, "Knowing this engineer...probably about one seventeen!"
> 
> We were early into Cairo....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the days before "event recorders" in locomotives.
Click to expand...

I had the chance to converse with a former Pere Marquette/C & O engineer named Sam Chidester, whose career spanned the 1920s to the 1970s. He told of an assignment, late in his career, where the dispatcher wanted him to get a late hotshot freight to its destination on time. He said, (not an exact quote, but close), "Sure I can, but I won't have time to load a fresh tape in the speed recorder!" Apparently there was already a tape in the recorder when he got to the cab, but he broke the seal, said, "Oops!", and yanked it out. He got the train to its destination on time and nobody ever breathed a word about the missing recorder tape.


----------



## railiner

I have ridden on UP's cab signaled speedway across Wyoming, on a late running SFZ No. 6., when in 90 mph territory, the mileposts were flying by every 36 seconds...


----------



## DavidJustinLynch

There is a Fire Anderson petition on change.orhlg


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> That would have been running F40s and Superliners, right? How would anything even close to that be possible?


At that time it would have been F40 and Heritage Fleet. F40's are quite capable of 103-110mph. So no problem getting to those speeds.


----------



## cpotisch

Thank you everyone for clarifying the equipment. Didn't know that the CONO ever used Heritage equipment. You learn new things every day.


----------



## Ryan

Amtrak started in 1971.

The first Superliners entered service in 1979.

What do you think they did for 8 years?


----------



## jebr

Ryan said:


> Amtrak started in 1971.
> 
> The first Superliners entered service in 1979.
> 
> What do you think they did for 8 years?


I was hoping everyone got cab rides included in their fare.


----------



## fredmcain

DavidJustinLynch said:


> There is a Fire Anderson petition on change.orhlg


Most interesting. Can you copy and paste a URL that would take us directly there?

Regards,

FMC


----------



## NativeSon5859

CONO didn’t see Superliners until

1994, or so, when the S2’s arrived.

Up until then it was Heritage fleet including the awesome Dome Coach. Not as awesome - the Dinette with the tray meal service.


----------



## ehbowen

NativeSon5859 said:


> CONO didn’t see Superliners until
> 
> 1994, or so, when the S2’s arrived.
> 
> Up until then it was Heritage fleet including the awesome Dome Coach. Not as awesome - the Dinette with the tray meal service.


Yeah, and the coach I was assigned to had these funky leg rests which cut into the bottom of your thighs. An hour or two of that was about all I could take. When the conductor came through and announced, "There's space available in the sleeper!", I was the first one on my feet. Never regretted it...my only time in a Heritage roomette.


----------



## KmH

The early life of Amtrak is known as the _*Rainbow Era*_ because the train consists were a mishmash of rolling stock contributed by the 20 passenger railroads Amtrak replaced.

By 1974 the new color scheme was painted on most Amtrak equipment.

The Amfleet cars were the first new locomotive-hauled intercity cars ordered by Amtrak, and the first new locomotive-hauled intercity cars built in the United States since 1965.

Amfleet I cars, designed for short-distance service, were built by Budd from the late 1970s and early 1980s.

An initial order for 57 cars in 1973 that were used to supplement the Metroliners on the Northeast Corridor grew to two orders totaling 642 cars, sufficient to re-equip all the services on the Northeast Corridor and many of the other routes around the United States.

Amfleet II cars, an order of an additional 150 cars completed between 1980–1983, were designed for long-distance service. They were the last intercity passenger cars built by Budd.


----------



## cpotisch

Ryan said:


> Amtrak started in 1971.
> 
> The first Superliners entered service in 1979.
> 
> What do you think they did for 8 years?


Hi-levels?


----------



## RPC

cpotisch said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak started in 1971.
> 
> The first Superliners entered service in 1979.
> 
> What do you think they did for 8 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi-levels?
Click to expand...

Nah, those stayed on the Southwest Limited (which finally drags the thread kinda sorta back on-topic).


----------



## Maglev

cpotisch said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak started in 1971.
> 
> The first Superliners entered service in 1979.
> 
> What do you think they did for 8 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi-levels?
Click to expand...

The trains equipped with the ex Santa Fe _El Capitan hi-levels _



RPC said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak started in 1971.
> 
> The first Superliners entered service in 1979.
> 
> What do you think they did for 8 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi-levels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, those stayed on the Southwest Limited (which finally drags the thread kinda sorta back on-topic).
Click to expand...

They were also on _The Sunset Limited _ and _The Lone Star._


----------



## cpotisch

RPC said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak started in 1971.
> 
> The first Superliners entered service in 1979.
> 
> What do you think they did for 8 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi-levels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, those stayed on the Southwest Limited (which finally drags the thread kinda sorta back on-topic).
Click to expand...

I thought the Southwest Limited used single-level equipment, and the El Capitan used Hi-Levels...?


----------



## bretton88

fredmcain said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an interesting Post on today's (7/07)trainorders by the Vice Chair of the Rail Passenger Association, Carl Fowler.
> 
> In addition to discussing all of the the known and speculative info about Andersons proposal for chopping up the Chief Route into 2 Day Trains with a Bustitution bridge, he mentions that Amtrak is in negotiation with UP to reroute the Zephyr through Wyoming between Denver and Salt Lake City, thus eliminating the current routing through the Colorado Rockies between Denver and Salt Lake City!
> 
> "Say it ain't so Joe!"
> 
> 
> 
> Bob,
> You know, I have to say that this whole fiasco was created entirely by Congress. First they pass this PTC mandate but provide no funding for it. Then they yell and scream that they are losing Amtrak service in their Congressional districts. Duh!
> 
> You know, the thought has occurred to me - and this is _ONLY_ a thought - that Anderson is doing this deliberately in a kind of "Trump-like" move to get a better deal.
> 
> How many "gaps" are there on the CZ route and are they expected to be temporary or permanent?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
Click to expand...

What Anderson is doing is a classic negotiating move in the private sector. In the airlines case: when they want subsidies/funding? Threaten drop service or kill the hub until they get the improvements or tax breaks. In sports teams case: Threaten relocation or folding until they get the tax breaks or bonds. It's not pretty or good PR, but it's been pretty effective for the private sector to get politicians to cough up funding. Maybe Amtrak will make good on it's threats, maybe it will back down, but I think there will be several more stages in this drama before we reach a resolution.


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> I thought the Southwest Limited used single-level equipment, and the El Capitan used Hi-Levels...?


Southwest Limited is what El Cap and the Super Chief together became under Amtrak.
Before that Santa Fe operated those two trains together with a mix of Hi-LeveL Coach+Lounge and low level Sleeper+Lounge+Diner but segregated sections train.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the Southwest Limited used single-level equipment, and the El Capitan used Hi-Levels...?
> 
> 
> 
> Southwest Limited is what El Cap and the Super Chief together became under Amtrak.
> Before that Santa Fe operated those two trains together with a mix of Hi-LeveL Coach+Lounge and low level Sleeper+Lounge+Diner but segregated sections train.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Thought that the Southwest Limited was the single-level first class train that was combined with the El Cap.


----------



## Trogdor

cpotisch said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the Southwest Limited used single-level equipment, and the El Capitan used Hi-Levels...?
> 
> 
> 
> Southwest Limited is what El Cap and the Super Chief together became under Amtrak.
> Before that Santa Fe operated those two trains together with a mix of Hi-LeveL Coach+Lounge and low level Sleeper+Lounge+Diner but segregated sections train.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. Thought that the Southwest Limited was the single-level first class train that was combined with the El Cap.
Click to expand...

That was the Super Chief. Amtrak kept the name for a little while, then Santa Fe forced Amtrak to drop the "Chief" name because the quality of service had declined, so the train became the Southwest Limited. Eventually, it became the Southwest Chief.


----------



## Anthony V

I wonder if this news would have any effect on efforts to finance the installation of PTC on the Rail Runner line, for better or worse. Tell me what you think.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1194626/rail-runner-gets-new-payment-plan.html


----------



## bretton88

Anthony V said:


> I wonder if this news would have any effect on efforts to finance the installation of PTC on the Rail Runner line, for better or worse. Tell me what you think.
> 
> https://www.abqjournal.com/1194626/rail-runner-gets-new-payment-plan.html


My guess is not. NM will just redirect the money saved to roads. The state is responsible for paying the construction bonds, but Rio Metro is responsible for operation and upkeep of Railrunner. Being that one of the reasons they used for backing out of the raton line purchase was "we won't have money for road upkeep!" I would be surprised if they diverted anymore money to Railrunner.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

fredmcain said:


> DavidJustinLynch said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a Fire Anderson petition on change.orhlg
> 
> 
> 
> Most interesting. Can you copy and paste a URL that would take us directly there?
> Regards,
> 
> FMC
Click to expand...

https://www.change.org/p/amtrak-have-richard-airline-ceo-anderson-removed-as-ceo-of-amtrak


----------



## KmH

Amtrak improved QoS to the point Santa Fe allowed Amtrak to call the train the Southwest Chief.


----------



## railiner

KmH said:


> Amtrak improved QoS to the point Santa Fe allowed Amtrak to call the train the Southwest Chief.


That's true, but if John S. Reed, (RIP), was still around today, bet they would take back the name again....


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak improved QoS to the point Santa Fe allowed Amtrak to call the train the Southwest Chief.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, but if John S. Reed, (RIP), was still around today, bet they would take back the name again....
Click to expand...

If the CL or LSL were called the "Capitol Chief" or the "Lake Shore Chief," I'm sure he would claw his way out of his grave and deal with Anderson personally.


----------



## MikefromCrete

railiner said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak improved QoS to the point Santa Fe allowed Amtrak to call the train the Southwest Chief.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, but if John S. Reed, (RIP), was still around today, bet they would take back the name again....
Click to expand...

Reed was probably the last railroad CEO to give a crap about passenger trains.


----------



## railiner

MikefromCrete said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak improved QoS to the point Santa Fe allowed Amtrak to call the train the Southwest Chief.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, but if John S. Reed, (RIP), was still around today, bet they would take back the name again....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reed was probably the last railroad CEO to give a crap about passenger trains.
Click to expand...

He certainly was among a small handful...such as William T. Rice (SCL)...both of those gentlemen languished hard over the eventual bottom line decision to 'join Amtrak'...


----------



## fredmcain

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidJustinLynch said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a Fire Anderson petition on change.orhlg
> 
> 
> 
> Most interesting. Can you copy and paste a URL that would take us directly there?
> Regards,
> 
> FMC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/amtrak-have-richard-airline-ceo-anderson-removed-as-ceo-of-amtrak
Click to expand...

Thank you ! BUT! ! ! ! Will this really help? I'd be glad to take a chance and sign it but I'm reluctant if it's just a gimmick. I seem to recall that change dot org was heavily involved in a lot of controversy a few years ago - I think they wanted to get George "Dubya" Bush out or something, didn't they? Can't remember exactly anymore but I do vaguely seem to remember that their efforts didn't go very far.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## fredmcain

cpotisch, on 10 Jul 2018 - 3:33 PM, said: "Nah, those stayed on the Southwest Limited (which finally drags the thread kinda sorta back on-topic)."

Here, here! I second the hint. Which leads me to the question, has anybody heard anything on the Southwest Chief issues the last few days? I have been "Googling" on Google news looking for items but found none.

The last substantial development I was able to find involved Senator Heinrich from New Mexico from about June 22nd, I think it was. Supposedly he was considering new legislation that would protect the Chief. I e-mailed him for more info but he did not respond. (No real surprise there since I'm not a New Mexico resident.)

Anybody have any good updates?

Regards,

Fred M. Dain


----------



## railiner

I too wonder about the value of those online petitions....

I wonder how many signatures on one of those, would equal the visit by an advocate to the office of their senator or representative to voice their concern, even if only to a staff member?


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> cpotisch, on 10 Jul 2018 - 3:33 PM, said: "Nah, those stayed on the Southwest Limited (which finally drags the thread kinda sorta back on-topic)."


Actually that was *RPC*...



RPC said:


> Nah, those stayed on the Southwest Limited (which finally drags the thread kinda sorta back on-topic).


----------



## fredmcain

cpotisch said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch, on 10 Jul 2018 - 3:33 PM, said: "Nah, those stayed on the Southwest Limited (which finally drags the thread kinda sorta back on-topic)."
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that was *RPC*...
> 
> 
> 
> RPC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, those stayed on the Southwest Limited (which finally drags the thread kinda sorta back on-topic).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ah, well, whatever. I thought it was a good point in any event - and tactfully made at that.

But! Anybody heard any new Chief news?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch, on 10 Jul 2018 - 3:33 PM, said: "Nah, those stayed on the Southwest Limited (which finally drags the thread kinda sorta back on-topic)."
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that was *RPC*...
> 
> 
> 
> RPC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, those stayed on the Southwest Limited (which finally drags the thread kinda sorta back on-topic).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, well, whatever. I thought it was a good point in any event - and tactfully made at that.
> 
> But! Anybody heard any new Chief news?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's no big deal. As to Chief news, if anyone learns anything new that is of note, I'm sure they'll post it, so we'll all have to just be patient.


----------



## looshi

I heard from a friend that Amtrak cancelled the assistant conductor position he had applied to out of the La Junta crewbase. That's probably not a good sign.


----------



## Seaboard92

I remember reading a story once a out an Illinois Central engineer once who on a twenty to thirty mile downgrade that was fairly straight looked at his fireman and said lets see what these e units can do. And they had it going about 113. So yeah it's possible to coax a locomotive up that high.


----------



## jis

Their governor was supposedly set for 116mph.


----------



## bretton88

Watch Colorado in this drama, there's a few interesting counter-ideas they're bouncing around, none of which might come to fruition. What I can say is they're pushing hard for a La Junta terminus if this breakup comes to pass. Colorado has an interesting bargaining position and may try to see what they can do with it.


----------



## jis

Does La Junta actually mean Pueblo? [emoji848]


----------



## KmH

No. It actually means "the joint" or "the meeting".


----------



## jis

It could eventually mean Denver [emoji12]


----------



## bretton88

I'm going to say my own opinion on this: it makes a lot of sense for Colorado to push for a Colorado terminus. Even La Junta leaves options open for Colorado to work with Amtrak on service alternatives/possibilities. A Dodge City terminus for the Chief is not nearly as useful to Colorado.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Rest assured NARP/RPA is on this...

Sign the Southwest Chief Petition!

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/add-your-name-to-the-save-the-southwest-chief-petition/


----------



## DSS&A

Thanks!! I signed it today and forwarded it to others. Please pass this link to as many people as possible.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

DavidJustinLynch said:


> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson wasn't hired so "hundreds of people" could tell him "how to run a railroad". He was hired to tell hundreds of railroaders how to run a passenger transportation business. Emphasis on "business". He seems to be doing a good job of it.
> 
> 
> 
> It should not be a business. It is an amenity of a civilized country.
Click to expand...

Well said. National passenger rail as a conventional business ended on A-Day. Passenger rail as a profit center ended long before that. Amtrak today is no more a profit driven business than I-10 or the FAA.



fredmcain said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidJustinLynch said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a Fire Anderson petition on change.orhlg
> 
> 
> 
> Most interesting. Can you copy and paste a URL that would take us directly there? Regards, FMC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/amtrak-have-richard-airline-ceo-anderson-removed-as-ceo-of-amtrak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you ! BUT! ! ! ! Will this really help? I'd be glad to take a chance and sign it but I'm reluctant if it's just a gimmick. I seem to recall that change dot org was heavily involved in a lot of controversy a few years ago - I think they wanted to get George "Dubya" Bush out or something, didn't they? Can't remember exactly anymore but I do vaguely seem to remember that their efforts didn't go very far.
Click to expand...

The while point of signing a petition is to join forces with strangers who share a common goal or concern. Nobody is promising that they'll never disagree with you on any other issue. Keep in mind that George "Dubya" Bush submitted budget proposals with zero dollars for Amtrak. If Congress had followed his lead Amtrak wouldn't even be here for Anderson to mess with. Luckily for you George probably doesn't read Change.org and has no idea who you are.


----------



## cpotisch

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Rest assured NARP/RPA is on this...
> 
> Sign the Southwest Chief Petition!
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/add-your-name-to-the-save-the-southwest-chief-petition/


Signed! I'm hoping that this is going to be a bit more affective than any of the vague nonsense petitions on change.org.


----------



## bretton88

cpotisch said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rest assured NARP/RPA is on this...
> 
> Sign the Southwest Chief Petition!
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/add-your-name-to-the-save-the-southwest-chief-petition/
> 
> 
> 
> Signed! I'm hoping that this is going to be a bit more affective than any of the vague nonsense petitions on change.org.
Click to expand...

Have change.org petitions ever been effective? I'm not arguing against it (sign away, show support for your causes), I'm just curious because I always hear about petitions with millions of signatures on them that accomplish zilch. Now the RPA petition might be more effective because it's targeted and RPA has Washington connections.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

cpotisch said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rest assured NARP/RPA is on this... Sign the Southwest Chief Petition!
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/add-your-name-to-the-save-the-southwest-chief-petition/
> 
> 
> 
> Signed! I'm hoping that this is going to be a bit more affective than any of the vague nonsense petitions on change.org.
Click to expand...

Complaining about the wording of petitions on change.org is a bit like complaining about the wording of an article on Wikipedia. If you know you can do better then you can start your own petition and word it exactly the way you think is best.



bretton88 said:


> Have change.org petitions ever been effective? I'm not arguing against it (sign away, show support for your causes), I'm just curious because I always hear about petitions with millions of signatures on them that accomplish zilch.


Has a major issue or serious problem ever been resolved by nothing more than a bunch of strangers spending ten or fifteen seconds signing a petition? No, of course not. Does that mean petitions are inherently useless? No, not at all. The point of a petition isn't to solve a problem all on its own, that would be ludicrous. The goal of a petition is to generate interest and attention, to join together otherwise disparate people and groups who happen to share a common goal or concern, and to push advocates into action. Even in the best of situations a petition is nothing more than an intermediate step in a much longer and far more involved process toward a meaningful resolution. In all likelihood any battle worth fighting for will include hundreds if not thousands of different petitions. Asking how much each individual petition actually helped is like asking which drop of water finally overwhelmed a damn. They each played their role.


----------



## lordsigma

Devil's Advocate said:


> DavidJustinLynch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TiBike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson wasn't hired so "hundreds of people" could tell him "how to run a railroad". He was hired to tell hundreds of railroaders how to run a passenger transportation business. Emphasis on "business". He seems to be doing a good job of it.
> 
> 
> 
> It should not be a business. It is an amenity of a civilized country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said. National passenger rail as a conventional business ended on A-Day. Passenger rail as a profit center ended long before that. Amtrak today is no more a profit driven business than I-10 or the FAA.
Click to expand...

Agree wholeheartedly. If they attempt to weaponize PTC on segments that have so little traffic that they are exempt they should be called out on it. And I hope people will see hypocrisy when it is used against the LD trains while state supported corridors that also have dark and PTC exempt areas are given a pass. All this with the chief and now rumors about rerouting the CZ due to PTC exempt area while in my area for example you have the Vermonter where the entire portion of the route that is unique to the train is PTC exempt and a decent chunk of that dark and will likely receive a pass because it fits more into Anderson’s vision of the trains he wants to run. And they are going to be ADDING trains to part of that PTC exempt corridor. I am a supporter of corridors and NEC and focusing on building those business lines but only if Amtrak’s National network is kept intact.


----------



## cpotisch

Devil's Advocate said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have change.org petitions ever been effective? I'm not arguing against it (sign away, show support for your causes), I'm just curious because I always hear about petitions with millions of signatures on them that accomplish zilch.
> 
> 
> 
> Has a major issue or serious problem ever been resolved by nothing more than a bunch of strangers spending ten or fifteen seconds signing a petition? No, of course not. Does that mean petitions are inherently useless? No, not at all. It simply means that millions of people still don't understand how basic advocacy is supposed to work or which tools are used for which purposes. The point of a petition isn't to solve a problem all on its own, that would be ludicrous. The goal of a petition is to generate attention, to join together otherwise disparate people and groups who happen to share a common goal or concern, and to push advoctes into action. Even in the best of situations a petition is nothing more than an intermediate step in a much longer and far more involved process toward a meaningful resolution. In all likelihood any battle worth fighting for will include hundreds if not thousands of petitions. Asking how much each individual petition actually helped is like asking which drop of water finally overwhelmed a damn. Each and every one of them was necessary to achieve the final result.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that petitions, if well implemented, can generate attention and cumulatively, make a difference. However, I'm just of the opinion that change.org is not a very effective venue for protesting Amtrak's decisions and stuff like that. On the other hand, NARP is in my opinion pretty much the only group that can actually apply real pressure towards Amtrak's leadership, and has a pretty good track record of making a difference with this kind of stuff.


----------



## Seaboard92

The thing about petitions is not if they do anything or not because like DA said their value is in the number of people they can connect. Politicians in Washington so look at numbers of people on a regular basis. Even if it's poorly worded the message that hey a million people want this carries some weight.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

It been report that the SWC is leaving a coach at Kansas City. However it is not a add on coach, it just one less traveling to LAX.


----------



## jis

Those must somehow get back to Chicago, otherwise Kansas City will have quite a collection of Coaches


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

jis said:


> Those must somehow get back to Chicago, otherwise Kansas City will have quite a collection of Coaches


No idea how. As the SWC delay east bound is less than 30 minutes. Arrive 7:24am leave 7:43a. No time to hook on PV so how does Amtrak get those cars back?


----------



## TinCan782

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> It been report that the SWC is leaving a coach at Kansas City. However it is not a add on coach, it just one less traveling to LAX.


On Trainorders yesterday...

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4598005


----------



## lordsigma

This sounds bizarre. I really hope this isn't just a way to artificially generate lower ridership and revenue for the train and worse OTP to fit the desired narrative of the executives that the train isn't worth it.


----------



## keelhauled

Without Boy Scout traffic, seems like there's a good chance that full coach does indeed run empty west of KC. Hopefully they find a home elsewhere for the extra coaches. It'd be three fewer in total I think?


----------



## bretton88

keelhauled said:


> Without Boy Scout traffic, seems like there's a good chance that full coach does indeed run empty west of KC. Hopefully they find a home elsewhere for the extra coaches. It'd be three fewer in total I think?


They're still using the coach for the Chief. Just dropping it at KC overnight.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

bretton88 said:


> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without Boy Scout traffic, seems like there's a good chance that full coach does indeed run empty west of KC. Hopefully they find a home elsewhere for the extra coaches. It'd be three fewer in total I think?
> 
> 
> 
> They're still using the coach for the Chief. Just dropping it at KC overnight.
Click to expand...

Yes, but by only running it to Kansas City only two cars are needed versus the five necessary for the extra car to make a full round trip to Los Angeles.


----------



## chrsjrcj

I believe there is a bit of schedule padding for #4 into Kansas City.


----------



## Palmetto

Theyused to fuel at Argentine Yard. Is that still happening?


----------



## Thirdrail7

Equipment is at a premium. They are trying something to free up equipment. You may see this train (and others) lose a car or two and short turn cars If the facilities can handle the moves,

Some of them can't.


----------



## keelhauled

At Chicago yesterday the Texas Eagle was listed as trains 21, 421, and 321. I take it there is a St. Louis cutoff coach as well?


----------



## jis

keelhauled said:


> At Chicago yesterday the Texas Eagle was listed as trains 21, 421, and 321. I take it there is a St. Louis cutoff coach as well?


St Louis cutoff Coach(es) (aka train 321) on the TE are nothing new or uncommon. We actually picked up two cutoff Coaches at St. Louis on Friday. Since we had two PVs in the back, the operation took a little while longer the usual. But fortunately we had arrived in St. Louis almost a whole hour early.


----------



## chrsjrcj

The Star may be a decent contender to lose a coach north of Jax too


----------



## jis

So we will just ignore the fact that one of its major segments is Raleigh to Washington/New York eh? Not to mention Orlando to north of JAX. I think that is a non-starter.


----------



## Thirdrail7

JAX wouldn't have the crews or time to make such a move, especially with coaches being on the head end. Besides, this is mostly a western and NEC thing.


----------



## chrsjrcj

They have the Carolinian. But I imagine the move is more targeted toward Superliners.

I forgot coaches are on the head end anyway.


----------



## chrsjrcj

Also, my Carolinian comment was tounge in cheek.


----------



## jis

Thirdrail7 said:


> JAX wouldn't have the crews or time to make such a move, especially with coaches being on the head end. Besides, this is mostly a western and NEC thing.


So what is causing this shortage of Superliners? Just old age driven side-lining of equipment at a rate faster than they can be fixed and returned to service? Or is it something else?


----------



## Tennessee Traveler

I don't think that is happening. If you watch both the LaPlata and Flagstaff cams, they always have the same number of coach cars so no indication that a coach car is removed and left in KC. Incidentally, this summer there a FOUR coach cars on each SWC train set.


----------



## greatcats

I am going to send messages to two of my Congressmen tonight. I am seeing red over their harebrained ideas with the SWC.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Thirdrail7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> JAX wouldn't have the crews or time to make such a move, especially with coaches being on the head end. Besides, this is mostly a western and NEC thing.
> 
> 
> 
> So what is causing this shortage of Superliners? Just old age driven side-lining of equipment at a rate faster than they can be fixed and returned to service? Or is it something else?
Click to expand...

Could be any number of causes, both legitimate and otherwise, but I've always wondered how long it would take for the never ending list of grade crossing incidents to begin taking their toll again after the primary repair grant period had wound down. I mean there's only so much you can do with a limited and perpetually shrinking resource. I have no magic bullet for Amtrak rolling stock. Does any mainstream passenger car manufacturer still make conventional speed long distance sleeper hardware anymore? Seems like a dying market that has little chance of surviving beyond whatever the next order may be.


----------



## Thirdrail7

DA summed it up but some of it has to do with Amtrak's priorities:

From the Empire Builder Timekeeping Struggles This Summer thread:



Thirdrail7 said:


> I think they are trying scrounge up equipment for another set, which is difficult with all of the PTC test trains, overhauls, refreshes, shopped equipment and sidelined equipment.. They are cutting cars on a few trains to free things up..


----------



## fredmcain

Looks like there might be some ripples of support for the _Chief _in the Senate.

http://www.hutchnews.com/news/20180725/us-senate-signals-support-for-southwest-chief 

_The U.S. Senate adopted an amendment to an appropriations bill on Wednesday that signals the bodies support for long-distance train service in the U.S., including the Southwest Chief._

_Senator Tom Udall, D-N.M., introduced amendment 3414 to House Resolution 6147, which was co-sponsored by Kansas Senators Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, and approved on 95-4 vote._

_The amendment comes after Amtrak advised federal lawmakers last month it was considering discontinuing through service of the Southwest Chief, which now travels from Chicago to Los Angeles, possibly ending the route at Dodge City and La Junta, Colorado, with a connecting bus in-between._

_“I am pleased the Senate is on record overwhelmingly supporting long-distance rail lines like the Southwest Chief and look forward to working with stakeholders and Amtrak to continue full service on the route for all Kansans,” Roberts stated in an email after the vote._

_Other sponsors of the amendment included Sens. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Cory Gardner, R-Colo., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M._

_H.R.6147 is the 2019 appropriations bill for Interior, Environment, Financial Services, and General Government._


----------



## chrsjrcj

Pretty good bi-partisan support and received an Aye from at least one senator in all 50 states.

The Nays being- Lee (R-UT), Paul (R-KY), Sassee (R-NE), and Toomey (R-PA), with McCain not voting (for obvious reasons). Lee and Paul are essentially libertarians, but I don't know Sassee and Toomey's MO.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Toomey (R-PA) has the reputation (at least across the river here in NJ) of being a very conservative Republican. The Wikipedia article on him has a list of his political positions on various issues.


----------



## cirdan

fredmcain said:


> Looks like there might be some ripples of support for the _Chief _in the Senate.
> 
> http://www.hutchnews.com/news/20180725/us-senate-signals-support-for-southwest-chief


That link didn't work for me, but this one does

http://www.hutchnews.com/news/20180725/us-senate-signals-support-for-southwest-chief


----------



## bretton88

chrsjrcj said:


> Pretty good bi-partisan support and received an Aye from at least one senator in all 50 states.
> 
> The Nays being- Lee (R-UT), Paul (R-KY), Sassee (R-NE), and Toomey (R-PA), with McCain not voting (for obvious reasons). Lee and Paul are essentially libertarians, but I don't know Sassee and Toomey's MO.


Those four are the libertarian wing of the Republican senate, so they probably wouldn't vote Yes on anything Amtrak related. I will say this, while not guaranteeing the SWC survives, it defines what "national" means for Amtrak. There where rumors that recent guidance from Congress (specifically the house and DOT) had been encouraging Amtrak to take an alternative view of what national meant compared to the way Amtrak had traditionally viewed it as.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

No teeth to it but a shot across the bow. Its the appropriate first step. Im hoping Anderson and company take the resolution to heart. Doesnt change the fact Anderson and this management are the wrong people for the job.

Great to see bi partisan support!


----------



## looshi

I've said this before. The same Congress that requires Amtrak to make a profit will also have no problem requiring Amtrak to run unprofitable trains if they choose. Management should know that by now.


----------



## bretton88

It will be interesting to see what happens in reconciliation with the house on this.


----------



## TinCan782

I'd like to think my letter writing to California's Senators Feinstein and Harris did some good...

*Letter To Amtrak: Keep The Southwest Chief*

_A bipartisan group of Senators are urging Amtrak to uphold its side of a longstanding public-private partnership to continue operating the Southwest Chief passenger train and long-distance passenger service, particularly through rural communities. The Southwest Chief runs daily between Chicago and Los Angeles and connects towns and cities in Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and California._

https://sangrechronicle.com/letter-to-amtrak-keep-the-southwest-chief/


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

We cant stop calling or writing, even with the facts on our side. Squeaky wheel...


----------



## frequentflyer

looshi said:


> I've said this before. The same Congress that requires Amtrak to make a profit will also have no problem requiring Amtrak to run unprofitable trains if they choose. Management should know that by now.


This. It’s why Amtrak gets the management it does.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Has congress said they expect amtrak to make a profit? Congress doesn't want Amtrak losing money on food and beverage service, which seems reasonable.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Has congress said they expect amtrak to make a profit? Congress doesn't want Amtrak losing money on food and beverage service, which seems reasonable.


Why is that reasonable? F&B is an ancillary service to increase ridership and farebox recovery, not a self standing or core service provided by Amtrak. Should toilet service also be accounted for separately?


----------



## zephyr17

crescent-zephyr said:


> Has congress said they expect amtrak to make a profit? Congress doesn't want Amtrak losing money on food and beverage service, which seems reasonable.


It is in the initial legislation creating Amtrak (National Rail Passenger Act of 1970) and has never been removed.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

zephyr17 said:


> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has congress said they expect amtrak to make a profit? Congress doesn't want Amtrak losing money on food and beverage service, which seems reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> It is in the initial legislation creating Amtrak (National Rail Passenger Act of 1970) and has never been removed.
Click to expand...

Ah... interesting. I haven't heard of congress trying to get Amtrak to be profitable in recent years though. Have I been missing something?


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has congress said they expect amtrak to make a profit? Congress doesn't want Amtrak losing money on food and beverage service, which seems reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that reasonable? F&B is an ancillary service to increase ridership and farebox recovery, not a self standing or core service provided by Amtrak. Should toilet service also be accounted for separately?
Click to expand...

Well based on the condition of the windows on the last few Amtrak trains I've ridden... it doesn't seem that Amtrak is too concerned with keeping things clean. Restrooms have always been hit or miss on the trains too so I hope they aren't paying too much to keep them clean.

The whole F&B thing I can see both ways... i think there is room for a middle ground with no table service, but an LSA and a chef on board the train preparing a few hot items. But as it was, Amtrak was losing alot of money on food service employees that are not really necessary.

Did the Silver Star lose riders when they dropped the diner?

Did the City of New Orleans lose riders when they dropped the regular diner menu?


----------



## looshi

crescent-zephyr said:


> Ah... interesting. I haven't heard of congress trying to get Amtrak to be profitable in recent years though. Have I been missing something?


The current language in PRIIA directs Amtrak to "minimize the need for federal subsidies" but the intent is the same. Anderson has referenced that clause in defense of some of the cuts that have been proposed or made.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has congress said they expect amtrak to make a profit? Congress doesn't want Amtrak losing money on food and beverage service, which seems reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that reasonable? F&B is an ancillary service to increase ridership and farebox recovery, not a self standing or core service provided by Amtrak. Should toilet service also be accounted for separately?
Click to expand...

Don't give them any ideas.


----------



## allanorn

Been reading the thread for the past couple of days.

If someone’s looking to book a SWC trip, what’s the current suggestion? I’m looking at Cardinal + SWC in mid-November, which means I should have no intermediate buses but food is potentially changing?


----------



## desertflyer

The RPA just updated their blog with a post about the SWC being saved for now. https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/a-win-for-the-national-network-and-the-southwest-chief/

Excerpt (emphasis mine):



> The Senate voted today to pass a funding bill that includes $2.5 billion for passenger rail and ensures the Southwest Chief continues along its established route, *turning back an Amtrak proposal to fragment the service with a bus-bridge*.


----------



## bretton88

desertflyer said:


> The RPA just updated their blog with a post about the SWC being saved for now. https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/a-win-for-the-national-network-and-the-southwest-chief/
> 
> Excerpt (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate voted today to pass a funding bill that includes $2.5 billion for passenger rail and ensures the Southwest Chief continues along its established route, *turning back an Amtrak proposal to fragment the service with a bus-bridge*.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is a victory or not. If there's dedicated funding in it for the SWC it is a victory, otherwise it's just the hollow resolution.


----------



## chrsjrcj

> SA 3665. Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. UDALL, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. GARDNER, and Mr. BENNET) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3399 proposed by Mr. SHELBY to the bill H.R. 6147, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 464, line 24, strike ‘‘regulation.’’ and insert the following: ‘‘regulation: Provided further, That not less than $50,000,000 of the amount provided under this heading shall be for capital expenses related to safety improvements, maintenance, and the nonFederal match for discretionary Federal grant programs to enable continued passenger rail operations on long-distance routes (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code) on which Amtrak is the sole tenant of the host railroad and positive train control systems are not required by law (including regulations): Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading shall be used by Amtrak to give notice under subsection (a) or (b) of section 24706 of title 49, United States Code, with respect to long-distance routes (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code) on which Amtrak is the sole tenant of the host railroad and positive train control systems are not required by law (including regulations), or otherwise initiate discontinuance of, reduce the frequency of, suspend, or substantially alter the schedule or route of rail service on any portion of such route operated in fiscal year 2018, including implementation of service permitted by section 24305(a)(3)(A) of title 49, United States Code, in lieu of rail service.’’.


https://www.congress.gov/crec/2018/07/26/CREC-2018-07-26-pt1-PgS5429.pdf

I can't figure out if the amendment to staff stations was ever voted on.


----------



## acelafan

It's a positive step, for sure. Guess we'll see what happens in the House and then the final reconciliation.


----------



## bretton88

chrsjrcj said:


> SA 3665. Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. UDALL, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. GARDNER, and Mr. BENNET) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3399 proposed by Mr. SHELBY to the bill H.R. 6147, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 464, line 24, strike ‘‘regulation.’’ and insert the following: ‘‘regulation: Provided further, That not less than $50,000,000 of the amount provided under this heading shall be for capital expenses related to safety improvements, maintenance, and the nonFederal match for discretionary Federal grant programs to enable continued passenger rail operations on long-distance routes (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code) on which Amtrak is the sole tenant of the host railroad and positive train control systems are not required by law (including regulations): Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading shall be used by Amtrak to give notice under subsection (a) or (b) of section 24706 of title 49, United States Code, with respect to long-distance routes (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code) on which Amtrak is the sole tenant of the host railroad and positive train control systems are not required by law (including regulations), or otherwise initiate discontinuance of, reduce the frequency of, suspend, or substantially alter the schedule or route of rail service on any portion of such route operated in fiscal year 2018, including implementation of service permitted by section 24305(a)(3)(A) of title 49, United States Code, in lieu of rail service.’’.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/crec/2018/07/26/CREC-2018-07-26-pt1-PgS5429.pdf
> 
> I can't figure out if the amendment to staff stations was ever voted on.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading this right, is that 50 million for work on the route? If so, that's a big win for Amtrak


----------



## chrsjrcj

And it also sounds like Amtrak cannot use lack of PTC as a reasoning to discontinue service.


----------



## Larry H.

crescent-zephyr said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has congress said they expect amtrak to make a profit? Congress doesn't want Amtrak losing money on food and beverage service, which seems reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that reasonable? F&B is an ancillary service to increase ridership and farebox recovery, not a self standing or core service provided by Amtrak. Should toilet service also be accounted for separately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well based on the condition of the windows on the last few Amtrak trains I've ridden... it doesn't seem that Amtrak is too concerned with keeping things clean. Restrooms have always been hit or miss on the trains too so I hope they aren't paying too much to keep them clean.
> 
> The whole F&B thing I can see both ways... i think there is room for a middle ground with no table service, but an LSA and a chef on board the train preparing a few hot items. But as it was, Amtrak was losing alot of money on food service employees that are not really necessary.
> 
> Did the Silver Star lose riders when they dropped the diner?
> 
> Did the City of New Orleans lose riders when they dropped the regular diner menu?
> 
> I can say that when we rode the City of New Orleans a month or so back the food was nasty, the worst I have ever had onboard a diner. It certainly doesn't make one want to think of spending the kind of money that it cost for sleepers and then have to put up with unpleasant meals for several days or more. I know its not the past, but when you view you tube the various 50's and earlier movies about name brand trains promoting rail service they make a big deal of giving the passenger the quality of food they would expect from a fine hotel or restaurant. They knew you had to have amenities that would help draw customers to your route. Granted they all fell apart, but times are changing and Rail service is again a growing choice for some travelers. Hardly the time to run them off with poor food and especially boxed meals for days on end.
Click to expand...


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I agree the City of New Orleans food is terrible. The boxed meals looks like a huge improvement.. hopefully the City gets them ASAP.


----------



## CHvision

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/a-win-for-the-national-network-and-the-southwest-chief/


----------



## greatcats

I will be riding the CONO in December coach from New Orleans to Chicago. I intend to have a good meal before departing New Orleans and other than maybe a snack and drink, don’t intend to bother with their lousy food service.


----------



## fredmcain

bretton88 said:


> desertflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RPA just updated their blog with a post about the SWC being saved for now. https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/a-win-for-the-national-network-and-the-southwest-chief/
> 
> Excerpt (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate voted today to pass a funding bill that includes $2.5 billion for passenger rail and ensures the Southwest Chief continues along its established route, *turning back an Amtrak proposal to fragment the service with a bus-bridge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a victory or not. If there's dedicated funding in it for the SWC it is a victory, otherwise it's just the hollow resolution.
Click to expand...

And another thing - does this have to pass the House yet? If so, it's far from a "done deal".

-FMC


----------



## Palmetto

fredmcain said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> desertflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RPA just updated their blog with a post about the SWC being saved for now. https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/a-win-for-the-national-network-and-the-southwest-chief/
> 
> Excerpt (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate voted today to pass a funding bill that includes $2.5 billion for passenger rail and ensures the Southwest Chief continues along its established route, *turning back an Amtrak proposal to fragment the service with a bus-bridge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a victory or not. If there's dedicated funding in it for the SWC it is a victory, otherwise it's just the hollow resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And another thing - does this have to pass the House yet? If so, it's far from a "done deal".
> 
> -FMC
Click to expand...

Yes, now dickering needs to be done between the House and the Senate.


----------



## bretton88

So there's (minimum) 50 million in this bill for the Raton line. Plus the existing Build grant (which Amtrak is required to spend the 3 million matching funds). So that means 75ish million for the Raton line. That's not bad. I would say Anderson's negotiating worked, though I do suspect this won't be the last word. Hopefully this will give impetus to the states, Amtrak, and BNSF to work out a business plan for this line


----------



## railiner

Palmetto said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> desertflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RPA just updated their blog with a post about the SWC being saved for now. https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/a-win-for-the-national-network-and-the-southwest-chief/
> 
> Excerpt (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate voted today to pass a funding bill that includes $2.5 billion for passenger rail and ensures the Southwest Chief continues along its established route, *turning back an Amtrak proposal to fragment the service with a bus-bridge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a victory or not. If there's dedicated funding in it for the SWC it is a victory, otherwise it's just the hollow resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And another thing - does this have to pass the House yet? If so, it's far from a "done deal".
> 
> -FMC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, now dickering needs to be done between the House and the Senate.
Click to expand...

What about The Prez signing off on it? Any problems possible, there? Hope not...he did claim to be "for restoring infrastructure"....


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

The Prez is irrelevant at this point. Literally all hot air at this point.


----------



## cpotisch

keelhauled said:


> At Chicago yesterday the Texas Eagle was listed as trains 21, 421, and 321. I take it there is a St. Louis cutoff coach as well?


21/22 is the normal CHI-SAS Texas Eagle. 421/422 are the CHI-LAX through cars. 321/322 is the extra CHI-STL coach. It’s been this way for years.


----------



## cpotisch

allanorn said:


> Been reading the thread for the past couple of days.
> 
> If someone’s looking to book a SWC trip, what’s the current suggestion? I’m looking at Cardinal + SWC in mid-November, which means I should have no intermediate buses but food is potentially changing?


Book and keep your fingers crossed. Then raise hell with customer relations if they cancel it.


----------



## jis

Now we are talking!

Here is the exact language of the amendment:



> *SA 3665. Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. UDALL, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. GARDNER, and Mr. BENNET) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3399 proposed by Mr. SHELBY to the bill H.R. 6147, making appropriations for the Department
> of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:*
> 
> *
> On page 464, line 24, strike ‘‘regulation.’’ and insert the following: ‘‘regulation:*
> 
> *Provided further, That not less than $50,000,000 of* *the amount provided under this heading* *shall be for capital expenses related to safety* *improvements, maintenance, and the non-Federal match for discretionary Federal grant programs to enable continued passenger* *rail operations on long-distance* *routes *(as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code) *on which Amtrak is the sole tenant of the host railroad and positive train control systems are not required by law** (including regulations)*:
> 
> *Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading shall be used by Amtrak to give notice under subsection (a) or (b) of section 24706 of title 49, United States Code, with respect to long-distance routes (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code) on which Amtrak is the sole tenant of the host railroad and positive train control systems are not required by law (including regulations), or otherwise initiate discontinuance of, reduce the frequency of, suspend, or substantially alter the schedule or route of rail service on any portion of such route operated in fiscal year 2018, including implementation of service permitted by section 24305(a)(3)(A) of title 49, United States Code, in lieu of rail service.’’.*


It basically bans discontinuing the SWC on the Colorado - New Mexico section that is threatened by the Anderson regime, and directs spending of at least $50 million to fix it up. Also disallows using lack of PTC as an excuse for that segment.

This is the sort of language I was looking for.

However, they need to go further and protect the other segments of the LD network threatened by the unreasonable PTC stance taken by the Anderson regime in this case. There are such segments affecting the CZ, the CS, the Cardinal and possibly others. Of course there is the case of the Vermonter, and indeed the Lake Shore Limited Boston Section, since Amtrak's very own Post Road Connector is apparently lacking.

It is quite clear that whatever his motivation, Anderson and his regime cannot be trusted, since he has tried to use tired old arguments regarding cost per rider and absurd unexplained cost allocations. It makes sense to challenge every attempt to use arguments based on known jiggery-pokery with numbers.

This is not to say that many aspects of Amtrak need not be rethought. But the methods being used so far appear to be quite suspect.

In any case, if this was all a posturing to jiggle lose some directed funding for the Raton route, that appears to be succeeding. Although there is still the reconciliation with the House THUD Bill to go.


----------



## JRR

crescent-zephyr said:


> I agree the City of New Orleans food is terrible. The boxed meals looks like a huge improvement.. hopefully the City gets them ASAP.


Just rode both and I’ll take the CONO over the CL. The sausage biscuit wasn’t bad and a big improvement over the offering on the CL. The short rib wasn’t bad except for being way to salty. My wife didn’t like the so-called Caesar Salad on the CL but did say the chicken was ok.


----------



## tonijustine

jis said:


> Now we are talking!
> 
> Here is the exact language of the amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SA 3665. Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. UDALL, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. GARDNER, and Mr. BENNET) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3399 proposed by Mr. SHELBY to the bill H.R. 6147, making appropriations for the Department *
> 
> of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> On page 464, line 24, strike ‘‘regulation.’’ and insert the following: ‘‘regulation:
> 
> *Provided further, That not less than $50,000,000 of* *the amount provided under this heading* *shall be for capital expenses related to safety* *improvements, maintenance, and the non-Federal match for discretionary Federal grant programs to enable continued passenger* *rail operations on long-distance* *routes *(as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code) *on which Amtrak is the sole tenant of the host railroad and positive train control systems are not required by law** (including regulations)*:
> 
> *Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading shall be used by Amtrak to give notice under subsection (a) or (b) of section 24706 of title 49, United States Code, with respect to long-distance routes (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code) on which Amtrak is the sole tenant of the host railroad and positive train control systems are not required by law (including regulations), or otherwise initiate discontinuance of, reduce the frequency of, suspend, or substantially alter the schedule or route of rail service on any portion of such route operated in fiscal year 2018, including implementation of service permitted by section 24305(a)(3)(A) of title 49, United States Code, in lieu of rail service.’’.*
> 
> 
> 
> It basically bans discontinuing the SWC on the Colorado - New Mexico section that is threatened by the Anderson regime, and directs spending of at least $50 million to fix it up. Also disallows using lack of PTC as an excuse for that segment.
> This is the sort of language I was looking for.
> 
> However, they need to go further and protect the other segments of the LD network threatened by the unreasonable PTC stance taken by the Anderson regime in this case. There are such segments affecting the CZ, the CS, the Cardinal and possibly others. Of course there is the case of the Vermonter, and indeed the Lake Shore Limited Boston Section, since Amtrak's very own Post Road Connector is apparently lacking.
> 
> It is quite clear that whatever his motivation, Anderson and his regime cannot be trusted, since he has tried to use tired old arguments regarding cost per rider and absurd unexplained cost allocations. It makes sense to challenge every attempt to use arguments based on known jiggery-pokery with numbers.
> 
> This is not to say that many aspects of Amtrak need not be rethought. But the methods being used so far appear to be quite suspect.
> 
> In any case, if this was all a posturing to jiggle lose some directed funding for the Raton route, that appears to be succeeding. Although there is still the reconciliation with the House THUD Bill to go.
Click to expand...

So playing Devil’s Advocate...what if Anderson isn’t incompetent but a genius and knew that threats of this nature would get the populace riled up and force Congress to act?

Congress grilled him earlier this year about safety standards. He can’t be the one to ignore that kind of public pressure but I’d be like “be careful what you wish for” and take a hardline stance and then point back to Congress and make them fix it.

Same with F&B. I can tell you what you are demanding happen is bad for business or I can do exactly as you say and then when it proves I was right, I get the chance to actually fix it.

I don’t know, but isn’t it an intriguing thought? If Congress thinks they know how to run a railroad, then give them enough rope to hang themselves.


----------



## bretton88

jis said:


> Now we are talking!
> 
> Here is the exact language of the amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SA 3665. Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. UDALL, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. GARDNER, and Mr. BENNET) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3399 proposed by Mr. SHELBY to the bill H.R. 6147, making appropriations for the Department *
> 
> of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> On page 464, line 24, strike ‘‘regulation.’’ and insert the following: ‘‘regulation:
> 
> *Provided further, That not less than $50,000,000 of* *the amount provided under this heading* *shall be for capital expenses related to safety* *improvements, maintenance, and the non-Federal match for discretionary Federal grant programs to enable continued passenger* *rail operations on long-distance* *routes *(as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code) *on which Amtrak is the sole tenant of the host railroad and positive train control systems are not required by law** (including regulations)*:
> 
> *Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading shall be used by Amtrak to give notice under subsection (a) or (b) of section 24706 of title 49, United States Code, with respect to long-distance routes (as defined in section 24102 of title 49, United States Code) on which Amtrak is the sole tenant of the host railroad and positive train control systems are not required by law (including regulations), or otherwise initiate discontinuance of, reduce the frequency of, suspend, or substantially alter the schedule or route of rail service on any portion of such route operated in fiscal year 2018, including implementation of service permitted by section 24305(a)(3)(A) of title 49, United States Code, in lieu of rail service.’’.*
> 
> 
> 
> It basically bans discontinuing the SWC on the Colorado - New Mexico section that is threatened by the Anderson regime, and directs spending of at least $50 million to fix it up. Also disallows using lack of PTC as an excuse for that segment.
> This is the sort of language I was looking for.
> 
> However, they need to go further and protect the other segments of the LD network threatened by the unreasonable PTC stance taken by the Anderson regime in this case. There are such segments affecting the CZ, the CS, the Cardinal and possibly others. Of course there is the case of the Vermonter, and indeed the Lake Shore Limited Boston Section, since Amtrak's very own Post Road Connector is apparently lacking.
> 
> It is quite clear that whatever his motivation, Anderson and his regime cannot be trusted, since he has tried to use tired old arguments regarding cost per rider and absurd unexplained cost allocations. It makes sense to challenge every attempt to use arguments based on known jiggery-pokery with numbers.
> 
> This is not to say that many aspects of Amtrak need not be rethought. But the methods being used so far appear to be quite suspect.
> 
> In any case, if this was all a posturing to jiggle lose some directed funding for the Raton route, that appears to be succeeding. Although there is still the reconciliation with the House THUD Bill to go.
Click to expand...

The CZ may be in more trouble than just no PTC. Take a look at Fred Fraileys piece, I can verify UP is eyeing a downgrade of the Moffat route, though the timeline is not established. It could be many years in the future, it could be tomorrow. There's a reason there's discussions about a Wyoming reroute.


----------



## keelhauled

bretton88 said:


> The CZ may be in more trouble than just no PTC. Take a look at Fred Fraileys piece, I can verify UP is eyeing a downgrade of the Moffat route, though the timeline is not established. It could be many years in the future, it could be tomorrow. There's a reason there's discussions about a Wyoming reroute.


This the Frailey piece? Interesting, hadn't seen it before. Didn't realize traffic was so slim over the Rockies.


----------



## frequentflyer

Its been rumored for years that UP would down grade the line. Why send trains though Colorado when the easier and faster way is north to Wyoming then west.

The line's only hope is that the state of Colorado buys the line for travel to Winter Park and Glenwood Springs.

Its on my bucket list to ride this line from Denver to Salt Lake City.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

I wonder which line is in more immediate peril -- the California Zephyr or the Canadian. Both seem to be in a precarious situation now.


----------



## jis

California Zephyr at most faces a reversion to the route of the original Amtrak San Francisco Zephyr, but with a visit the Salt Lake City instead of running via Ogden. It is not facing discontinuance, just a bit of ridership hit perhaps.


----------



## bretton88

frequentflyer said:


> Its been rumored for years that UP would down grade the line. Why send trains though Colorado when the easier and faster way is north to Wyoming then west.
> 
> The line's only hope is that the state of Colorado buys the line for travel to Winter Park and Glenwood Springs.
> 
> Its on my bucket list to ride this line from Denver to Salt Lake City.


My guess is BNSF would get first option on any sale of the line, since they have trackage rights on the Moffat line. No idea if they'd be interested. Back on topic, I wonder what 75 million would go to for the Raton line? Does Amtrak have a list of improvements ready to invest in? I wonder if BNSF would sell it to Amtrak? Would Amtrak be interested even?


----------



## zephyr17

BNSF would be glad to sell it. They already sold it to New Mexico, but NM reneged on the contract.

No way Amtrak will buy it. My understanding is BNSF will agree to continuing to maintain it for 20 years if Amtrak/New Mexico pay to do improvements on the line (new rail, etc) that will reduce maintenance costs, since right now the condition of that line is pretty much end-of-life (well beyond really). Those improvements were part of what the TIGER Grant's were for.


----------



## zephyr17

BNSF may well be interested in the Moffet Line. They were granted trackage rights on it as a condition of the UP-SP merger and they use them.


----------



## zephyr17

The Senate just kind of b*tch-slapped Anderson. Not only did they specifically require the integrity of the National Network Long Distance trains, they specifically forbid Amtrak and Anderson from making their own interpretation of PTC requirements and required them to use the FRA regulations. That was a very specific loophole closure and prevents Amtrak from "weaponizing" PTC to rip up essential parts of the long distance network. I have to think that one is largely ARP's doing. Good tag teaming between the NM, CO, and KS local politicians and ARP lobbying, along with Congressional staff work.

Anderson's intentions on PTC were a big part of his Congressional testimony in June, as well as his soft shoe shuffle about not matching the grants. The Senate specifically directed him to do exactly what he said he was no going to do, by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority vote. That is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the Senate very specifically calling BS. I have to wonder about Anderson's credibility on Capitol Hill. To me it looks like he managed to antagonize the Senate, not a good move for an Amtrak president.

There are a lot of differences between being an airline president and the president of Amtrak. Having to deal with the US Congress and not just a Board of Directors is a pretty big one, which I kind of overlooked until now.

I am still kind of amazed at how precise that language was. It was laser targeted.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

I honestly did not expect Republican senators to join in on this and swiftly put the SWC bus bridge to an end.


----------



## greatcats

jis said:


> California Zephyr at most faces a reversion to the route of the original Amtrak San Francisco Zephyr, but with a visit the Salt Lake City instead of running via Ogden. It is not facing discontinuance, just a bit of ridership hit perhaps.


God works in mysterious ways!


----------



## railiner

zephyr17 said:


> BNSF may well be interested in the Moffet Line. They were granted trackage rights on it as a condition of the UP-SP merger and they use them.


What I am wondering is, why the BN wasn't given the opportunity to buy the old D&RGW as well as former WP routes, as a condition of the UP-SP merger from the beginning, unless the BN felt it was more advantageous to simply be granted trackage rights? And if so, perhaps they still feel that way...of course, if the UP downgrades the line, they may be forced to reconsider....


----------



## zephyr17

Well, the reason BNSF was granted trackage rights by the STB was to retain competition, particularly in Utah I don't know if they considered forcing UP to divest the old Gould lines.

Trackage rights have advantages, you can run trains without some of the capital costs. Both UP and BNSF probably considered it a win-win at the time.


----------



## fredmcain

railiner said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BNSF may well be interested in the Moffet Line. They were granted trackage rights on it as a condition of the UP-SP merger and they use them.
> 
> 
> 
> What I am wondering is, why the BN wasn't given the opportunity to buy the old D&RGW as well as former WP routes, as a condition of the UP-SP merger from the beginning, unless the BN felt it was more advantageous to simply be granted trackage rights? And if so, perhaps they still feel that way...of course, if the UP downgrades the line, they may be forced to reconsider....
Click to expand...

The Moffat Route and Raton pass line have something in common*: * They were both important due to coal traffic. The three or four mines on the Raton Pass line were closed years ago. I think they might've been rather expensive to operate underground mines. The coal traffic on the old DRG&W Moffat route was more significant but probably suffered at least in part by Obama's so-called "war on coal" but some of that traffic might be coming back now so I wouldn't write this line off too soon.

The old DRG&W proved that is was possible to run a daily and rather effective intermodal train from Denver to SLC. But once the UP took over, they were not interested in a smaller, shorter city pair like that. Sometimes I think that the management of a smaller, regional railroad can be more effective in finding and drumming up new business that a large corporation like the UP.

Regards.

FMC


----------



## zephyr17

Pretty much agree on most points. Although I think the economics of coal are now problematical domestically due to cheap natural gas, regardless of the environmental and political side (which is a rabbit hole I do not want to open up). So I doubt coal traffic will be a solution here, which is undoubtedly factoring into UP's thinking.


----------



## railiner

If that big slide that blocked the line at Thistle happened today, I imagine it would have sealed the fate of the Rio Grande as a thru route....


----------



## zephyr17

Agreed. Thank goodness Rio Grande was still an independent railroad then. They couldn't afford to have their mainline blocked. If it had been owned by UP with alternate routes, I am not sure UP would have done that huge relocation even with the coal traffic. They could have treated the line as a long branch and run westbound coal traffic back via Denver, then over the Overland Route.


----------



## jis

I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.


----------



## fredmcain

e



jis said:


> I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.


You know, one thing that I'm concerned about, this PTC stuff might compel or at least encourage the railroads to downgrade some secondary mains or even one-time primary mains in order to avoid the expense of installing PTC on them. This could lead to the loss of service in some sectors and even more congestion on the few lines that are left.

I guess, I've had reservations about PTC from the beginning. I think PTC is basically a sound concept but it's the idea of the unfunded mandate that I'm not sure about. "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions".

As far as Amtrak goes, there is now a real risk of losing services on routes because _CONGRESS_ instituted the PTC mandate. So, as we have seen with the _Chief,_ Congress is now trying to address an issue that was created (at least in part) by Congress.

Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.

-FMC


----------



## RPC

zephyr17 said:


> Pretty much agree on most points. Although I think the economics of coal are now problematical domestically due to cheap natural gas, regardless of the environmental and political side (which is a rabbit hole I do not want to open up). So I doubt coal traffic will be a solution here, which is undoubtedly factoring into UP's thinking.


I believe the Colorado mines produce metallurgical (steel making) coal, so may be viable until they play out.


----------



## zephyr17

fredmcain said:


> e
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, one thing that I'm concerned about, this PTC stuff might compel or at least encourage the railroads to downgrade some secondary mains or even one-time primary mains in order to avoid the expense of installing PTC on them. This could lead to the loss of service in some sectors and even more congestion on the few lines that are left.
> 
> I guess, I've had reservations about PTC from the beginning. I think PTC is basically a sound concept but it's the idea of the unfunded mandate that I'm not sure about. "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions".
> 
> As far as Amtrak goes, there is now a real risk of losing services on routes because _CONGRESS_ instituted the PTC mandate. So, as we have seen with the _Chief,_ Congress is now trying to address an issue that was created (at least in part) by Congress.
> 
> Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.
> 
> -FMC
Click to expand...

Yes, it could be, especially under Anderson's weaponized interpretation of the statute. However, assuming the bill passes the House and is signed, the amendment specifies that the FRA regulations regarding PTC be treated as law, so traffic density again becomes a factor in whether or not PTC is required. Several secondary mains currently qualify that Amtrak operates over, not just Raton. That includes the Coast Line between San Luis Obispo and Gilroy, and the former D&RGW between Grand Junction and Salt Lake City.

I think the return to Phoenix, as unlikely as it is anyway, is particularly a case in point. The West Phoenix line needs to be completely rebuilt to be put back into service. In order to make that significant investment, UP would have to be planning to run enough traffic to exceed that traffic density exemption. So unless the line would require PTC for UPs own use, irrespective of passenger service, like moving HazMat, they wouldn't add it. Of course, the other possibility is for the State of Arizona to buy it for passenger service, which seems even more unlikely than UP wanting to resume operating the line, remote as that is.

As to the North Coast Hiawatha, the key link there would be MRL. I don't know if they are installing PTC, but they might have to. I think they run HazMat loads.

On the brighter side, there are huge swaths of lines that do not host passenger service but which have or are having PTC installed for freight purposes.

Speaking of the exemptions, even with the amendment, the Southwest Chief isn't completely in the clear. What about NMRX? NMRX is going to run the full allowed schedule of passenger service without PTC (4 a day) without a slot for the Southwest Chief. So there is still the question of what is going to happen Lamy-Albuquerque? A shorter bus bridge? A crash program with some of the $50 million to install PTC on NMRX (time is pretty short to get that done by 1/1/19 if they started this minute)? A waiver from the FRA (I can just see how happy Anderson would be to request it)? Sue NMRX for one of the slots?


----------



## zephyr17

RPC said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much agree on most points. Although I think the economics of coal are now problematical domestically due to cheap natural gas, regardless of the environmental and political side (which is a rabbit hole I do not want to open up). So I doubt coal traffic will be a solution here, which is undoubtedly factoring into UP's thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Colorado mines produce metallurgical (steel making) coal, so may be viable until they play out.
Click to expand...

Good to know, thanks.


----------



## CCC1007

zephyr17 said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> e
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, one thing that I'm concerned about, this PTC stuff might compel or at least encourage the railroads to downgrade some secondary mains or even one-time primary mains in order to avoid the expense of installing PTC on them. This could lead to the loss of service in some sectors and even more congestion on the few lines that are left.
> I guess, I've had reservations about PTC from the beginning. I think PTC is basically a sound concept but it's the idea of the unfunded mandate that I'm not sure about. "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions".
> 
> As far as Amtrak goes, there is now a real risk of losing services on routes because _CONGRESS_ instituted the PTC mandate. So, as we have seen with the _Chief,_ Congress is now trying to address an issue that was created (at least in part) by Congress.
> 
> Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.
> 
> -FMC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it could be, especially under Anderson's weaponized interpretation of the statute. However, assuming the bill passes the House and is signed, the amendment specifies that the FRA regulations regarding PTC be treated as law, so traffic density again becomes a factor in whether or not PTC is required. Several secondary mains currently qualify that Amtrak operates over, not just Raton. That includes the Coast Line between San Luis Obispo and Gilroy, and the former D&RGW between Grand Junction and Salt Lake City.
> I think the return to Phoenix, as unlikely as it is anyway, is particularly a case in point. The West Phoenix line needs to be completely rebuilt to be put back into service. In order to make that significant investment, UP would have to be planning to run enough traffic to exceed that traffic density exemption. So unless the line would require PTC for UPs own use, irrespective of passenger service, like moving HazMat, they wouldn't add it. Of course, the other possibility is for the State of Arizona to buy it for passenger service, which seems even more unlikely than UP wanting to resume operating the line, remote as that is.
> 
> As to the North Coast Hiawatha, the key link there would be MRL. I don't know if they are installing PTC, but they might have to. I think they run HazMat loads.
> 
> On the brighter side, there are huge swaths of lines that do not host passenger service but which have or are having PTC installed for freight purposes.
> 
> Speaking of the exemptions, even with the amendment, the Southwest Chief isn't completely in the clear. What about NMRX? NMRX is going to run the full allowed schedule of passenger service without PTC (4 a day) without a slot for the Southwest Chief. So there is still the question of what is going to happen Lamy-Albuquerque? A shorter bus bridge? A crash program with some of the $50 million to install PTC on NMRX (time is pretty short to get that done by 1/1/19 if they started this minute)? A waiver from the FRA (I can just see how happy Anderson would be to request it)? Sue NMRX for one of the slots?
Click to expand...

Considering that MRL runs a train called the “gas local” twice a day, as well as unit oil trains, it is a good bet that PTC is being installed, especially since I have directly observed that they are installing new signals with PTC equipment.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.


Now that would be a "win-win" for the BNSF....might justify making the Cheyenne to Ogden Overland Route into a four track mainline....sort of a rail version of I-80.


----------



## Tennessee Traveler

_What about The Prez signing off on it? Any problems possible, there? Hope not...he did claim to be "for restoring infrastructure"....



_



Promises Made, PROMISES *NOT* KEPT!


----------



## zephyr17

Tennessee Traveler said:


> _What about The Prez signing off on it? Any problems possible, there? Hope not...he did claim to be "for restoring infrastructure"....
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Promises Made, PROMISES *NOT* KEPT!


Honestly, since Fox News hasn't mentioned it, he probably doesn't even know it's in there.

Do you think he actually reads those bills?


----------



## lordsigma

crescent-zephyr said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crescent-zephyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has congress said they expect amtrak to make a profit? Congress doesn't want Amtrak losing money on food and beverage service, which seems reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that reasonable? F&B is an ancillary service to increase ridership and farebox recovery, not a self standing or core service provided by Amtrak. Should toilet service also be accounted for separately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well based on the condition of the windows on the last few Amtrak trains I've ridden... it doesn't seem that Amtrak is too concerned with keeping things clean. Restrooms have always been hit or miss on the trains too so I hope they aren't paying too much to keep them clean.
> 
> The whole F&B thing I can see both ways... i think there is room for a middle ground with no table service, but an LSA and a chef on board the train preparing a few hot items. But as it was, Amtrak was losing alot of money on food service employees that are not really necessary.
> 
> Did the Silver Star lose riders when they dropped the diner?
> 
> Did the City of New Orleans lose riders when they dropped the regular diner menu?
Click to expand...

It should be noted that not all LD trains are the same. If one looks at the star's ridership it was the perfect train to drop the diner on because they offer another similar train with the diner and the Star is the less popular train for northeast to Florida overnight riders - it has a much stronger shorter distance ridership. The Meteor on the other hand being the more direct route to Florida carries a lot more sleeper passengers and has a larger percentage of long distance riders (both in coach and sleeper) - Northeast to Orlando being the most popular trip on the train - so I would think the service drop on that train would have a bigger impact.


----------



## dgvrengineer

CCC1007 said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> e
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, one thing that I'm concerned about, this PTC stuff might compel or at least encourage the railroads to downgrade some secondary mains or even one-time primary mains in order to avoid the expense of installing PTC on them. This could lead to the loss of service in some sectors and even more congestion on the few lines that are left.
> I guess, I've had reservations about PTC from the beginning. I think PTC is basically a sound concept but it's the idea of the unfunded mandate that I'm not sure about. "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions".
> 
> As far as Amtrak goes, there is now a real risk of losing services on routes because _CONGRESS_ instituted the PTC mandate. So, as we have seen with the _Chief,_ Congress is now trying to address an issue that was created (at least in part) by Congress.
> 
> Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.
> 
> -FMC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it could be, especially under Anderson's weaponized interpretation of the statute. However, assuming the bill passes the House and is signed, the amendment specifies that the FRA regulations regarding PTC be treated as law, so traffic density again becomes a factor in whether or not PTC is required. Several secondary mains currently qualify that Amtrak operates over, not just Raton. That includes the Coast Line between San Luis Obispo and Gilroy, and the former D&RGW between Grand Junction and Salt Lake City.
> I think the return to Phoenix, as unlikely as it is anyway, is particularly a case in point. The West Phoenix line needs to be completely rebuilt to be put back into service. In order to make that significant investment, UP would have to be planning to run enough traffic to exceed that traffic density exemption. So unless the line would require PTC for UPs own use, irrespective of passenger service, like moving HazMat, they wouldn't add it. Of course, the other possibility is for the State of Arizona to buy it for passenger service, which seems even more unlikely than UP wanting to resume operating the line, remote as that is.
> 
> As to the North Coast Hiawatha, the key link there would be MRL. I don't know if they are installing PTC, but they might have to. I think they run HazMat loads.
> 
> On the brighter side, there are huge swaths of lines that do not host passenger service but which have or are having PTC installed for freight purposes.
> 
> Speaking of the exemptions, even with the amendment, the Southwest Chief isn't completely in the clear. What about NMRX? NMRX is going to run the full allowed schedule of passenger service without PTC (4 a day) without a slot for the Southwest Chief. So there is still the question of what is going to happen Lamy-Albuquerque? A shorter bus bridge? A crash program with some of the $50 million to install PTC on NMRX (time is pretty short to get that done by 1/1/19 if they started this minute)? A waiver from the FRA (I can just see how happy Anderson would be to request it)? Sue NMRX for one of the slots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering that MRL runs a train called the “gas local” twice a day, as well as unit oil trains, it is a good bet that PTC is being installed, especially since I have directly observed that they are installing new signals with PTC equipment.
Click to expand...

I thought I read somewhere that the NM Rail Runner was granted or was asking for an exemption due to the line having ATS still active on it. If so, the Chief shouldn't have a problem on that section, unless RA's no PTC no Amtrak kicks in.


----------



## bretton88

dgvrengineer said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> e
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that It is possible that if UP downgrades the Moffat Route, they will have to transfer the trackage rights that BNSF has, to the Overland Route.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, one thing that I'm concerned about, this PTC stuff might compel or at least encourage the railroads to downgrade some secondary mains or even one-time primary mains in order to avoid the expense of installing PTC on them. This could lead to the loss of service in some sectors and even more congestion on the few lines that are left.
> I guess, I've had reservations about PTC from the beginning. I think PTC is basically a sound concept but it's the idea of the unfunded mandate that I'm not sure about. "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions".
> 
> As far as Amtrak goes, there is now a real risk of losing services on routes because _CONGRESS_ instituted the PTC mandate. So, as we have seen with the _Chief,_ Congress is now trying to address an issue that was created (at least in part) by Congress.
> 
> Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.
> 
> -FMC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it could be, especially under Anderson's weaponized interpretation of the statute. However, assuming the bill passes the House and is signed, the amendment specifies that the FRA regulations regarding PTC be treated as law, so traffic density again becomes a factor in whether or not PTC is required. Several secondary mains currently qualify that Amtrak operates over, not just Raton. That includes the Coast Line between San Luis Obispo and Gilroy, and the former D&RGW between Grand Junction and Salt Lake City.
> I think the return to Phoenix, as unlikely as it is anyway, is particularly a case in point. The West Phoenix line needs to be completely rebuilt to be put back into service. In order to make that significant investment, UP would have to be planning to run enough traffic to exceed that traffic density exemption. So unless the line would require PTC for UPs own use, irrespective of passenger service, like moving HazMat, they wouldn't add it. Of course, the other possibility is for the State of Arizona to buy it for passenger service, which seems even more unlikely than UP wanting to resume operating the line, remote as that is.
> 
> As to the North Coast Hiawatha, the key link there would be MRL. I don't know if they are installing PTC, but they might have to. I think they run HazMat loads.
> 
> On the brighter side, there are huge swaths of lines that do not host passenger service but which have or are having PTC installed for freight purposes.
> 
> Speaking of the exemptions, even with the amendment, the Southwest Chief isn't completely in the clear. What about NMRX? NMRX is going to run the full allowed schedule of passenger service without PTC (4 a day) without a slot for the Southwest Chief. So there is still the question of what is going to happen Lamy-Albuquerque? A shorter bus bridge? A crash program with some of the $50 million to install PTC on NMRX (time is pretty short to get that done by 1/1/19 if they started this minute)? A waiver from the FRA (I can just see how happy Anderson would be to request it)? Sue NMRX for one of the slots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering that MRL runs a train called the “gas local” twice a day, as well as unit oil trains, it is a good bet that PTC is being installed, especially since I have directly observed that they are installing new signals with PTC equipment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought I read somewhere that the NM Rail Runner was granted or was asking for an exemption due to the line having ATS still active on it. If so, the Chief shouldn't have a problem on that section, unless RA's no PTC no Amtrak kicks in.
Click to expand...

The problem is the twofold in Railrunner territory: ATS is not installed in the new build portions of the commuter line yet, Railrunner would do that upon approval of the waiver from the FRA (which is not a given). The second problem, is that the proposed exemption has a maximum number of trains in it, which are all going to be Railrunner trains. So I am not sure what the status of that is, and how Amtrak will work around that.


----------



## jis

The exemption for low traffic does not require ATS. The whole ATS thing relative to PTC approval is a red herring.


----------



## zephyr17

Sounds like NMRX could still throw a monkey wrench in (or not take the monkey wrench out).


----------



## neroden

zephyr17 said:


> I have to wonder about Anderson's credibility on Capitol Hill. To me it looks like he managed to antagonize the Senate, not a good move for an Amtrak president.


Yeah, that seemed like an incredibly stupid move.


----------



## neroden

fredmcain said:


> Another thing that I have worried about is that for those of us who would like to see an expansion of the Amtrak route system, the PTC mandate might make that even more difficult than it already was. Return service to Phoenix proper? A new North Coast Hiawatha? Gulf coast restoration? PTC could possibly be a stumbling block for those and other routes. I hope not but it might be.


Bluntly, putting PTC on a new (currently inactive) line isn't really that hard. It's much harder to retrofit it on a operating line. So Phoenix service would be easier than Gulf Coast service in this regard. (Yes, I know UP serves Phoenix from the southeast side; if service is restored I'd frankly expect it to be on a separate set of passenger tracks such as have been studied for Phoenix-Tucson commuter service.)
It would be easier if the US had simply adopted ERTMS/ETCS like the *entire rest of the world*, or used ACSES like the Northeast, but it's still not that hard to install "fresh". Retrofitting is always harder.


----------



## neroden

I was mulling over the Senate language, and I realized that Amtrak is probably the sole tenant on a large portion of the Cardinal route, much of which is probably not required to have PTC. Unfortunately there are multiple tenants on some of the other route sections not required to have PTC...


----------



## jis

https://www.goiam.org/news/territories/tcu-union/legislative-outlook/senate-confronts-amtrak-on-numerous-issues/

Looks like the station staff restoration Amendment did not make it into the final draft.


----------



## bretton88

If that's really 50 million required to be spent out of Amtrak's general fund and not extra money, then that's a big hit to Amtrak's budget. That's for capital expenses too, not operating expenses.


----------



## jis

bretton88 said:


> If that's really 50 million required to be spent out of Amtrak's general fund and not extra money, then that's a big hit to Amtrak's budget. That's for capital expenses too, not operating expenses.


I could be wrong, but my understanding is the $50 million was added into the total big pot and then it was designated for specific use of the SWC route. That is why the overall thing grew from $1.92 billion to $2 billion or so, due to addition of a few Christmas ornaments to the big tree.

These details are kind of hard to figure out without reading the text in minute detail and comparing the final amounts with the draft amounts.


----------



## frequentflyer

Does anyone knows what's BNSF stance on this, the "owner" of the line? BNSF will still be on the hook maintaining a line they seem not to want.


----------



## RPC

frequentflyer said:


> Does anyone knows what's BNSF stance on this, the "owner" of the line? BNSF will still be on the hook maintaining a line they seem not to want.


BNSF continues to state that they will maintain the track for twenty years once it is converted to welded rail and modern signalling (i.e. no semaphores or code lines). I would imagine they have a twofold interest in this: 1) it keeps the Chief off the Transcon; 2) it keeps the line as an ultimate insurance policy should there be an incident in e.g. Abo Canyon.


----------



## jis

I think (1) would be the primary motivator. The few friends that I have who are involved in and understand BNSF plans and dispatching philosophy along the Transcon swear that BNSF will never divert anything to the Raton route from the Transcon if the Transcon is closed due to some incident. They claim it is easier to reroute via UP through cross-traffic agreements they have with UP, than to reconfigure the train to operate over 3% grade.

But what do I know? I am just parroting what has been fed to me by these guys.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> I think (1) would be the primary motivator. The few friends that I have who are involved in and understand BNSF plans and dispatching philosophy along the Transcon swear that BNSF will never divert anything to the Raton route from the Transcon if the Transcon is closed due to some incident. They claim it is easier to reroute via UP through cross-traffic agreements they have with UP, than to reconfigure the train to operate over 3% grade.
> 
> But what do I know? I am just parroting what has been fed to me by these guys.


Not to mention that BNSF does not have many crews qualified for the Raton route and the line has many of its passing sidings out of service. Correcting both those shortcomings would not happen overnight. When tunnels and bridges collapse and lines are restored just a few weeks later, it's hard to imagine a scenario which would make the Raton route am attractive alternative for BNSF detours off the Transcon.


----------



## fredmcain

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think (1) would be the primary motivator. The few friends that I have who are involved in and understand BNSF plans and dispatching philosophy along the Transcon swear that BNSF will never divert anything to the Raton route from the Transcon if the Transcon is closed due to some incident. They claim it is easier to reroute via UP through cross-traffic agreements they have with UP, than to reconfigure the train to operate over 3% grade.
> 
> But what do I know? I am just parroting what has been fed to me by these guys.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that BNSF does not have many crews qualified for the Raton route and the line has many of its passing sidings out of service. Correcting both those shortcomings would not happen overnight. When tunnels and bridges collapse and lines are restored just a few weeks later, it's hard to imagine a scenario which would make the Raton route am attractive alternative for BNSF detours off the Transcon.
Click to expand...

Well, at the risk of repeating myself here, I still believe the Raton Pass line _COULD_ be used for very "hot" and relatively short intermodal trains. Indeed the old AT&SF Ry used it for just that in the past. The so-called _Super C_ was routed over this line, I believe.

Also at least one and perhaps more daily double stack trains were routed over Raton Pass in the 1990s, I think, but I cannot remember anymore if BNSF did that or if it was still the Sana Fe at that point.

I fully agree that scrounging for and finding qualified staff would be a be issue. But none of us really know for sure what BNSF's intentions might be or if they might change.

I'd like to see the line saved and improved first. i.e., welded rail, CTC, PTC and longer sidings then sit back and see what happens.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## jis

I guess anyone can believe whatever they choose to, and also keep repeating it as many times as they want. That does not mean that the people who actually operate the railroad and are responsible for it will necessarily agree.






I was merely sharing what folks who actually dispatch that railroad told me. but what would they know?


----------



## MikefromCrete

BNSF's use of the Raton Line for through freights ended with the double-tracking of the Southern Transcon. It would take a real disaster for the railroad to resume use of the Raton line with its steeper grades.


----------



## fredmcain

MikefromCrete said:


> BNSF's use of the Raton Line for through freights ended with the double-tracking of the Southern Transcon. It would take a real disaster for the railroad to resume use of the Raton line with its steeper grades.


Actually, if traffic levels rise, capacity will start to get tight on the Abo Canyon line again in spite of the DT. So, it might happen one day. But not if the Ration Line doesn't see improvements.

Another possibility is also the Denver-El Paso corridor. I know that BNSF has another route that they can use to bypass the Raton Pass line but it might be a bit more circuitous. If the Raton line were improved, that traffic might shift back, too.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## frequentflyer

So the Raton route is being used by one train, the SWC and maybe a couple of rare locals. What is the long term prospect of such an arrangement? Even after a one time cash infusion.


----------



## jis

I think the State(s) will have to pick up a substantial portion of the tab on an ongoing basis or strike some kind of a deal at the Federal Level to have it funded as a quid-pro-quo for something else.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> I think the State(s) will have to pick up a substantial portion of the tab on an ongoing basis or strike some kind of a deal at the Federal Level to have it funded as a quid-pro-quo for something else.


This!


----------



## RPC

jis said:


> I think the State(s) will have to pick up a substantial portion of the tab on an ongoing basis or strike some kind of a deal at the Federal Level to have it funded as a quid-pro-quo for something else.


Well, BNSF has repeatedly stated that if the line is brought up to modern standards (welded rail, LED signals) they (BNSF) will maintain it for twenty years. If you think about it, this basically boils down to ballast regulation, signal and grade crossing inspection and a bit of switch machine maintenance - they ain't going to be replacing rail on a line that sees two trains a day! I imagine it would NOT include repairing washouts, tunnel collapse, etc. - that would indeed be up to some government entities.


----------



## west point

As for crew qualifications. Wasn't there posted somewere that BNSF ran a train over Raton with an Amtrak pilot ?


----------



## zephyr17

Yeah, a couple of years ago there was BNSF inspection train and they had to have an Amtrak pilot engineer because no BNSF engineer was qualified on the route.


----------



## bretton88

I still think the Raton Line's days are numbered. While we have some resolution right now, the bills will just keep on coming and then who's paying for them? To RPC's point, if there comes a point where there requires a major maintenance item, BNSF may not be on the hook for those repairs, then who pays? As long as there's very little traffic on this line, it will be harder and harder in the future to justify paying the continuous bills. Raton feels like a short line waiting to happen, which while bad for Amtrak might be better for the region, short lines are usually better at getting local business so they could probably generate some traffic on the line.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

A Shortline kept up to basic passenger standards would be a win for everybody I think. (Obviously someone other than the shortline would fit the "passenger standards" part of the bill)


----------



## bretton88

crescent-zephyr said:


> A Shortline kept up to basic passenger standards would be a win for everybody I think. (Obviously someone other than the shortline would fit the "passenger standards" part of the bill)


Obviously that would be the ideal, just shortlines aren't known for keeping up class V track. Most likely they would be like what BNSF initially proposed, reduce the track to class 2/3, which would be more in line with what they would need.


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> I guess anyone can believe whatever they choose to, and also keep repeating it as many times as they want. That does not mean that the people who actually operate the railroad and are responsible for it will necessarily agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was merely sharing what folks who actually dispatch that railroad told me. but what would they know?


JIS,

Well, I guess I have to add that if your hunch (and your source) is correct and there is no chance that BNSF would make more use of the Raton line if it were rebuilt, then I guess I have to begin questioning the wisdom of rebuilding it at all. I mean, as a rail advocate I’d really _HATE_ to lose it but what if, just what if, Anderson might turn out to have a point here?

I thought Anderson threw a number out like $300 million to really get this line up to snuff. (I don’t have his statement in front of me.) He may be right that it is simply not worth that much money for a single daily passenger train. That money could perhaps be put to better use somewhere else. How ‘bout 100+ new “Superliners”?

You know, his whole idea of a “bus bridge” might turn out to be a worthy concept *_IF_* it just got tweaked a bit. If only BNSF would go along and allow Amtrak to move the _Chief _to the south line through Amarillo, then an Amtrak “Throughway Bus” could serve those stops that get missed. Plus, a rather large city (Amarillo) would get a daily passenger train.

But here is a truly radical idea*:* What if the _Chief_ were to stay on the current North Line as far west as Trinidad then head south over BNSF’s former Ft. Worth & Denver line until it hits the south line where it would then turn west again. Then only the towns of Raton, Las Vegas and Lamy would be missed. Again, a “Throughway” bus could serve those towns and perhaps even stop in downtown Santa Fe. This might actually be an improvement.

I realize that the routing would be just a bit circuitous but perhaps not more so than the _California Zephyr’s_ Denver – Ogden routing across Wyoming before it got moved to the D&RGW route. Also, stations in Trinidad and Albuquerque would need to be relocated in order to prevent a couple of awkward back-up moves but that’s no big deal. The “depot” in Trinidad is nothing but a concrete platform anyways. The depot in Albuquerque could be relocated to the main transcon in the same way that the main stop for Phoenix was moved to the outpost at Maricopa. But would BNSF buy this idea? Maybe they would if the "pot got sweetened".

I dunno. Just an idea that’s all.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## fredmcain

Here is a rather interesting blog that I stumbled across while searching for news on the Southwest Chief. The guys makes some good points whether we fully agree with them or not. Who knows? The intercity passenger train might turn out to have a different future in America than what we think.

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2018/08/essay-last-train-grand-canyon-how-amtrak-fails-national-parks-and-america

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

P.S. I don't know why but it seem like everytime I copy and paste a URL into this format it doesn't work. I found that when I click on the link, the forum is adding six characters that I did not put in there. If I go into my browser and delete the last six characters - it works! - FMC


----------



## jis

Try this: https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2018/08/essay-last-train-grand-canyon-how-amtrak-fails-national-parks-and-america


----------



## frequentflyer

fredmcain said:


> Here is a rather interesting blog that I stumbled across while searching for news on the Southwest Chief. The guys makes some good points whether we fully agree with them or not. Who knows? The intercity passenger train might turn out to have a different future in America than what we think.
> 
> https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2018/08/essay-last-train-grand-canyon-how-amtrak-fails-national-parks-and-america
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
> 
> P.S. I don't know why but it seem like everytime I copy and paste a URL into this format it doesn't work. I found that when I click on the link, the forum is adding six characters that I did not put in there. If I go into my browser and delete the last six characters - it works! - FMC


I read in a Trains article along time ago, that Sante Fe was resistant to joining Amtrak and was willing to continue to operate the Chief. Fast forward to today, I am sure BNSF or any freight railroad wants no part of pax service or its liability.


----------



## railiner

fredmcain said:


> .
> 
> But here is a truly radical idea*:* What if the _Chief_ were to stay on the current North Line as far west as Trinidad then head south over BNSF’s former Ft. Worth & Denver line until it hits the south line where it would then turn west again. Then only the towns of Raton, Las Vegas and Lamy would be missed. Again, a “Throughway” bus could serve those towns and perhaps even stop in downtown Santa Fe. This might actually be an improvement.
> 
> I realize that the routing would be just a bit circuitous but perhaps not more so than the _California Zephyr’s_ Denver – Ogden routing across Wyoming before it got moved to the D&RGW route. Also, stations in Trinidad and Albuquerque would need to be relocated in order to prevent a couple of awkward back-up moves but that’s no big deal. The “depot” in Trinidad is nothing but a concrete platform anyways. The depot in Albuquerque could be relocated to the main transcon in the same way that the main stop for Phoenix was moved to the outpost at Maricopa. But would BNSF buy this idea? Maybe they would if the "pot got sweetened".
> 
> I dunno. Just an idea that’s all.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC


One of the problems with this suggestion, is the way BNSF splits its traffic into directional running between Pueblo and Amarillo...one way via Trinidad and the former Colorado and Southern route, the other way via La Junta on the former AT&SF route...not sure if they would allow both ways via Trinidad for Amtrak, or not.


----------



## GBNorman

frequentflyer said:


> I read in a Trains article along time ago, that Santa Fe was resistant to joining Amtrak and was willing to continue to operate the Chief.


Having been in the industry on A-Day, but not with Santa Fe, I had learned there was some foundation to this report.
Santa Fe was concerned that under the 1919 Chicago Union Station Company Access Agreement for tenants (same as GM&O) that they would be "stung" with a portion of the building's debt service and maintenance costs. However when Amtrak and the Roads agreed to "Section 4.4" of the May 1, 1971 Agreement, a hastily thought out provision that represented one party wanting to stop running trains and the other wanting to start running trains, Amtrak agreed to pay the roads all costs of facilities such as CUS.

That decision by Amtrak was the start of much litigation with the owners of so-called "Jointly Owned Terminals", including St. Louis, New Orleans, Washington. Cincinnati, Richmond, as well as ones of which I never had knowledge.


----------



## zephyr17

I pretty much agree with every word of that article, Amtrak's history is accurately (if somewhat colorfully) portrayed. I've often thought about turning the passenger service back to the railroads and really like that approach. One of the main flaws that I see is that railroads don't have the passenger service infrastructure (reservations systems, customer service reps, all the back office functions of a passenger carrier) so it is not simply a matter of running trains well. They'd have to take over Amtrak's and somehow share it (or divvy it up) and improve it. I think that would require capital investment in something that is very much not of their core business now.

Back in the 1969-70, when the whole idea of a federal rescue of passenger rail was being discussed, there was an alternative proposal that had pretty wide support of just that. Railroads continue to operate the passenger trains, feds provide subsidies for them. That ultimately lost ground to the National Railroad Passenger Corp approach, unfortunately.


----------



## railiner

Amtrak was created to relieve the freight railroads of their passenger train burden, and....there ain't no going back...


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> Amtrak was created to relieve the freight railroads of their passenger train burden, and....there ain't no going back...


This!


----------



## Palmetto

railiner said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> But here is a truly radical idea*:* What if the _Chief_ were to stay on the current North Line as far west as Trinidad then head south over BNSF’s former Ft. Worth & Denver line until it hits the south line where it would then turn west again. Then only the towns of Raton, Las Vegas and Lamy would be missed. Again, a “Throughway” bus could serve those towns and perhaps even stop in downtown Santa Fe. This might actually be an improvement.
> 
> I realize that the routing would be just a bit circuitous but perhaps not more so than the _California Zephyr’s_ Denver – Ogden routing across Wyoming before it got moved to the D&RGW route. Also, stations in Trinidad and Albuquerque would need to be relocated in order to prevent a couple of awkward back-up moves but that’s no big deal. The “depot” in Trinidad is nothing but a concrete platform anyways. The depot in Albuquerque could be relocated to the main transcon in the same way that the main stop for Phoenix was moved to the outpost at Maricopa. But would BNSF buy this idea? Maybe they would if the "pot got sweetened".
> 
> I dunno. Just an idea that’s all.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC
> 
> 
> 
> One of the problems with this suggestion, is the way BNSF splits its traffic into directional running between Pueblo and Amarillo...one way via Trinidad and the former Colorado and Southern route, the other way via La Junta on the former AT&SF route...not sure if they would allow both ways via Trinidad for Amtrak, or not.
Click to expand...

There aren't really any populous cities on either of the two subdivisions running north out of Amarillo, so no need to make a stop anywhere, and no problem doing directional running. UP does allow Amtrak to run against the stream between Jefferson City, MO and Kansas City going west, doesn't it?


----------



## fredmcain

railiner said:


> Amtrak was created to relieve the freight railroads of their passenger train burden, and....there ain't no going back...


Yeah, I hear this a lot. “It didn’t work before, therefore*…..*” But I just find it hard to believe that we can’t do better than this. We are approaching 5½ _BILLION_ dollars a year for Amtrak (taxpayer $ + ticket revenue) and what are we getting? Where the heck is all that money going? Can’t there be a better way? It almost seems like Amtrak needs more and more cash to provide less and less service.

I like to point out that the government’s attitude (and much of the public’s as well) before about the 1970s was somewhat hostile towards railroads in general and against passenger trains as well. For example, in the 1940s the feds imposed a federal excise tax on the sale of passenger tickets that was in effect for around 20 years and yet to the best of my knowledge not one thin dime of that money ever found its way back into rail passenger infrastructure or equipment.

Then the post office abandoned the passenger train at the worst possible time. It also didn’t help that big city rail facilities were on the hook for state and local property taxes but big city airports were often built and owned by the municipalities and did not have to. People back in those days loved to respond “but what about the land grants?” O.K., so what about them? That was nearly 100 years prior to that.

I am already old enough to remember that many people 50 years ago looked upon railroads much as they do so-called “Big Oil” today. I like to think this has changed. So, would it be possible to give the railroads a second stab at running passenger trains? After all, private enterprises are often more efficient than government run ones. It _COULD_ be made to work but only with profound changes.

One approach would be to reward the railroads for carrying more passengers with some kind of rate system. The more people they carry the bigger the tax breaks – or something. They could be provided with 0% interest loans to buy new equipment. Perhaps they could get infrastructure grants for expanding passenger services into new areas (something that Amtrak deserves an “F” for).

I dunno. I believe there are some very smart transportation officials and rail advocates in this country that could come up with something. Perhaps in time they will.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## RPC

fredmcain said:


> After all, private enterprises are often more efficient than government run ones.


Compare the competition (airlines) today vs. 1971 to see what "higher efficiency" may look like. Mr. Anderson took a small step in the direction of higher efficiency with "fresh & contemporary dining" - how are we reacting?


----------



## chrsjrcj

Private companies work in the interest of the shareholders...ie maximize profit.

If anything, Amtrak should be treated LESS like a private corporation, so it can work in the best interest of the people it serves...ie citizens of the US.


----------



## ehbowen

chrsjrcj said:


> Private companies work in the interest of the shareholders...ie maximize profit.
> 
> If anything, Amtrak should be treated LESS like a private corporation, so it can work in the best interest of the people it serves...ie citizens of the US.


That's not a problem at all. Just arrange the incentives so that profit is maximized when quality of service and number of customers served is maximized.


----------



## neroden

So, the interesting thing to me is this...

...by making some rather stupid and counterproductive threats, Anderson has brought down the sort of micromanagement which saddles VIA with a specific list of extremely expensive rural routes which they have to operate in perpetuity by law.

Had he made a serious proposal to reroute via Amarillo, it might have happened. Making a threat to use buses got him locked into the Raton Pass route and its ghost town stations essentially for all time.

I don't particularly like this outcome; it's been bad for VIA.


----------



## neroden

fredmcain said:


> But here is a truly radical idea*:* What if the _Chief_ were to stay on the current North Line as far west as Trinidad then head south over BNSF’s former Ft. Worth & Denver line until it hits the south line where it would then turn west again. Then only the towns of Raton, Las Vegas and Lamy would be missed. Again, a “Throughway” bus could serve those towns and perhaps even stop in downtown Santa Fe. This might actually be an improvement.


In terms of online population, I like it a lot. And it's still all-BNSF.
I'm OK with the directional running too.

It's too circuitous, though.

Ideally, we'd have the Chief on the Transcon route, and we'd also have a Denver-Kansas City train and a Denver-Amarillo-Lubbock train...


----------



## Thirdrail7

fredmcain said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak was created to relieve the freight railroads of their passenger train burden, and....there ain't no going back...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I hear this a lot. “It didn’t work before, therefore*…..*” But I just find it hard to believe that we can’t do better than this. We are approaching 5½ _BILLION_ dollars a year for Amtrak (taxpayer $ + ticket revenue) and what are we getting? Where the heck is all that money going? Can’t there be a better way? It almost seems like Amtrak needs more and more cash to provide less and less service.
> 
> I like to point out that the government’s attitude (and much of the public’s as well) before about the 1970s was somewhat hostile towards railroads in general and against passenger trains as well. For example, in the 1940s the feds imposed a federal excise tax on the sale of passenger tickets that was in effect for around 20 years and yet to the best of my knowledge not one thin dime of that money ever found its way back into rail passenger infrastructure or equipment.
Click to expand...

Amtrak (and a great deal of other agencies) will continue to need more and more as the infrastructure across the United States continues to age. It is balance due time. The years of kicking the can down the road has bitten everyone. it can no longer get kicked down the road since the can is so raggedy and filled with holes, it is no longer has the proper shape to get kicked down the road.

What does that mean for private investors? What private investor in their right minds would want to take over an industry that has trillion dollar infrastructure and capital needs, is strangled with regulations and unfunded mandates and it a liability nightmare?

That is how the freights see passenger rail. Their trains hop the rail, break down, fall apart on a daily basis and you don't hear/read much about it. The same is not true with passenger service. Additionally, some of the freight carriers proved they aren't interested in providing passengers service by PULLING OUT OF EXISTING operations. CSX refused to operate the MARC trains they inherited, did not bid on the VRE service on their territory. NS also declined to bid on the commuter services, which had their costs guaranteed.

If operators don't want passenger service on a state level with their costs all but guaranteed, what makes you think they'd want to take on Amtrak's woes, particularly if they have to answer to the ground rules of Congress? I can't imagine them dipping their toes into a multi-state, long distance service especially if it is subsidized by the feds. If you take their money, it comes with a price that I'd venture to say, the hosts don't want (which is something I think Richard Anderson is learning.)


----------



## bretton88

I guess I'm a little disappointed with the fact that we're probably only coming out of this situation with the status quo. There where points in the discussions where I felt like so much more could have come out of this. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy we do preserve service, but there was so much more potential on the table.


----------



## jis

This memo is now verified to be from Amtrak. This what Amtrak had to say today (8/14/18) regarding the Southwest Chief:



> MEMO:
> 
> We know many of you have concerns about the status of the Southwest Chief. Here’s an update:
> 
> We are considering changes to the route and operation of the Southwest Chief. No decision has been made yet on our long-term operation of the entire Southwest Chief route, but a portion of the route faces unique challenges because of extensive operational and capital investment costs required to continue the present service. We are considering all options on how to make this route work, given the changing needs of our passengers, our limited resources and the expectations of Congress to deliver this service safely and efficiently. What we want you and our stakeholders to know is that the status quo is not an option – we or others either have to invest more or make changes.
> 
> We are looking specifically at changes to the Southwest Chief because it requires a lot of capital investment to keep it running “as is.” The Southwest Chief currently loses more than $50M every year, and we will need to invest more than $100M in the next 3-5 years to bring the route to a State of Good Repair and to fully implement Positive Train Control, plus additional operating expenses that will likely add to the train’s annual losses. We are responsible for all maintenance and capital costs for a 219-mile stretch of the route between Colorado and New Mexico. Also, Positive Train Control is not installed on a 348-mile stretch between Dodge City, Kan., and Albuquerque. No other Amtrak route has this combination of operational losses with capital investment needs. And this is an issue for us because we have a clear mandate from Congress, which is stated in the FAST Act, to deliver our services in a cost-effective manner, and we are falling short of this mandate with the Southwest Chief. We have many capital needs at Amtrak, and we have limited resources. We have to balance the needs of the Southwest Chief with the needs of the rest of our National Network, including all of our other Long Distance trains.
> 
> We know that many of our customers and stakeholders value this route – and we are evaluating all options. We are continuing to have conversations with members of the Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico congressional delegations and state and local leaders about the various options and funding needs. In addition, we will have senior executives onboard the Southwest Chief next week to talk with our stakeholders along the route.
> 
> We will provide updates as new information becomes available. In the meantime, we ask that everyone continue to provide excellent service and hospitality to our Southwest Chief customers and continue to operate safely and with the high degree of professionalism that defines our employees.


My Observation: It still appears to imply that a track segment that carries one train each way per day requires PTC

If this is really going to be pushed by Amtrak then bid farewell to San Jose - San Louis Obispo segment of Coast Starlight and California Zephyr on the Moffatt Route.


----------



## acelafan

Is the RPA (and others) adequately calling out this lie? Amtrak spreading these falsehoods is not good, obviously. It's clear they don't want to fight very hard (if at all) to make the current or even an alternate routing work.


----------



## jis

acelafan said:


> Is the RPA (and others) adequately calling out this lie? Amtrak spreading these falsehoods is not good, obviously. It's clear they don't want to fight very hard (if at all) to make the current or even an alternate routing work.


It is a bit more subtle than a direct false statement. It is an implication from the statement that the segment does not have PTC. There should be zero cost impact of that fact since it does not need PTC. Statement in that context of costs implies that it does. And yes. RPA is raising this issue repeatedly with Amtrak, but when you need all kinds of nonsense to pile cost onto a train since you want to destroy it one way or the other, such niceties as inconvenient truths and facts sometimes take a back seat.

In general, I believe any statement about "Costs" from Amtrak is highly suspect because so far they have been unable or unwilling to explain to anyone how they go about allocating costs in order to come up with those make believe numbers, whatever they need to fit the bill for the conversation of the day.





That is even if we completely ignore the PTC related stuff.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Thanks jis!

Ever since this first arose,and when New Mexico's weasel Governor ( they seem to elect alot!)backed out of the track deal with BNSF, the Sensible Alternate being pushed has been BNSFs Southern Main thru Clovis,Amarillo, Witchita,etc.

I think this makes perfect sense, Lies,half truths and $100 Million Dollars for Two Trains a day makes Zero sense.

I applaud Colorado's efforts on keeping,getting better rail service for SE Colorado,( where's Kansas,Texas and New Mexico??) and think this was one of Joe Boardmans better ideas while he was CEO.

( remember the Special he ran through this area)

But as Cuba Gooding said in "Jerry McGuire": "..Show me the Money!.."


----------



## bretton88

The 100 million is assuredly a fake number. That is a number Amtrak is throwing out because it gets attention and sticks (35 million doesn't quite have that same ring, lol). Remember the Trump 10 billion net worth boast? We all remembered that number even when the facts showed the real number was much different. The 100 million is similar, a number that raises the profile and attention of the issue and the Amtrak will get somewhere close to the real number it needs. Scott Adams wrote a great blog on how this works and how it's great negotiating. Remember, Amtrak is now run by a guy who's from the private sector.


----------



## west point

JIS. Have you had any luck getting your congress persons to realize that Amtrak has taken efforts to hide what their real costs are ? I have had no luck here trying to get ours to realize there is no transparency to Amtrak's figures especially since Amtrak reduced it monthly reports to fluff.


----------



## jis

west point said:


> JIS. Have you had any luck getting your congress persons to realize that Amtrak has taken efforts to hide what their real costs are ? I have had no luck here trying to get ours to realize there is no transparency to Amtrak's figures especially since Amtrak reduced it monthly reports to fluff.


If you knew who my Congressperson is you would not be asking that question



(Hint: Look up Florida 8th) One of my Senator already understands this. I have no clue what the other one thinks since he does not seem to think that he should deal with any of the people that he represents.


----------



## keelhauled

bretton88 said:


> The 100 million is assuredly a fake number. That is a number Amtrak is throwing out because it gets attention and sticks (35 million doesn't quite have that same ring, lol). Remember the Trump 10 billion net worth boast? We all remembered that number even when the facts showed the real number was much different. The 100 million is similar, a number that raises the profile and attention of the issue and the Amtrak will get somewhere close to the real number it needs. Scott Adams wrote a great blog on how this works and how it's great negotiating. Remember, Amtrak is now run by a guy who's from the private sector.


As long as Amtrak is (in theory) accountable to taxpayer, I think they have an obligation to be honest with the American government and public. "But Trump did it" is not IMO a good justification for anything. It may well be the case that the costs of maintaining the Chief over Raton outweigh the benefits, but no one is going to be able to say for sure without access to the facts. I would hope that whatever stakeholders Amtrak officials meet with would press the company for an itemized list of expenses so there is a level playing field among everyone w/r/t the data in this conundrum.


----------



## fredmcain

First of all, my main question on this so-called "update" from Amtrak is, when exactly was it generated? Was this prior to the action that was recently taken in the Senate or after the fact? That would make a big difference 'cause if it was prior, it is also dated and Amtrak's intentions may have changed. But if it came out after the Senate undertook its actions then Anderson has obviously chosen to dig in for a fight. I believe in the end he will almost certainly lose because he is turning too many people including some of his most valuable supporters against him.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## Thirdrail7

fredmcain said:


> First of all, my main question on this so-called "update" from Amtrak is, when exactly was it generated? Was this prior to the action that was recently taken in the Senate or after the fact? That would make a big difference 'cause if it was prior, it is also dated and Amtrak's intentions may have changed. But if it came out after the Senate undertook its actions then Anderson has obviously chosen to dig in for a fight. I believe in the end he will almost certainly lose because he is turning too many people including some of his most valuable supporters against him.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain


The update was yet another leaked, internal document that came out this week. Prepare for battle because you obviously read it yourself: " the status quo is not an option."


----------



## fredmcain

The status quo *IS* an option if Congress mandates it. So far they have just passed a resolution but I would be surprised if they back down.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## Thirdrail7

fredmcain said:


> The status quo *IS* an option if Congress mandates it. So far they have just passed a resolution but I would be surprised if they back down.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC



You mean if Congress (or someone else) FUNDS it.


----------



## fredmcain

Thirdrail7 said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> The status quo *IS* an option if Congress mandates it. So far they have just passed a resolution but I would be surprised if they back down.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean if Congress (or someone else) FUNDS it.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, of course. The current pending legislation provides $50 million (if I understood that right) and taken together with state monies that should bring us closer to the $100 million figure that was thrown out in the "leak". *BUT* this legislation has NOT passed the House yet! The house could raise the funding, cut it, or elimination the whole thing altogether. We have no choice but to wait and see. In the meantime, if you feel strongly about this, keep hammering on your rep.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## jis

Don't worry, as soon as the $100 million is secured, the mysterious Amtrak fake number generator will up the ante to $200 million


----------



## RPC

Adding another twist to an already complicated plot...has anyone else noticed that the bus bridge is described as between *Albuquerque *and Dodge City or wherever? But the SWC line from the west joins the Rail Runner tracks in Isleta Village, ten miles or so south of Albuquerque. So if PTC is the sticking point, the Chief can't even get to ABQ from the west and the train/bus transfer would need to take place in Isleta (or Belen). (Can you say "blech?")


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

That's the 10 miles that you hike from the train to the bus.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> Don't worry, as soon as the $100 million is secured, the mysterious Amtrak fake number generator will up the ante to $200 million


And then after upping it to $200 million, they'll say that that's just too much for it to be justifiable altogether.


----------



## cpotisch

RPC said:


> Adding another twist to an already complicated plot...has anyone else noticed that the bus bridge is described as between *Albuquerque *and Dodge City or wherever? But the SWC line from the west joins the Rail Runner tracks in Isleta Village, ten miles or so south of Albuquerque. So if PTC is the sticking point, the Chief can't even get to ABQ from the west and the train/bus transfer would need to take place in Isleta (or Belen). (Can you say "blech?")


No. The plan was for the train to terminate in Albuquerque coming east, passengers would switch to a bus to Dodge City or Kansas City, and then the train would resume there and continue on to Chicago. It was not that the train stops before Albuquerque and only the bus runs there.


----------



## fredmcain

cpotisch said:


> RPC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adding another twist to an already complicated plot...has anyone else noticed that the bus bridge is described as between *Albuquerque *and Dodge City or wherever? But the SWC line from the west joins the Rail Runner tracks in Isleta Village, ten miles or so south of Albuquerque. So if PTC is the sticking point, the Chief can't even get to ABQ from the west and the train/bus transfer would need to take place in Isleta (or Belen). (Can you say "blech?")
> 
> 
> 
> No. The plan was for the train to terminate in Albuquerque coming east, passengers would switch to a bus to Dodge City or Kansas City, and then the train would resume there and continue on to Chicago. It was not that the train stops before Albuquerque and only the bus runs there.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I get the idea that, after reading through that "leaked" article again, that the whole concept of a "bus bridge" is probably dead. But they did not say what they intend to do other than "all options". They did say that they are willing to continue working with the states to find a solution so maybe the whole thing really is an attempt at gold digging.

Another possible falsehood in the leak is that there is no PTC for the 348 miles from Dodge to Albuquerque. Is that for sure right? JIS and I were discussing this before and I thought we'd decided that it is only WEST of Trinidad that will not get PTC. I thought I saw BNSF installing PTC-like "Darth Vader" signals when I rode over the line last summer as far west as Trinidad. The historic open-wire code lines were also coming down along there.

Regards,

Fred M. CaIN


----------



## railiner

cpotisch said:


> RPC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adding another twist to an already complicated plot...has anyone else noticed that the bus bridge is described as between *Albuquerque *and Dodge City or wherever? But the SWC line from the west joins the Rail Runner tracks in Isleta Village, ten miles or so south of Albuquerque. So if PTC is the sticking point, the Chief can't even get to ABQ from the west and the train/bus transfer would need to take place in Isleta (or Belen). (Can you say "blech?")
> 
> 
> 
> No. The plan was for the train to terminate in Albuquerque coming east, passengers would switch to a bus to Dodge City or Kansas City, and then the train would resume there and continue on to Chicago. It was not that the train stops before Albuquerque and only the bus runs there.
Click to expand...

RPC is pointing out that the train coming from the west, can't reach Albuquerque all the way, due to that PTC issue over the last few miles from Isleta to Albuquerque...


----------



## fredmcain

railiner said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RPC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adding another twist to an already complicated plot...has anyone else noticed that the bus bridge is described as between *Albuquerque *and Dodge City or wherever? But the SWC line from the west joins the Rail Runner tracks in Isleta Village, ten miles or so south of Albuquerque. So if PTC is the sticking point, the Chief can't even get to ABQ from the west and the train/bus transfer would need to take place in Isleta (or Belen). (Can you say "blech?")
> 
> 
> 
> No. The plan was for the train to terminate in Albuquerque coming east, passengers would switch to a bus to Dodge City or Kansas City, and then the train would resume there and continue on to Chicago. It was not that the train stops before Albuquerque and only the bus runs there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RPC is pointing out that the train coming from the west, can't reach Albuquerque all the way, due to that PTC issue over the last few miles from Isleta to Albuquerque...
Click to expand...

Kinda seems to me - in at least a few cases - that it is actually *ANDERSON* who is making some of the PTC mandates, not Congress or the FRA. Several people on this group have already pointed out some puzzling inconsistencies.

-FMC


----------



## cpotisch

redacted. Sorry y'all!


----------



## jis

cpotisch said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RPC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adding another twist to an already complicated plot...has anyone else noticed that the bus bridge is described as between *Albuquerque *and Dodge City or wherever? But the SWC line from the west joins the Rail Runner tracks in Isleta Village, ten miles or so south of Albuquerque. So if PTC is the sticking point, the Chief can't even get to ABQ from the west and the train/bus transfer would need to take place in Isleta (or Belen). (Can you say "blech?")
> 
> 
> 
> No. The plan was for the train to terminate in Albuquerque coming east, passengers would switch to a bus to Dodge City or Kansas City, and then the train would resume there and continue on to Chicago. It was not that the train stops before Albuquerque and only the bus runs there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RPC is pointing out that the train coming from the west, can't reach Albuquerque all the way, due to that PTC issue over the last few miles from Isleta to Albuquerque...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kinda seems to me - in at least a few cases - that it is actually *ANDERSON* who is making some of the PTC mandates, not Congress or the FRA. Several people on this group have already pointed out some puzzling inconsistencies.
> 
> -FMC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Congress made the mandate. Anderson is the one choosing how to deal with it, but Congress made the mandate.
Click to expand...

Congress did not make a mandate about requiring PTC on a segment that carries only one train each way. That is something that even the FRA did not mandate. That is something that Anderson dreamed up. So either you are just plain wrong, or are being disingenuous.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda seems to me - in at least a few cases - that it is actually *ANDERSON* who is making some of the PTC mandates, not Congress or the FRA. Several people on this group have already pointed out some puzzling inconsistencies.
> 
> -FMC
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Congress made the mandate. Anderson is the one choosing how to deal with it, but Congress made the mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress did not make a mandate about requiring PTC on a segment that carries only one train each way. That is something that even the FRA did not mandate. That is something that Anderson dreamed up. So either you are just plain wrong, or are being disingenuous.
Click to expand...

The former. I was thinking of the F&B mandate and got it confused with Anderson's PTC one.


----------



## jis

http://www.dodgeglobe.com/news/20180815/future-of-southwest-chief-remains-in-balance


----------



## frequentflyer

So what does BNSF spend 50 million on this route? Does it get banked and spent over the period of 20 years some posters are stating that BNSF states will keep mx up on the line?


----------



## jis

frequentflyer said:


> So what does BNSF spend 50 million on this route? Does it get banked and spent over the period of 20 years some posters are stating that BNSF states will keep mx up on the line?


My understanding is that BNSF's commitment is contingent upon getting the trackage up to state of good repair and the signals upto current standards. That Capital Cost is what is being bickered about and where the $50 million and $100 million numbers are being tossed about, that is to be spent over the next 5 or so years. Once the track and signal are in that state BNSF has offered to maintain them in that state for 20 years.

Mind you, this is my vague understanding and it could be wrong.

Unfortunately at present given Amtrak's attitude it is to their advantage to obfuscate and stretch truth to the limit or a bit beyond to give a picture that the SWC is hopelessly expensive, and that is what they are doing. They should be asked to provide a full detailed accounting of their claims since they have not proved to be very trustworthy.


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what does BNSF spend 50 million on this route? Does it get banked and spent over the period of 20 years some posters are stating that BNSF states will keep mx up on the line?
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that BNSF's commitment is contingent upon getting the trackage up to state of good repair and the signals upto current standards. That Capital Cost is what is being bickered about and where the $50 million and $100 million numbers are being tossed about, that is to be spent over the next 5 or so years. Once the track and signal are in that state BNSF has offered to maintain them in that state for 20 years.
> 
> Mind you, this is my vague understanding and it could be wrong.
> 
> Unfortunately at present given Amtrak's attitude it is to their advantage to obfuscate and stretch truth to the limit or a bit beyond to give a picture that the SWC is hopelessly expensive, and that is what they are doing. They should be asked to provide a full detailed accounting of their claims since they have not proved to be very trustworthy.
Click to expand...




jis said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Congress made the mandate. Anderson is the one choosing how to deal with it, but Congress made the mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> Congress did not make a mandate about requiring PTC on a segment that carries only one train each way. That is something that even the FRA did not mandate. That is something that Anderson dreamed up. So either you are just plain wrong, or are being disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, Congress did come up with the PTC mandate after the devastating wreck on the UP near Ventura a number of years ago. But, I guess what I meant by Anderson making the mandate is that he is INTERPRETING the mandate in such a way as to fit his own agenda.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## Devil's Advocate

IIRC, there is a federal mandate for PTC on qualifying sections of track, such as designated hazardous materials routes and segments that carry passenger traffic above a given speed or frequency. What Anderson has done is implement a SEPARATE Amtrak-specific zero tolerance policy which states ALL passenger traffic MUST be over PTC compliant track REGARDLESS of any applicable mandates or waivers at the federal level. Or at least that is my understanding.


----------



## west point

Any truth that Senate passed Amtrak portion of bill guaranteeing SWC will operate full route ?


----------



## RPC

railiner said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RPC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adding another twist to an already complicated plot...has anyone else noticed that the bus bridge is described as between *Albuquerque *and Dodge City or wherever? But the SWC line from the west joins the Rail Runner tracks in Isleta Village, ten miles or so south of Albuquerque. So if PTC is the sticking point, the Chief can't even get to ABQ from the west and the train/bus transfer would need to take place in Isleta (or Belen). (Can you say "blech?")
> 
> 
> 
> No. The plan was for the train to terminate in Albuquerque coming east, passengers would switch to a bus to Dodge City or Kansas City, and then the train would resume there and continue on to Chicago. It was not that the train stops before Albuquerque and only the bus runs there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RPC is pointing out that the train coming from the west, can't reach Albuquerque all the way, due to that PTC issue over the last few miles from Isleta to Albuquerque...
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was also obliquely pointing out that the original bus bridge proposal was even more capricious than it first seemed. Look at it from east to west: it's okay to run from CHI to Dodge City (we all agree on that), not okay to run from Dodge City to Rosario (north junction with RailRunner)(okay with FRA, not okay with Anderson), not okay to run from Rosario to ABQ (not okay with FRA or Anderson), *okay to run from ABQ to Isleta* (south junction with RailRunner)(not okay with FRA, apparently okay with Anderson), okay to run from Isleta to Dalies (okay with FRA, okay with Anderson, but I don't think this segment is getting PTC). This is "decision-based data making" at its finest.


----------



## me_little_me

fredmcain said:


> Kinda seems to me - in at least a few cases - that it is actually *ANDERSON* who is making some of the PTC mandates, not Congress or the FRA. Several people on this group have already pointed out some puzzling inconsistencies.
> 
> -FMC


Wasn't that the case a few months ago when he said something about not running his trains on tracks w/o PTC after the end of the year?


----------



## jis

We are all waiting with bated breath to see the objective documented SMS analysis supporting the absurd stance. Maybe American Engineers have to be modeled as the most incompetent in the world to arrive at Anderson’s desired results. But it would be good to know what the assumptions are that go into the analysis.


----------



## fredmcain

west point said:


> Any truth that Senate passed Amtrak portion of bill guaranteeing SWC will operate full route ?


Oh, probably not but at the very least it could well make Anderson's life politically more difficult. I'm not sure Congress can fire Anderson (we've discussed that here before) but what they COULD do is make things miserable enough for him that he might just resign.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> We are all waiting with bated breath to see the objective documented SMS analysis supporting the absurd stance. Maybe American Engineers have to be modeled as the most incompetent in the world to arrive at Anderson’s desired results. But it would be good to know what the assumptions are that go into the analysis.


Alright, JIS, I'm going go out and expose my ignorance here. What is the "SMS analysis"?

Regards,

FMC


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Google (sms safety policy)

In the merchant sailor business it a big three binder with policies on how to operate the ship safety. On some ships its a bible, on other it a cut and paste reference book gathering dust on the self.

.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

> Safety Management Systems (SMS)
> 
> Safety Management System (SMS) is a comprehensive, collaborative approach that brings management and labor together to build on the transit industry’s existing safety foundation to control risk better, detect and correct safety problems earlier, share and analyze safety data more effectively, and measure safety performance more carefully. SMS is about applying resources to risk and is based on ensuring that a transit agency has the organizational infrastructure to support decision-making at all levels regarding the assignment of resources. Some key parts of SMS include:
> 
> Defined roles and responsibilities
> Strong executive safety leadership
> Formal safety accountabilities and communication
> Effective policies and procedures
> Active employee involvement


https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/safety-management-systems-sms

https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/safety-management-systems-sms-approach-strengthening-transit-safety


----------



## jis

The following material is quoted here with enthusiastic permission of Ross Capon and Carl Fowler to inform everyone about certain facts regarding the Southwest Chief situation:



> Ross Capon, the former Executive Director and President of NARP (now the Rail Passengers Association) and still working in semi-retirement with the American Association of Private Railway Car Owners (AAPRCO), has graciously allowed me to share a concise and devastating deconstruction of Amtrak's specious arguments for killing the SW CHIEF by bustitution from Dodge City to Albuquerque. Quoting Ross;
> 
> "Putting people in buses to ride over Raton Pass would worsen safety, not improve it. Some rail-to-bus and bus-to-rail transfer injuries are likely, especially among older passengers.
> 
> 
> Amtrak claims SW Chief infrastructure capital costs are $100+ million over five years including $55m for PTC.
> 
> * The bulk of the $55m is not reasonable, per the above.
> 
> * $22.5 million (the non-Amtrak share of the latest TIGER grant) would become available if and when Amtrak releases its $3m. (NB: The total grant with the match which Amtrak has been witghholding is $25,189,000--Carl Fowler)
> 
> * This creates a dramatically more manageable scenario than Amtrak has portrayed.
> 
> Amtrak claims $3m operating costs -- as has been noted, this figure would be dwarfed by the combined impact of charter bus expenses and revenues lost due to the bus operation."
> 
> Further comment by Carl Fowler:
> 
> It is critical to note Amtrak's Pinnochio (of the growing nose as the lies spin) like handling of purported renovation costs here. In the slide show Richard Anderson presented to the Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico Congressional delegations, Amtrak offered an estimate of $30-50M in repair costs over Raton Pass. Now this grows to $100,000,000?
> 
> We can only presume they've added in the $55,000,000 for Postive Train Control (PTC) over territory that is legally exempted from PTC by the FRA. This is incredibly deceptive, as that expense is not reqauired either legally or to preserve safe operation, as Ross eloquently shows.


----------



## west point

What we see from Ross Capton is the necessity on insisting that costs need to be broken down for each line item. It may be Mr. Anderson thinks like a private company executive that broad brushing is all he needs to show, That is also our belief that the reduction is daily and monthly stats is obfuscating Amtrak's true financial results.


----------



## neroden

Anderson's manifest dishonesty and routine lying means he really needs to be fired.


----------



## bretton88

neroden said:


> Anderson's manifest dishonesty and routine lying means he really needs to be fired.


This has been the case for years at Amtrak. You'd have to do a full house clean to get different results.


----------



## cpotisch

bretton88 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson's manifest dishonesty and routine lying means he really needs to be fired.
> 
> 
> 
> This has been the case for years at Amtrak. You'd have to do a full house clean to get different results.
Click to expand...

Just because a lot of people do something bad does not mean that we shouldn't care that one of the people doing that most is also the most powerful person at Amtrak.


----------



## fredmcain

It's my best guess that Anderson simply did not realize and, in fact, had no idea how much vehement opposition his plans for the _Chief _would get. Now, he has to try and find a way to back down and still somehow "save face". If he cannot do that, I suspect that he might resign by the end of the year. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens next.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## jis

I wonder if the notification given by Amtrak to the states constitutes the required 180 day notice. Actual posting of discontinuance notices at each station has to happen only 14 days before discontinuance.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24706

I have no idea how all this is being interpreted and operationalized, and if it is or not. But just thought I would share this info with all y'all.


----------



## bms

jis said:


> I wonder if the notification given by Amtrak to the states constitutes the required 180 day notice. Actual posting of discontinuance notices at each station has to happen only 14 days before discontinuance.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24706
> 
> I have no idea how all this is being interpreted and operationalized, and if it is or not. But just thought I would share this info with all y'all.


I assume Anderson would say changing to a bus is not discontinuing service. Even if the service doesn't change at all, he has won the long game - things have been up in the air long enough that the Chief will have less ridership and less revenue, making it easier to cancel in the future.


----------



## zephyr17

fredmcain said:


> It's my best guess that Anderson simply did not realize and, in fact, had no idea how much vehement opposition his plans for the _Chief _would get. Now, he has to try and find a way to back down and still somehow "save face". If he cannot do that, I suspect that he might resign by the end of the year. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens next.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC


From your mouth to God's ear.


----------



## zephyr17

jis said:


> I wonder if the notification given by Amtrak to the states constitutes the required 180 day notice. Actual posting of discontinuance notices at each station has to happen only 14 days before discontinuance.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24706
> 
> I have no idea how all this is being interpreted and operationalized, and if it is or not. But just thought I would share this info with all y'all.


Well, considering they got the eastern extension of the Sunset dropped without it at all, it could be considered pretty much moot. Although it is officially just "suspended" but Amtrak has made no effort at to unsuspend it long after the route was repaired and Amtrak actually has been pretty resistant to reinstating it, insisting on calling a new service. So being "suspended" versus "discontinued" is a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

fredmcain said:


> It's my best guess that Anderson simply did not realize and, in fact, had no idea how much vehement opposition his plans for the _Chief _would get. Now, he has to try and find a way to back down and still somehow "save face". If he cannot do that, I suspect that he might resign by the end of the year. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens next. Regards, FMC


Rather than back down Anderson seems more inclined to double down instead.


----------



## zephyr17

Devil's Advocate said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my best guess that Anderson simply did not realize and, in fact, had no idea how much vehement opposition his plans for the _Chief _would get. Now, he has to try and find a way to back down and still somehow "save face". If he cannot do that, I suspect that he might resign by the end of the year. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens next. Regards, FMC
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than back down Anderson seems more inclined to double down instead.
Click to expand...

Looks that way to me, too.


----------



## jis

As long as the Board is not upset with him, he has absolutely no reason to do anything but carry on. The first real indication of how things are going would be how much of his performance based bonus he collects. Until then we have zero indication about anything.

Incidentally, it looks like according 49CFR the only party that can bring an action in court for violation of train termination rules against Amtrak is the Attorney General. I would be surprised if Sessions does anything of the sort, no matter what.


----------



## railiner

I wonder just how the general ridership of Amtrak feels about all of this, as compared to advocate's...meaning organization's like RPA et al, as well as forum's like AU?

That may be the ultimate measure of whether Anderson remains in office, or not. While it is all very much in our thoughts, how many 'ordinary' Amtrak passenger's know about what is going on, or how much they are really concerned about it?


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> It's my best guess that Anderson simply did not realize and, in fact, had no idea how much vehement opposition his plans for the _Chief _would get. Now, he has to try and find a way to back down and still somehow "save face". If he cannot do that, I suspect that he might resign by the end of the year. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens next.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC


Sorry, you think that Anderson might resign because there was more opposition than he expected to a suggested "route chopping" that didn't end up happening? Why?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

jis said:


> As long as the Board is not upset with him, he has absolutely no reason to do anything but carry on. The first real indication of how things are going would be how much of his performance based bonus he collects. Until then we have zero indication about anything.
> 
> Incidentally, it looks like according 49CFR the only party that can bring an action in court for violation of train termination rules against Amtrak is the Attorney General. I would be surprised if *Sessions* does anything of the sort, no matter what.


Didn't I read somewhere he's in hiding?


----------



## Palmetto

It is being reported that NMRX has received funds from Uncle Sam to get PTC up and running, so this would be good news for Amtrak's operation in New Mexico. It would not surprise me to hear that Mr. Anderson is very annoyed with this turn of events.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Palmetto said:


> It is being reported that NMRX has received funds from Uncle Sam to get PTC up and running, so this would be good news for Amtrak's operation in New Mexico. It would not surprise me to hear that Mr. Anderson is very annoyed with this turn of events.


Thanks for the notice.

This is what I was able to find thus far...



U.S. Representative Ben Ray Luján via house.gov said:


> New Mexico Delegation Announces Nearly $30 Million for Rail Runner Safety Upgrade
> 
> August 21, 2018
> 
> DOT grant will help fund implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) and keep Rail Runner running
> 
> WASHINGTON Today, U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich and U.S. Representatives Ben Ray Luján, Steve Pearce, and Michelle Lujan Grisham announced that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has awarded the Rio Metro Regional Transit District $29,359,208 to fund the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) on the New Mexico Rail Runner Express commuter rail.
> 
> In June, the New Mexico delegation wrote to DOT in support of this grant, which will help enable the Rail Runner to comply with a federal safety mandate requiring the implementation of PTC. Without the grant, the Rio Metro Regional Transit District would have likely needed to cut service significantly on the Rail Runner to accommodate the cost of PTC.
> 
> The Rail Runner connects rural, Native, and urban communities in Central New Mexico, offering thousands of New Mexicans access to employment, education, health care and service opportunities,saidUdall. While Positive Train Control represents a critical safety upgrade, it also carries with it a high price tag that threatened to limit the essential service the Rail Runner provides to Central New Mexico. Im proud to have fought for this major investment, which keeps the Rail Runner running while ensuring the safety of those who ride it.
> 
> This major federal investment in the Rail Runner will ensure the train will continue to connect communities from Santa Fe to Belen, said Heinrich. I am proud to support the long term viability of reliable transportation alternatives like the Rail Runner and the Southwest Chief. These passenger trains help New Mexicans access work, education, and health care. They also link rural and tribal communities to our states major cities and tourism economy. As the Ranking Member on the Joint Economic Committee, I will continue to fight for 21st century infrastructure investments in all of our communities.
> 
> The Rail Runner provides a critical service for New Mexicans from Santa Fe and Albuquerque through Belen and Los Lunas. Hundreds of residents rely on this transportation to access their work, their doctors, and their education. This significant federal funding represents safety improvements for which New Mexicans otherwise would have had to pay a high price for, said Luján. I was proud to support Rio Grande Metro Regional Transit Districts application for this grant and Im pleased that the Department of Transportation chose to invest in Rail Runners ability to continue providing safe, reliable services to New Mexicans.
> 
> Implementing PTC on the Rail Runner will continue to ensure passenger and community safety for those that rely on it, said Pearce. This technology is federally mandated and able to monitor trains in real-time and stop collisions and accidents before they occur. I am pleased to see this grant coming to New Mexico to increase safety on the Rail Runner line and prevent disruptions in service due to compliance.
> 
> NMRX is part of a regional transit network that is integral to our states economy. It facilitates employment opportunities, connects our urban and rural communities, and helps ensure that New Mexicans have access to health care, higher education, and veteran services, said Lujan Grisham. This critical infrastructure grant will support NMRX s efforts to continue providing safe and reliable service to New Mexicans and tourists who depend on it every single day. I remain committed to revitalizing our transportation and infrastructure systems, securing funding for our states long-term needs, and helping our economy grow.
> 
> Each day, up to 16 one-way commuter trains follow a 100 mile corridor connecting Albuquerque to Santa Fe, Pueblos, Los Lunas, Belen, and rural communities in central New Mexico.


Link: https://lujan.house.gov/common/popup/popup.cfm?action=item.print&itemID=4835


----------



## fredmcain

Palmetto said:


> It is being reported that NMRX has received funds from Uncle Sam to get PTC up and running, so this would be good news for Amtrak's operation in New Mexico. It would not surprise me to hear that Mr. Anderson is very annoyed with this turn of events.


Exactly. Things are not going his way - that's why I think he will resign. That is my best guess but not a prediction. Who knows at this point.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## jis

fredmcain said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is being reported that NMRX has received funds from Uncle Sam to get PTC up and running, so this would be good news for Amtrak's operation in New Mexico. It would not surprise me to hear that Mr. Anderson is very annoyed with this turn of events.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Things are not going his way - that's why I think he will resign. That is my best guess but not a prediction. Who knows at this point.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC
Click to expand...

Actually, we have no idea how things are going. In our echo chamber things are not going his way, that is certainly true. But the question is how big is our echo chamber, and does it matter what happens in it?


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is being reported that NMRX has received funds from Uncle Sam to get PTC up and running, so this would be good news for Amtrak's operation in New Mexico. It would not surprise me to hear that Mr. Anderson is very annoyed with this turn of events.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Things are not going his way - that's why I think he will resign. That is my best guess but not a prediction. Who knows at this point.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC
Click to expand...

So now you think he's going to resign because a commuter railroad might have gotten PTC funding? You're losing me, Fred.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Sounds like, to me, that he is getting his way. He wants the trains to be safe and now it looks like the SWC will be on safe tracks??

(I’m not following this drama as closely as many of you are so maybe I’ve misinterpreted some things).


----------



## jis

AmtrakBlue said:


> Sounds like, to me, that he is getting his way. He wants the trains to be safe and now it looks like the SWC will be on safe tracks??
> 
> (I’m not following this drama as closely as many of you are so maybe I’ve misinterpreted some things).


Yeah, either it will be on safe tracks (which it already is in reality) or it will be even safer, as in not being there at all. Nothing is safer than a non-existent train


----------



## ohle

Palmetto said:


> It is being reported that NMRX has received funds from Uncle Sam to get PTC up and running, so this would be good news for Amtrak's operation in New Mexico. It would not surprise me to hear that Mr. Anderson is very annoyed with this turn of events.


True.

This crummy CEO's idea of "improved service" is to replace vital and successful long-distance trains with BUS ROUTES.

Turns out, substituting buses for the trains will ... eh... be more expensive than running the train.

Bus travel is also far more dangerous, compared to trains.

Every week, 167 people die on the roadways. Passenger trains? Maybe 10 a year.

Who figured.

Guess it took a genius CEO who only knows how to cut, cut, cut to know that.


----------



## ohle

railiner said:


> I wonder just how the general ridership of Amtrak feels about all of this, as compared to advocate's...meaning organization's like RPA et al, as well as forum's like AU?
> 
> That may be the ultimate measure of whether Anderson remains in office, or not. While it is all very much in our thoughts, how many 'ordinary' Amtrak passenger's know about what is going on, or how much they are really concerned about it?


The general traveling public is very upset with this crummy CEO's actions.

Most don't know about it, so they have to be told of all the negative changes which could mean the ending of the trains they travel.

When I pass-out Save Amtrak flyers at stations and on trains, most are receptive and many tell me they plan to write Congress to stop this madman from destroying America's passenger train system.


----------



## fredmcain

ohle said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is being reported that NMRX has received funds from Uncle Sam to get PTC up and running, so this would be good news for Amtrak's operation in New Mexico. It would not surprise me to hear that Mr. Anderson is very annoyed with this turn of events.
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> This crummy CEO's idea of "improved service" is to replace vital and successful long-distance trains with BUS ROUTES.
> 
> Turns out, substituting buses for the trains will ... eh... be more expensive than running the train.
> 
> Bus travel is also far more dangerous, compared to trains.
> 
> Every week, 167 people die on the roadways. Passenger trains? Maybe 10 a year.
> 
> Who figured.
> 
> Guess it took a genius CEO who only knows how to cut, cut, cut to know that.
Click to expand...

Ohle,

167 people EVERY WEEK? Actually, the highway news is even worse than that. According to one web site I just looked at, 40,200 people lost their lives in traffic accidents last year. That comes out to 110 people EVERY DAY ! Or, over four people every hour. To me, those numbers are unacceptable. If it were a war, terrorism or school shootings, the whole entire country would be in a state of uncontrollable outrage. But traffic deaths? Oh well? So what? I guess nobody has any idea what to do about it so we just try not to think about it and the news media ignores it. So, I agree, Anderson's safety concerns where their is no PTC are overdone. (See Ross Capon's take on this earlier in this thread).

Regards,

FMC


----------



## Palmetto

The trouble is you're reaching a limited audience. You need to be on 42nd St and Broadway in New York City.


----------



## keelhauled

ohle said:


> True.
> 
> This crummy CEO's idea of "improved service" is to replace vital and successful long-distance trains with BUS ROUTES.
> 
> Turns out, substituting buses for the trains will ... eh... be more expensive than running the train.
> 
> Bus travel is also far more dangerous, compared to trains.
> 
> Every week, 167 people die on the roadways. Passenger trains? Maybe 10 a year.
> 
> Who figured.
> 
> Guess it took a genius CEO who only knows how to cut, cut, cut to know that.


That's a useless statistic without knowing the population it's drawn from. In 2016, there were about 4.3 million million passenger miles traveled on US roadways, compared to 6,520 million passenger miles on Amtrak.


----------



## ohle

It isn't useless.

Amtrak ridership overall, including the long-distance trains, is increasing and is at record levels.

LD trains ridership:

https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3435/ld.pdf


----------



## fredmcain

Ohle,

Uh, well, it _WAS_ increasing before Anderson took the reins but hasn't patronage been heading south again? And that brings up another thing. His numbers are not looking all that great.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## jis

That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.

Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?

From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.
> 
> Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?
> 
> From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart


Yeah, that's some pretty odd logic. I think he meant that for the past few years, ridership has been the highest ever, but it still has no connection whatsoever that I see to fatality rates on the rails.


----------



## ohle

jis said:


> That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.
> 
> Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?
> 
> From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart


4.68 million is very similar to 4.7 million.

Ridership is up and is at record rates, not only this year, but in recent years.

This is something that should be applauded, how Amtrak (albeit slowly) has helped reverse the trend in declining train travel which began after World War II and continued through the 1980s.

The post isn't about fatality rates, which are very low (compared to other transportation modes).


----------



## ohle

cpotisch said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.
> 
> Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?
> 
> From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's some pretty odd logic. I think he meant that for the past few years, ridership has been the highest ever, but it still has no connection whatsoever that I see to fatality rates on the rails.
Click to expand...

My post wasn't about fatality rates. Move on to the next subject.


----------



## ohle

jis said:


> how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?
> 
> From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart


Those numbers are the same.

Like 1.9 million is very similar to 2 million.

Who can't understand statistics?


----------



## keelhauled

It sounds like we have a case of alternative facts in here, with a side of attempted Gish galloping.


----------



## ohle

The fact is, Amtrak long-distance ridership is at record levels. And has been the last five years.

The slight decline from the earlier high is likely due to all the freight-related delays, which are numerous.

There's nothing "untruthful" about my point that ridership of the trains is at an all-time high.


----------



## jebr

Trying to draw an argument that since there's so many more road fatalities than rail fatalities that trains are super safe ignores a lot of variables: how many people die per x amount of miles traveled, mixing road accidents by amateur drivers (most of us, myself included) vs. professional drivers, etc.

I couldn't easily find a non-biased source for deaths per x unit of vehicle miles traveled, at least from a non-biased source (there was something from the Cato Institute, but it was in a very anti-rail policy brief, so I didn't want to rely on it.) The best calculation I could do from the non-biased information I could find was to compare the highway bus fatality count compared to highway bus total miles traveled vs. rail, passenger "train accidents" and potentially "rail, other" deaths compared to Intercity/Amtrak and Commuter rail miles traveled. (I'm not sure if "rail, other" is a category to include for deaths, but it does exclude trespasser and rail crossing deaths. I'm also not sure if rail, passenger includes commuter rail, but it's not specifically called out elsewhere so I'm assuming it's considered part of rail passenger, whereas transit isn't.)

According to Table 1-40 from the National Transportation Statistics, published by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2014 (the latest year with full data) there were 339,177 million passenger miles traveled by highway bus, versus 18,275 million passenger miles traveled by Amtrak, intercity, and commuter rail in 2014. Table 2-1 from the same source states that 3 people died from train accidents for passenger rail in 2014, and 12 died after including in "rail, other." That same year, 44 bus passengers died while traveling.

Even on the low end, assuming none of the "rail, other" deaths were passenger deaths, there was one death per 6092 million passenger miles by rail, vs one passenger death per 7709 million passenger miles by bus. To me, that signals that bus transportation is likely just as safe, if not safer, than rail transportation.

There's plenty of reasons to oppose bus-bridging part of the SWC's route, but safety isn't one of them. Bus transportation is just as safe as rail transportation.


----------



## jis

ohle said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?
> 
> From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those numbers are the same.Like 1.9 million is very similar to 2 million.
> 
> Now YOU can't understand statistics?
Click to expand...

Yeah they are 100,000 apart. Since you did not mention what error parameter was acceptable to you for this discussion, your accusations are neither here nor there.

The point that keelhauled made was that raw fatality numbers are useless unless they are looked at in the context of the size of the universe in which they are being measured. So his point was that unless you are talking of fatality rates it is a useless statistic, and I and at least one or two others agreed with that. So merely saying that you were not talking about fatality rates and that ridership is at an all time high (presumably in the Amtrak era?) does not address the issue raised by keelhauled.



keelhauled said:


> It sounds like we have a case of alternative facts in here, with a side of attempted Gish galloping.


Indeed, not good at producing credible arguments I am afraid. But such is life.

There may be an argument to be made along the lines spelled out by jebr, but it has been botched badly I am afraid. I think we should stay clear of the "safety" argument since it really does not hold water. It is better to focus on the convenience or lack theref argument, which will lead to drastic reduction in usage, leading to a death spiral of the route. Use argument that are harder to refute.

If there is rock solid verified information that bustitution will cost more than capital upgrade and maintenance of tracks then that argument can be used too, but I am skeptical about its validity without seeing concrete numbers.

The main point is - if we who are in general pro-passenger rail can dismember an argument easily, just imagine what those that oppose will do with that argument.

Edits: added a few clarifications and final thoughts.


----------



## cpotisch

ohle said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.
> 
> Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?
> 
> From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's some pretty odd logic. I think he meant that for the past few years, ridership has been the highest ever, but it still has no connection whatsoever that I see to fatality rates on the rails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My post wasn't about fatality rates. Move on to the next subject.
Click to expand...

If you weren't talking about fatality rates, how come you specifically responded to keelhauled and defended your fatality rate logic?

Let's look at the post timeline:


You compared the number of Amtrak-related fatalities in 2017 to the number of automobile fatalities.
Keelhauled explained that that was a useless metric since you didn't take into account how many more passenger miles are done in automobiles compared to Amtrak
You said "It isn't useless" (which makes it pretty clear that you were responding to him), and then showed that chart which supposedly indicated that 2017 had the highest ridership ever.
So you can't tell me that that post wasn't about your fatality rate argument.


----------



## ohle

jis said:


> There may be an argument to be made along the lines spelled out by jebr, but it has been botched badly I am afraid. I think we should stay clear of the "safety" argument since it really does not hold water. It is better to focus on the convenience or lack theref argument, which will lead to drastic reduction in usage, leading to a death spiral of the route. Use argument that are harder to refute.
> If there is rock solid verified information that bustitution will cost more than capital upgrade and maintenance of tracks then that argument can be used too, but I am skeptical about its validity without seeing concrete numbers.
> 
> The main point is - if we who are in general pro-passenger rail can dismember an argument easily, just imagine what those that oppose will do with that argument.
> 
> Edits: added a few clarifications and final thoughts.


Not really.More disinformation posted on these forums.

Trains are far safer than buses, which share space with automobiles on the highly-dangerous and highly-subsidized money-losing highway systems.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/04/trains-safer-than-cars-buses-passengers-experts-say/82613144/

"....Trains remain safer for passengers than cars or buses..."



> Trains safer than cars, buses for passengers, experts say Amtrak collisions and passenger deaths are* rare* – despite high-profile crashes in the last year, according to industry statistics and experts.
> 
> _*Trains remain safer for passengers than cars or buses,*_ and nearly as safe as airliners, federal statistics show.
> 
> Just a handful of rail passengers die most years, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
> 
> But 96% of railway deaths were suicides or people who weren’t authorized to be on the tracks, such as trespassers or vehicles at grade-level crossings, according to the Federal Railroad Administration.
> 
> “Trains are significantly safer than automobiles,” said Allan Zarembski, a research professor and director of the Railroad Engineering and Safety Program at the University of Delaware. “The problem that you have with train crashes is that they tend to be very high profile, just like an airline crash.”
> 
> ....
> 
> *“The number of people who are killed on trains every year is minute,*" Zarembski said.


----------



## west point

We would like to see ridership and passenger miles for Amtrak listed from year 2000 - 2017. That takes Amtrak from a higher employment year thru the low at 2008. Then to 2017. Why the question ? 2009 was the start of PRIIA and rebuilding of 50+ AM-1s. How that additional capacity is another effect on ridership that is unknow to these posters ? Then how many additional cars out of service for whatever reason ? We again have the argument that if 100 V-1 sleepers had been delivered then sleeper riders might have increased dramatically or not ? We need the breakdown of revenue passenger miles in our opinion of 5 categories. Acela, other NEC, short distance, long distance and LD sleeper. Then we also need the OTP listed for each year. As well in each category the number of trains with one or more sold out segments.

Till those numbers are cited we tend to ignore all the arguments here. .


----------



## ohle

west point said:


> We would like to see ridership and passenger miles for Amtrak listed from year 200 - 2017. That takes Amtrak from a higher year thru the low at 2008. Then to 2017. Why the question ? 2009 was the start of PRIIA and rebuilding of AM-1s. How that additional capacity is another effect on ridership. is unknow to these posters ? We again have the argument that if 100 V-1 sleepers had been delivered then sleeper riders might have increased dramatically or not ? We need the breakdown of revenue passenger miles in our opinion of 4 categories. Acela, other NEC, short distance, long distance. Then we also need the OTP listed for each year. As well in each category the number of trains with one or more sold out segments.
> 
> Till those numbers are cited we tend to ignore all the arguments here. .


Amtrak ridership in 2017 was at a record. The highest ever. (I know some here will call it "Fake news...," but tough).

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Amtrak-broke-ridership-financial-records-in-FY2017--53302



> Amtrak broke ridership, financial records in FY2017 Amtrak posted record ridership, revenue and earnings in fiscal-year 2017, which ended Sept. 30, railroad officials announced yesterday.
> 
> In FY2017, Amtrak's ridership increased 1.5 percent to 31.7 million passenger trips and total revenue rose 1.1 percent to $3.2 billion compared with figures in FY2016, according to an Amtrak press release.
> 
> The railroad's unaudited, adjusted operating loss of $194 million was 15.7 percent less than its operating loss in FY2016. Amtrak recovered 94.7 percent of its operating costs — a new record — with ticket sales and other revenue, railroad officials said.
> 
> Also in FY2017, Amtrak posted year-over-year ridership gains for all of its service lines. Ridership grew 1 percent to a record 12 million passengers on the Northeast Corridor; rose 2.1 percent to 15 million on state-supported services; and climbed 0.9 percent to 4.6 million riders on long-distance routes.


----------



## jebr

ohle said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There may be an argument to be made along the lines spelled out by jebr, but it has been botched badly I am afraid. I think we should stay clear of the "safety" argument since it really does not hold water. It is better to focus on the convenience or lack theref argument, which will lead to drastic reduction in usage, leading to a death spiral of the route. Use argument that are harder to refute.
> If there is rock solid verified information that bustitution will cost more than capital upgrade and maintenance of tracks then that argument can be used too, but I am skeptical about its validity without seeing concrete numbers.
> 
> The main point is - if we who are in general pro-passenger rail can dismember an argument easily, just imagine what those that oppose will do with that argument.
> 
> Edits: added a few clarifications and final thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.More disinformation posted on these forums.
> 
> Trains are far safer than buses, which share space with automobiles on the highly-dangerous and highly-subsidized money-losing highway systems.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/04/trains-safer-than-cars-buses-passengers-experts-say/82613144/
> 
> "....Trains remain safer for passengers than cars or buses..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trains safer than cars, buses for passengers, experts say Amtrak collisions and passenger deaths are* rare* – despite high-profile crashes in the last year, according to industry statistics and experts.
> 
> _*Trains remain safer for passengers than cars or buses,*_ and nearly as safe as airliners, federal statistics show.
> 
> Just a handful of rail passengers die most years, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
> 
> But 96% of railway deaths were suicides or people who weren’t authorized to be on the tracks, such as trespassers or vehicles at grade-level crossings, according to the Federal Railroad Administration.
> 
> “Trains are significantly safer than automobiles,” said Allan Zarembski, a research professor and director of the Railroad Engineering and Safety Program at the University of Delaware. “The problem that you have with train crashes is that they tend to be very high profile, just like an airline crash.”
> 
> ....
> 
> *“The number of people who are killed on trains every year is minute,*" Zarembski said.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 I'm glad that your rebuttal to statistics from the Bureau of Transporation Statistics is an article that claims that buses are safer than trains "according to experts," yet never actually shows a quote where an expert mentions buses _at all_, and the only statistics are from the European Railway Agency, and the article don't state whether the statistics given are for Europe, for the world as a whole, for the US (doubtful, since it's "per billion kilometers,") or some other measurement.

No one here is arguing that taking the train is unsafe. But to try and rail against a bus bridge because it's unsafe is somewhere between questionable to downright misinformation. Arguing that bus travel is unsafe may also influence people to drive instead of take a bus, when driving is _multiple times more deadly _than taking a bus or train. Let's advocate for the SWC on better terms (such as "yes, the route will be safe even if PTC isn't completely installed" or "forcing transfers will plummet ridership, likely leading more people to drive") and not falsely tarnish a mode of transport that, used effectively, can be safer for transportation in general and increase connectivity in a true, multi-modal, transportation system.


----------



## cpotisch

ohle said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> We would like to see ridership and passenger miles for Amtrak listed from year 200 - 2017. That takes Amtrak from a higher year thru the low at 2008. Then to 2017. Why the question ? 2009 was the start of PRIIA and rebuilding of AM-1s. How that additional capacity is another effect on ridership. is unknow to these posters ? We again have the argument that if 100 V-1 sleepers had been delivered then sleeper riders might have increased dramatically or not ? We need the breakdown of revenue passenger miles in our opinion of 4 categories. Acela, other NEC, short distance, long distance. Then we also need the OTP listed for each year. As well in each category the number of trains with one or more sold out segments.
> 
> Till those numbers are cited we tend to ignore all the arguments here. .
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak ridership in 2017 was at a record. The highest ever. (I know some here will call it "Fake news...," but tough).
> 
> https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Amtrak-broke-ridership-financial-records-in-FY2017--53302
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak broke ridership, financial records in FY2017 Amtrak posted record ridership, revenue and earnings in fiscal-year 2017, which ended Sept. 30, railroad officials announced yesterday.
> 
> In FY2017, Amtrak's ridership increased 1.5 percent to 31.7 million passenger trips and total revenue rose 1.1 percent to $3.2 billion compared with figures in FY2016, according to an Amtrak press release.
> 
> The railroad's unaudited, adjusted operating loss of $194 million was 15.7 percent less than its operating loss in FY2016. Amtrak recovered 94.7 percent of its operating costs — a new record — with ticket sales and other revenue, railroad officials said.
> 
> Also in FY2017, Amtrak posted year-over-year ridership gains for all of its service lines. Ridership grew 1 percent to a record 12 million passengers on the Northeast Corridor; rose 2.1 percent to 15 million on state-supported services; and climbed 0.9 percent to 4.6 million riders on long-distance routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's great. But it doesn't at all change the fact that the graph you posted earlier clearly showed that this was not the case. Now you could be wrong or that your graph could be wrong, but either way, your claim that 2017 had peak ridership is directly contrary to what it actually showed.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

cpotisch said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> We would like to see ridership and passenger miles for Amtrak listed from year 200 - 2017. That takes Amtrak from a higher year thru the low at 2008. Then to 2017. Why the question ? 2009 was the start of PRIIA and rebuilding of AM-1s. How that additional capacity is another effect on ridership. is unknow to these posters ? We again have the argument that if 100 V-1 sleepers had been delivered then sleeper riders might have increased dramatically or not ? We need the breakdown of revenue passenger miles in our opinion of 4 categories. Acela, other NEC, short distance, long distance. Then we also need the OTP listed for each year. As well in each category the number of trains with one or more sold out segments.
> 
> Till those numbers are cited we tend to ignore all the arguments here. .
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak ridership in 2017 was at a record. The highest ever. (I know some here will call it "Fake news...," but tough).
> 
> https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Amtrak-broke-ridership-financial-records-in-FY2017--53302
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak broke ridership, financial records in FY2017 Amtrak posted record ridership, revenue and earnings in fiscal-year 2017, which ended Sept. 30, railroad officials announced yesterday.
> 
> In FY2017, Amtrak's ridership increased 1.5 percent to 31.7 million passenger trips and total revenue rose 1.1 percent to $3.2 billion compared with figures in FY2016, according to an Amtrak press release.
> 
> The railroad's unaudited, adjusted operating loss of $194 million was 15.7 percent less than its operating loss in FY2016. Amtrak recovered 94.7 percent of its operating costs — a new record — with ticket sales and other revenue, railroad officials said.
> 
> Also in FY2017, Amtrak posted year-over-year ridership gains for all of its service lines. Ridership grew 1 percent to a record 12 million passengers on the Northeast Corridor; rose 2.1 percent to 15 million on state-supported services; and climbed 0.9 percent to 4.6 million riders on long-distance routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's great. But it doesn't at all change the fact that the graph you posted earlier clearly showed that this was not the case. Now you could be wrong or that your graph could be wrong, but either way, your claim that 2017 had peak ridership is directly contrary to what it actually showed.
Click to expand...

Graph showed long distance ridership. Here he claims that total ridership in is a record high. The way he said that was slightly misleading IMO.


----------



## ohle

ParanoidAndroid said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> west point said:
> 
> 
> 
> We would like to see ridership and passenger miles for Amtrak listed from year 200 - 2017. That takes Amtrak from a higher year thru the low at 2008. Then to 2017. Why the question ? 2009 was the start of PRIIA and rebuilding of AM-1s. How that additional capacity is another effect on ridership. is unknow to these posters ? We again have the argument that if 100 V-1 sleepers had been delivered then sleeper riders might have increased dramatically or not ? We need the breakdown of revenue passenger miles in our opinion of 4 categories. Acela, other NEC, short distance, long distance. Then we also need the OTP listed for each year. As well in each category the number of trains with one or more sold out segments.
> 
> Till those numbers are cited we tend to ignore all the arguments here. .
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak ridership in 2017 was at a record. The highest ever. (I know some here will call it "Fake news...," but tough).
> 
> https://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Amtrak-broke-ridership-financial-records-in-FY2017--53302
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak broke ridership, financial records in FY2017 Amtrak posted record ridership, revenue and earnings in fiscal-year 2017, which ended Sept. 30, railroad officials announced yesterday.
> 
> In FY2017, Amtrak's ridership increased 1.5 percent to 31.7 million passenger trips and total revenue rose 1.1 percent to $3.2 billion compared with figures in FY2016, according to an Amtrak press release.
> 
> The railroad's unaudited, adjusted operating loss of $194 million was 15.7 percent less than its operating loss in FY2016. Amtrak recovered 94.7 percent of its operating costs — a new record — with ticket sales and other revenue, railroad officials said.
> 
> Also in FY2017, Amtrak posted year-over-year ridership gains for all of its service lines. Ridership grew 1 percent to a record 12 million passengers on the Northeast Corridor; rose 2.1 percent to 15 million on state-supported services; and climbed 0.9 percent to 4.6 million riders on long-distance routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's great. But it doesn't at all change the fact that the graph you posted earlier clearly showed that this was not the case. Now you could be wrong or that your graph could be wrong, but either way, your claim that 2017 had peak ridership is directly contrary to what it actually showed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Graph showed long distance ridership. Here he claims that total ridership in is a record high. The way he said that was slightly misleading IMO.
Click to expand...

Oh, the nit-picking society is alive and well.
You do realize the graf (about the long-distance ridership) is different from Amtrak's overall ridership?

Two separate things.

It's called a division, like business have separate divisions. Ala, a grocery store would have canned goods, meat, produce, deli, pharmacy, etc.

Ridership is up on all of Amtrak's divisions, including the important and successful long distance trains.


----------



## cpotisch

ohle said:


> Ridership is up on all of Amtrak's divisions, including the important and successful long distance trains.


You do realize you just went back to your argument about record long distance ridership, and as we saw earlier, that's not the case.


----------



## ohle

Long-distance ridership IS up, and is at its highest levels ever.

Am not referencing a single year, but the recent years where, of course, ridership varies, as do sales of any business.

Of course, the nit-pickers will continue to nag about this.


----------



## cpotisch

ohle said:


> Long-distance ridership IS up, and is at its highest levels ever.
> 
> Am not referencing a single year, but the recent years where, of course, ridership varies, as do sales of any business.
> 
> Of course, the nit-pickers will continue to nag about this.


Dude, you can't get pissed and claim that people are nit-picking, just because they're pointing out flaws in your logic as well as contradictions in your claims and the statistics you're linking to. That's on you.


----------



## railbuck

The words "increasing and at record levels" in combination with a graph showing 2011-2017 imply that 2017 is the record level, which it obviously is not. If the intent is to say is that 2011-2017 taken as a whole are record levels, a graph showing long distance ridership for a longer period (maybe even back to 1971) would be an appropriate way to support that claim.

For example:




Source: http://www.realtransit.org/nec8.php


----------



## JRR

fredmcain said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is being reported that NMRX has received funds from Uncle Sam to get PTC up and running, so this would be good news for Amtrak's operation in New Mexico. It would not surprise me to hear that Mr. Anderson is very annoyed with this turn of events.
> 
> 
> 
> True.This crummy CEO's idea of "improved service" is to replace vital and successful long-distance trains with BUS ROUTES.
> 
> Turns out, substituting buses for the trains will ... eh... be more expensive than running the train.
> 
> Bus travel is also far more dangerous, compared to trains.
> 
> Every week, 167 people die on the roadways. Passenger trains? Maybe 10 a year.
> 
> Who figured.
> 
> Guess it took a genius CEO who only knows how to cut, cut, cut to know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohle,
> 167 people EVERY WEEK? Actually, the highway news is even worse than that. According to one web site I just looked at, 40,200 people lost their lives in traffic accidents last year. That comes out to 110 people EVERY DAY ! Or, over four people every hour. To me, those numbers are unacceptable. If it were a war, terrorism or school shootings, the whole entire country would be in a state of uncontrollable outrage. But traffic deaths? Oh well? So what? I guess nobody has any idea what to do about it so we just try not to think about it and the news media ignores it. So, I agree, Anderson's safety concerns where their is no PTC are overdone. (See Ross Capon's take on this earlier in this thread).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC
Click to expand...

Actually, the numbers have, believe or not, improved. The year I was in Vietnam on an all expenses paid tour courtesy of the US Govt, more people died on the highways in the US than were killed in the entire Vietnam war.


----------



## Palmetto

Anyone got popcorn?


----------



## jis

railbuck said:


> The words "increasing and at record levels" in combination with a graph showing 2011-2017 imply that 2017 is the record level, which it obviously is not. If the intent is to say is that 2011-2017 taken as a whole are record levels, a graph showing long distance ridership for a longer period (maybe even back to 1971) would be an appropriate way to support that claim.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nec20.png
> 
> Source: http://www.realtransit.org/nec8.php


There is a good news/bad news story in that graph, which BTW is very well presented, as is the rest of the article from which it is excerpted.
First the good news - Amtrak total ridership has grown some 45% over that period, over which US population has grown only 23%. So overall Amtrak is ahead of the curve in that it is attracting a higher growth rate in ridership than population. So people are indeed riding more.

The bad news is that LD ridership has not kept pace with population growth. There may be many explanation for this phenomenon but for whatever of the multitude of reasons LD ridership is falling way behind population growth. Unfortunately this does play into the narrative that Anderson and Co are apparently trying to peddle regarding the non-viability of LD trains over the long haul. Note that I personally don't agree with the conclusion that they are trying to draw from the narrative, but we have to rationally address the one core fact on which that narrative stands.

Given this data, if one reaches the conclusion that Amtrak should concentrate on growing short and medium distance service while demphasizing the long distance sector, at least the conclusion is not entirely capricious. The reason for keeping the LD sector going is because it is part of the mission to run a "National System", or justify it by observing that it provides a series of overlapping mid-distance segments and acts as a significant feeder into the growth sectors, Wish there was some concrete data available on the feeder aspect of the LD sector.

Of course depending on the "National Network" phrase is fraught in and of itself , what with all the ambiguity that goes with the definition of that phrase. Congress has also carefully inserted the notion of "Intercity System" in its regulatory vocabulary of late, as if it may be OK to run an "Intercity System" rather than a "National System", which in and of itself is a disturbing development.


----------



## Paul CHI

I wonder whether the lack of growth in the LD segment may have to do with the communities served. U.S. population growth is, I think, found primarily in urban areas. Airlines are able to re-organize their routes to serve where population is growing, but the LD trains are pretty much locked into their existing routes. Note that a big component of growth is in the "short distance" category,, which I suspect is routes established within states to meet urban growth.

I suspect that if one made a list of areas with robust urban growth, we would find that Amtrak LD does not serve many of them. e.g. when I lived in Des Moines, I was somewhat nonplussed to discover that if I wanted to take the train to Denver, I would have to drive to Osceola. Look at North Dakota, where Bismarck is nowhere near the Empire Builder.


----------



## ohle

Paul CHI said:


> I wonder whether the lack of growth in the LD segment may have to do with the communities served. U.S. population growth is, I think, found primarily in urban areas. Airlines are able to re-organize their routes to serve where population is growing, but the LD trains are pretty much locked into their existing routes. Note that a big component of growth is in the "short distance" category,, which I suspect is routes established within states to meet urban growth.
> 
> I suspect that if one made a list of areas with robust urban growth, we would find that Amtrak LD does not serve many of them. e.g. when I lived in Des Moines, I was somewhat nonplussed to discover that if I wanted to take the train to Denver, I would have to drive to Osceola. Look at North Dakota, where Bismarck is nowhere near the Empire Builder.


Amtrak serves about 85 percent of the U.S. metropolitan areas.

The reason there's no service to Des Moines, or why most cities, ala Atlanta, Denver and Minneapolis, only have one train a day (in only one direction), is due to policy decisions.

Policymakers simply don't want Amtrak to succeed.

Of course, people travel in Atlanta to Florida, Texas and Chicago.

But they can't via Amtrak.

There is no rational reason one can't travel from FL to New Orleans and Texas (and California) via train.

It's entirely political.

America's passenger rail service should roughly parallel the taxpayer-subsidized Interstate highway system, with more frequencies.

Make no mistake about it, the decision to keep Amtrak small, and serve only limited markets, is deliberate.

Give it "just enough money to fail" is what congressional leaders have long done.


----------



## railiner

It seems that the only "national network" busline (Greyhound) has been following this model for the last couple of decades, eliminating one by one, many of its long routes with each new timetable, and instead, concentrating on serving busy hubs or corridor's wherever they prove lucrative. Their chairman stated they were going to do this back then, and they are doing it...


----------



## ainamkartma

ohle said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a weird line of reasoning. What does an almost flat over ten years Amtrak ridership statistic have to do with a discussion of fatality rates - which is essentially the point being raised by keelhauled? I think a more cogent argument could probably be made in terms of fatalities per million passenger-km or some such reasonable derived metric that addresses keelhauled's concern. This argument certainly does not do so.
> 
> Also how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?
> 
> From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is something that should be applauded, how Amtrak (albeit slowly) has helped reverse the trend in declining train travel which began after World War II and continued through the 1980s.
Click to expand...

Modern US train travel is totally dominated, both in terms of ridership and passenger-miles, by commuter rail. For example, New York's Metro North alone has over twenty times as many annual boardings as Amtrak.

It may well be true that Amtrak has "helped reverse the trend...", but that help has been a drop in the bucket compared to new, rebuilt, and revitalized commuter rail in the US.

Ainamkartma


----------



## fredmcain

Paul CHI said:


> I wonder whether the lack of growth in the LD segment may have to do with the communities served. U.S. population growth is, I think, found primarily in urban areas. Airlines are able to re-organize their routes to serve where population is growing, but the LD trains are pretty much locked into their existing routes. Note that a big component of growth is in the "short distance" category,, which I suspect is routes established within states to meet urban growth.
> 
> I suspect that if one made a list of areas with robust urban growth, we would find that Amtrak LD does not serve many of them. e.g. when I lived in Des Moines, I was somewhat nonplussed to discover that if I wanted to take the train to Denver, I would have to drive to Osceola. Look at North Dakota, where Bismarck is nowhere near the Empire Builder.


Doesn't equipment have something to do with poor L.D. growth too? Without citing any statistics, I believe from my own train riding experience that many LD trains are already at capacity. So, how can you grow that business if you cannot add more seats or sleeping car compartments? And as far as I know there are no immediate plans to buy more LD equipment. It's kind of a vicious circle. Amtrak management does not want to invest scarce resources in a business segment that is not growing but at the same time it cannot grow without more equipment.

However I also agree that gaps in the system need to be closed. The whole country is full of gaps. If nothing else, Amtrak should at the very least serve every state outside of Alaska & Hawaii.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## cpotisch

ohle said:


> The reason there's no service to Des Moines, or why most cities, ala Atlanta, Denver and Minneapolis, only have one train a day (in only one direction), is due to policy decisions.
> 
> Policymakers simply don't want Amtrak to succeed.


Sorry, I'm in a nit-picky mood right now. What do you mean when you say that they "only have one train a day (in only one direction)"? Last I checked, they get one train a day in each direction.


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> Doesn't equipment have something to do with poor L.D. growth too? Without citing any statistics, I believe from my own train riding experience that many LD trains are already at capacity. So, how can you grow that business if you cannot add more seats or sleeping car compartments? And as far as I know there are no immediate plans to buy more LD equipment. It's kind of a vicious circle. Amtrak management does not want to invest scarce resources in a business segment that is not growing but at the same time it cannot grow without more equipment.


We're still receiving the new Viewliners, and it seems there are somewhat imminent plans for a pretty massive single-level car order. So it's not quite accurate to say that they don't have any new equipment coming soon, since there's no equipment coming as we speak, and the new single-level order is not far off.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

The order wont be for western long distance trains, its a corridor order at best.


----------



## fredmcain

Amtrakfflyer said:


> The order wont be for western long distance trains, its a corridor order at best.


Exactly. That's what I meant to say.

-FMC


----------



## jis

Then again, if the massive new order is delivered at the rate that the Viewliner order is, cpotisch would be married and looking forward to retirement and grandchildren by then



Juuust kidding. But I do hope that the next project for cars will be managed a little better than the last one.


----------



## ainamkartma

jis said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> how is 4,698.5 thousand a record level when in 2012 and 2013 the numbers were over 4.7 million?
> 
> From some of the comments it is distressingly obvious that some cannot read a simple bar chart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those numbers are the same.Like 1.9 million is very similar to 2 million.
> 
> Now YOU can't understand statistics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah they are 100,000 apart. Since you did not mention what error parameter was acceptable to you for this discussion, your accusations are neither here nor there.
> 
> The point that keelhauled made was that raw fatality numbers are useless unless they are looked at in the context of the size of the universe in which they are being measured. So his point was that unless you are talking of fatality rates it is a useless statistic, and I and at least one or two others agreed with that. So merely saying that you were not talking about fatality rates and that ridership is at an all time high (presumably in the Amtrak era?) does not address the issue raised by keelhauled.
> 
> 
> 
> keelhauled said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like we have a case of alternative facts in here, with a side of attempted Gish galloping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is rock solid verified information that bustitution will cost more than capital upgrade and maintenance of tracks then that argument can be used too, but I am skeptical about its validity without seeing concrete numbers.
Click to expand...

I share your skepticism. Without having easy access to any facts, it seems beyond the bounds of credibility that a bus would be more expensive than train over the Raton route:

1) The right of way cost is 100% externalized for the bus, 100% internal for the train.

2) The vehicle capital and maintenance cost is much much less per passenger for a mass produced bus than an ancient custom built train.

3) The labor costs are to first order determined by the ratio of employees to customers, which is about the same for bus and train.

So some costs are competitive between the modes, but most are skewed in the bus's favor. This imbalance has been true since the construction of the national highway system by the public sector.

Ainamkartma


----------



## ohle

I seriously doubt most passengers would willingly want to disembark a train mid-route and board a cramped bus for a 10-hour overnight ride.

Again, it shows CEO Anderson's contempt for his customers.

This "plan" was clearly designed to destroy one of Amtrak's most successful LD trains.


----------



## west point

One would think that each train or multi train routes need separate analysis. Example what is the ridership growth (decline ) for only train route xyz vs population growth ? That way trends can be better analyzed as to what growth if any is occurring ?

As well the 95% or better times oe or more legs sold out ?


----------



## cpotisch

Anyone know where I can find a list of Amtrak's routes sorted by ridership? I'm trying to figure out where the Chief ranks among the other LDs routes.


----------



## ohle

P. 7

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/monthlyperformancereports/2017/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2017-Preliminary-Unaudited.pdf


----------



## ohle

This from Amtrak's presentation to lawmakers to discontinue the SW Chief.

Note how the trains with the biggest ridership "lose" the most money (according to Amtrak's rigged accounting).

More riders = more losses.

No successful business runs like that.


----------



## ohle

Some facts about the Southwest Chief:

Among Amtrak's 15 long-distance trains, the train is:
-7th in terms of ridership
-4th in ticket revenue
-2nd in seat miles
-2nd in passenger miles

It carries more passenger miles (length of trip) than any other Amtrak short-distance train outside of the Northeast Corridor and California's Pacific Surfliner trains.

At 63%, the train's load factor (percent of full seats) is higher than the 58% average for the long-distance trains and is higher than the Northeast Corridor's 57% average and the state corridor routes' 40%.

There's no rational reason for Amtrak's inept management to discontinue this vital route.

Source: Amtrak.


----------



## fredmcain

ohle said:


> I seriously doubt most passengers would willingly want to disembark a train mid-route and board a cramped bus for a 10-hour overnight ride.
> 
> Again, it shows CEO Anderson's contempt for his customers.
> 
> This "plan" was clearly designed to destroy one of Amtrak's most successful LD trains.


Ohle,

Here’s my take on what I think might’ve transpired there with the _Chief._ First of all, I am going to assume that Anderson did not understand the ground transportation market very well. Then, he was confronted with that perfectly dreadful wreck on the _Cascades _line. Kinda like “trial by blood”. He felt he had to do something to reassure the public so he stated unequivocally that Amtrak absolutely and utterly will _NOT _operate its trains over tracks where there is no PTC after Jan. 1st. He probably made an error in making such a strong statement.

So, this possible “error” in judgement became seriously problematic for the _Chief._ Either he would need to pull a “Trumpian” switch and claim he never said that or, more expedient yet, (he thought) just scotch the train.

What happened next was that all those communities pushed back against this and pushed back _HARD._ They attempted to make the case that the _Chief _was their only public transportation connection to the outside world. Well, O.K., lacking a good handle on ground transportation, Anderson thought he could understand that. He resolved to continue providing those communities with a public transportation option*:* A bus. It might’ve made perfect sense in his mind’s eye but for people more familiar with railroads it makes absolutely no sense, no sense whatsoever.

By the way, dozens upon dozens of American cities tried this at the local level. They turned to buses to replace the first generation of light rail lines. They thought they would save bookoo bucks. But what happened was that Americans abandoned public transportation altogether. Now Anderson is poised to make a similar error. But I’m optimistic that he will not succeed in pulling it off. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But here’s hoping for the best.

-FMC


----------



## DSS&A

Here is information on the just announced Federal funds to help install a PTC system on the NM commuter territory tracks and equipment. The Grant is for approximately $29.4 million towards an estimated $60 million project.

http://www.metro-magazine.com/security-and-safety/news/730965/n-m-s-rail-runner-receives-29m-for-ptc-project?utm_source=email&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_campaign=20180822-NL-MET-Rail-BOBCD180816008&omdt=NL-MET-Rail&omid=1000025390


----------



## cpotisch

ohle said:


> More riders = more losses.


Nope. That table clearly and correctly shows that more riders = fewer losses. The more riders there are, the lower the losses per rider (you just divide the losses by the number of riders), and that is accurately reflected on that table.


----------



## cpotisch

ohle said:


> Some facts about the Southwest Chief:
> 
> Among Amtrak's 15 long-distance trains, the train is:
> 
> -7th in terms of ridership
> 
> -4th in ticket revenue
> 
> -2nd in seat miles
> 
> -2nd in passenger miles
> 
> It carries more passenger miles (length of trip) than any other Amtrak short-distance train outside of the Northeast Corridor and California's Pacific Surfliner trains.
> 
> At 63%, the train's load factor (percent of full seats) is higher than the 58% average for the long-distance trains and is higher than the Northeast Corridor's 57% average and the state corridor routes' 40%.
> 
> There's no rational reason for Amtrak's inept management to discontinue this vital route.
> 
> Source: Amtrak.


But the Southwest Chief is a long distance train, so it's irrelevant that it has higher ridership than some short distance routes. And even among the LD routes, it ranks 7th out of 15 in ridership, 14th out of 15th in monetary losses, and 13th out of 15th in losses per passenger. Those are not good numbers, and they don't look at all manipulated or warped. To be clear, i would hate to see the Chief dismantled and destroyed, but it does not hold up well against the other LDs.


----------



## allanorn

cpotisch said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some facts about the Southwest Chief:
> 
> Among Amtrak's 15 long-distance trains, the train is:
> 
> -7th in terms of ridership
> 
> -4th in ticket revenue
> 
> -2nd in seat miles
> 
> -2nd in passenger miles
> 
> It carries more passenger miles (length of trip) than any other Amtrak short-distance train outside of the Northeast Corridor and California's Pacific Surfliner trains.
> 
> At 63%, the train's load factor (percent of full seats) is higher than the 58% average for the long-distance trains and is higher than the Northeast Corridor's 57% average and the state corridor routes' 40%.
> 
> There's no rational reason for Amtrak's inept management to discontinue this vital route.
> 
> Source: Amtrak.
> 
> 
> 
> But the Southwest Chief is a long distance train, so it's irrelevant that it has higher ridership than some short distance routes. And even among the LD routes, it ranks 7th out of 15 in ridership, 14th out of 15th in monetary losses, and 13th out of 15th in losses per passenger. Those are not good numbers, and they don't look at all manipulated or warped. To be clear, i would hate to see the Chief dismantled and destroyed, but it does not hold up well against the other LDs.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much it. Revenue, load factor, seat miles... doesn't matter so much if your break-even point is $300/rider and you're only pulling in $150 (as an example). At some point economics start to kick in and someone has to cover the loss, whether that be government or someone else. If not, the entity ceases operation when the cash runs out.

Inept management would be to keep status the quo and not to do anything different.

Granted, I don't know how Anderson's actions are going to play out. I think there's a lot of systemic and cultural issues (organizational, generational, and national) in play that he has to attend to. Amtrak's mission and vision likely need to be looked at in a broad scope because the entity is limping along and being kept together by gaffer tape.


----------



## jebr

allanorn said:


> I think there's a lot of systemic and cultural issues (organizational, generational, and national) in play that he has to attend to.


This is pretty much the biggest piece of the puzzle. It's hard to make trains work in areas where gas is cheap, roads are overbuilt and easy to drive on, and owning a car is somewhere between a huge leap in convenience and an absolute necessity. That describes...most of the US, including a large number of our major cities. When most people own cars, and the incentives are stacked towards driving that car, both economically and in terms of convenience, most people are going to drive a vehicle.

That leaves Amtrak currently as some mix of essential transportation for those who have no other option, people who simply enjoy riding the rails and don't have to worry about time much, and those who won't fly/drive for specific reasons (environment, medical, etc.) That's a market that is a lot narrower than in most European countries, and it'd take massive shifts in how we prioritize transportation spending and account for the effect of different modes on climate change for that calculus to change in any significant way. Until that happens, I don't see how Amtrak, especially the long distance network, becomes much more relevant than it is currently.


----------



## allanorn

jebr said:


> allanorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's a lot of systemic and cultural issues (organizational, generational, and national) in play that he has to attend to.
> 
> 
> 
> This is pretty much the biggest piece of the puzzle. It's hard to make trains work in areas where gas is cheap, roads are overbuilt and easy to drive on, and owning a car is somewhere between a huge leap in convenience and an absolute necessity. That describes...most of the US, including a large number of our major cities. When most people own cars, and the incentives are stacked towards driving that car, both economically and in terms of convenience, most people are going to drive a vehicle.
> 
> That leaves Amtrak currently as some mix of essential transportation for those who have no other option, people who simply enjoy riding the rails and don't have to worry about time much, and those who won't fly/drive for specific reasons (environment, medical, etc.) That's a market that is a lot narrower than in most European countries, and it'd take massive shifts in how we prioritize transportation spending and account for the effect of different modes on climate change for that calculus to change in any significant way. Until that happens, I don't see how Amtrak, especially the long distance network, becomes much more relevant than it is currently.
Click to expand...

Not only that, target markets for long-distance trains have competition from the airlines, of which Mr. Anderson knows plenty about. I'm sure he's had to deal with Essential Air Service, which provides contracts to run commercial service to small rural airports where it wouldn't be economically feasible for an airline to do so on their own.

The LD train network does a pretty good job of providing reasonable non-driving transportation to those markets where flying or buses are either not available, too expensive, or logistically messy - but those aren't the markets that tend generate a lot of revenue either. Ideally, Amtrak needs to lead the conversations that asks the hard questions about what it's supposed to do so it can figure out how to best get those done. Unfortunately the focus on stopping the bleeding makes this a long ask in the short term, even though it has repercussions for the SWC and most of the Amtrak business model.


----------



## ohle

Like many suspected, Amtrak's numbers aren't trustworthy.

The RPA has blown the whistle on its faulty accounting.

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/releases/amtraks-route-accounting-fatally-flawed-misleading-wrong/

The report blasts Amtrak's faulty accounting, which it says unfairly places more costs on the long-distance trains than they are responsible for.



RPA calls Amtrak’s route accounting system "catastrophically flawed" and contends it "grossly misrepresents – and exaggerates – the public cost of providing passenger trains as a mobility choice for the entire nation."

Take this inconsistency:





> "....APT (Amtrak Performance Tracking) reported the same wide variation in the cost allocations of Yard & Equipment Moves to trains that originate and terminate in Chicago. For long distance routes, the cost varied considerably and inexplicably:
> 
> 
> 
> "....The City of New Orleans was just under $200,000, The Capitol Limited just over $200,000, The Texas Eagle just over $300,000, The Southwest Chief just over $400,000, The Empire Builder over $1.6 million and the California Zephyr nearly $1.8 million. If there is a reason for such wide variation, it is not obvious. The more likely explanation is that APT’s allocation rules do not reflect actual costs..."





I don't think anyone (myself included) can accurately assess costs/benefits on any of the routes using Amtrak's misleading data.
Their "statistics" are suspect.


There's a whole thread on this here, but I post this summary to warn against naively swallowing Amtrak's rigged "statistics."


----------



## ohle

fredmcain said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt most passengers would willingly want to disembark a train mid-route and board a cramped bus for a 10-hour overnight ride.
> 
> Again, it shows CEO Anderson's contempt for his customers.
> 
> This "plan" was clearly designed to destroy one of Amtrak's most successful LD trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Ohle,
> 
> Here’s my take on what I think might’ve transpired there with the _Chief._ First of all, I am going to assume that Anderson did not understand the ground transportation market very well. Then, he was confronted with that perfectly dreadful wreck on the _Cascades _line. Kinda like “trial by blood”. He felt he had to do something to reassure the public so he stated unequivocally that Amtrak absolutely and utterly will _NOT _operate its trains over tracks where there is no PTC after Jan. 1st. He probably made an error in making such a strong statement.
> 
> So, this possible “error” in judgement became seriously problematic for the _Chief._ Either he would need to pull a “Trumpian” switch and claim he never said that or, more expedient yet, (he thought) just scotch the train.
> 
> What happened next was that all those communities pushed back against this and pushed back _HARD._ They attempted to make the case that the _Chief _was their only public transportation connection to the outside world. Well, O.K., lacking a good handle on ground transportation, Anderson thought he could understand that. He resolved to continue providing those communities with a public transportation option*:* A bus. It might’ve made perfect sense in his mind’s eye but for people more familiar with railroads it makes absolutely no sense, no sense whatsoever.
> 
> By the way, dozens upon dozens of American cities tried this at the local level. They turned to buses to replace the first generation of light rail lines. They thought they would save bookoo bucks. But what happened was that Americans abandoned public transportation altogether. Now Anderson is poised to make a similar error. But I’m optimistic that he will not succeed in pulling it off. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But here’s hoping for the best.
> 
> -FMC
Click to expand...

I suspect that could be the case.

Still, he's made so many wrongheaded decisions that will forever harm the cause of passenger rail, it's hard to see how anything he's doing will benefit anyone (except his beloved NEC).


----------



## bretton88

What I don't like is this request:

"The Rail Passengers Association asks Congress to require Amtrak immediately to halt all route, schedule and frequency reductions as well as recent on-board service modifications; then require Amtrak’s leadership team to explain to, and gain the approval of, the Congress, the states and stakeholders of its vision of the passenger train system and service they envision for the future."

Congressional micromanagement usually doesn't end well. What I would support is a call for an outside auditor to go through Amtrak's books and deliver a thorough report on the true accounting.


----------



## ohle

The request to halt proposals to discontinue trains and remove amenities seems reasonable.

After all, there's strong evidence Anderson and his cronies are working from false information to justify their harmful plans, which will damage Amtrak and passenger rail.

Yes, an outside audit, like the one conducted for RPA, would be necessary.


----------



## fredmcain

bretton88 said:


> What I don't like is this request:
> 
> "The Rail Passengers Association asks Congress to require Amtrak immediately to halt all route, schedule and frequency reductions as well as recent on-board service modifications; then require Amtrak’s leadership team to explain to, and gain the approval of, the Congress, the states and stakeholders of its vision of the passenger train system and service they envision for the future."
> 
> Congressional micromanagement usually doesn't end well. What I would support is a call for an outside auditor to go through Amtrak's books and deliver a thorough report on the true accounting.


well, right, Congressmen don't even know as much about railroading as Anderson does and probably much less. I like your idea of an auditor but it would be of benefit if it were an auditor who was intimately familiar with railroading so we don't repeat the Downs nightmare. Once was enough.

One thing I have believed for years is that Congress has never made much of an indication or given Amtrak any direction as to what kind of a national system we should have. They provide just barely enough funding to keep the system on life support and that's it. I always thought that the long distance system wasn't too terribly bad before the 1978 cuts. But that has never been rectified. Perhaps what is needed is a Congressional committee that would come up with a system, fund it, then stick to it. But I have sadly given up that this will happen in my lifetime.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## bretton88

Well it brings back the core question for Amtrak, what is Amtrak? Are they just essential transportation or are they a true transportation alternative?


----------



## west point

Note this is just a WAG but some of our accounting experts can verify or disc as they see fit.

It seems that Amtrak is allocating all costs to passenger miles traveled. If that is true the % of miles traveled LD and SD and NEC might be closely related to published costs. If true we know those costs will have to be allocated to remaining trains if any are cancelled. With the SW chief has the longest revenue passenger miles but highest cost makes one wonder ?


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Note this is just a WAG but some of our accounting experts can verify or disc as they see fit.
> 
> It seems that Amtrak is allocating all costs to passenger miles traveled. If that is true the % of miles traveled LD and SD and NEC might be closely related to published costs. If true we know those costs will have to be allocated to remaining trains if any are cancelled. With the SW chief has the longest revenue passenger miles but highest cost makes one wonder ?


It is not that simple. You don;t have to WAG. Read this report for the gory details:

https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/7353/amtraks_route_accounting_-_fatally_flawed.pdf


----------



## Palmetto

Congress is the root cause of the problems we're having with long-distance passenger rail. The law they enacted in 2015 is the culprit. The more pressure to retract it, the better, it seems to me.


----------



## jis

Palmetto said:


> Congress is the root cause of the problems we're having with long-distance passenger rail. The law they enacted in 2015 is the culprit. The more pressure to retract it, the better, it seems to me.


The problem predates 2015. Read the history in the document that I pointed to in the post above. Only the F&B part is new in 2015. The issues that are leading to threats to the LD network, other than the excuse of PTC all date back to the origins of Amtrak. And Congress is only part of the problem Volpe Center, the FRA and Amtrak have significant contributions to the problem and its festering over the years.


----------



## allanorn

jis said:


> The problem predates 2015. Read the history in the document that I pointed to in the post above. Only the F&B part is new in 2015. The issues that are leading to threats to the LD network, other than the excuse of PTC all date back to the origins of Amtrak. And Congress is only part of the problem Volpe Center, the FRA and Amtrak have significant contributions to the problem and its festering over the years.


Creative accounting is always a concern and I think it needs to be looked at. I tend to believe the ubiquity of automobiles and interstates, plus airline deregulation, has done more damage to Amtrak well before accounting was likely ever an issue.



bretton88 said:


> Well it brings back the core question for Amtrak, what is Amtrak? Are they just essential transportation or are they a true transportation alternative?


Following on with this - I listened to a podcast on Strong Towns that had Jarrett Walker on (podcast here). He was discussing the role of infrastructure and transit goals. One of the points he made about transit service that I think correlates well with Amtrak is the distinction between ridership (e.g. getting more people on a train) vs. coverage (e.g. how much of a given area are you providing service to). Walker mentioned that there is a huge focus on ridership everywhere, but oftentimes coverage takes priority for reasons other than profit motive (i.e. political, equity issues, only at commute time, etc). Walker's point is that transit authorities have to make it clear what the money and/or infrastructure they are providing goes for, because they provide two separate frames of reference.

With that - is Amtrak these days about ridership or coverage? I think it's both: Ridership takes priority in the NEC, where the LD network is all about coverage. Regionals are muddled and are likely split depending on what their usage factors are. The fact that it's likely both, and they have a mission to at least break even on P&L, is why Amtrak is frequently roasted over the coals in mainstream media about grants and Federal subsidies. If everyone keeps thinking of Amtrak as needing more ridership to break even, subsidies start to look bad. However, subsidies may be absolutely necessary for coverage.

I have to read the RPA report in detail again but there may also be some link (probably weak if any) to the accounting. If Amtrak sees the NEC as ridership-based and the rest of the network as coverage-based, the fixed accounting method starts to make a little more sense (e.g. "we have to provide X service, we know it costed Y dollars in 19ZZ and our costs rose by R%/year, so adjust and move on"). I still want auditors to take a look to see how bad it is, if only to shed light on what's really avoidable vs. what's not and to get the numbers better. An explanation of how the avoidable vs. non-avoidable cost centers are allocated would have been nice (and I might have missed that in the appendices and/or footnotes).

Adding: At the risk of adding in another consideration and making this reply too long - the more I think about it, the SWC bustitution proposal from Anderson logically makes more sense if taken from a coverage standpoint in the face of potential safety liability concerns with lack of PTC and/or track upgrades. Keep in mind the average person in the public knows about PTC but not the details about dark track like we do, and has seen the news where Amtrak and/or other rail operators had accidents where PTC wasn't available and could have saved lives. However, I'm not saying that's 100% accurate or the right thing to do; it's just that I can see a line of reasoning there.


----------



## bretton88

allanorn said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem predates 2015. Read the history in the document that I pointed to in the post above. Only the F&B part is new in 2015. The issues that are leading to threats to the LD network, other than the excuse of PTC all date back to the origins of Amtrak. And Congress is only part of the problem Volpe Center, the FRA and Amtrak have significant contributions to the problem and its festering over the years.
> 
> 
> 
> Creative accounting is always a concern and I think it needs to be looked at. I tend to believe the ubiquity of automobiles and interstates, plus airline deregulation, has done more damage to Amtrak well before accounting was likely ever an issue.
> 
> 
> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it brings back the core question for Amtrak, what is Amtrak? Are they just essential transportation or are they a true transportation alternative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Following on with this - I listened to a podcast on Strong Towns that had Jarrett Walker on (podcast here). He was discussing the role of infrastructure and transit goals. One of the points he made about transit service that I think correlates well with Amtrak is the distinction between ridership (e.g. getting more people on a train) vs. coverage (e.g. how much of a given area are you providing service to). Walker mentioned that there is a huge focus on ridership everywhere, but oftentimes coverage takes priority for reasons other than profit motive (i.e. political, equity issues, only at commute time, etc). Walker's point is that transit authorities have to make it clear what the money and/or infrastructure they are providing goes for, because they provide two separate frames of reference.
> 
> With that - is Amtrak these days about ridership or coverage? I think it's both: Ridership takes priority in the NEC, where the LD network is all about coverage. Regionals are muddled and are likely split depending on what their usage factors are. The fact that it's likely both, and they have a mission to at least break even on P&L, is why Amtrak is frequently roasted over the coals in mainstream media about grants and Federal subsidies. If everyone keeps thinking of Amtrak as needing more ridership to break even, subsidies start to look bad. However, subsidies may be absolutely necessary for coverage.
> 
> I have to read the RPA report in detail again but there may also be some link (probably weak if any) to the accounting. If Amtrak sees the NEC as ridership-based and the rest of the network as coverage-based, the fixed accounting method starts to make a little more sense (e.g. "we have to provide X service, we know it costed Y dollars in 19ZZ and our costs rose by R%/year, so adjust and move on"). I still want auditors to take a look to see how bad it is, if only to shed light on what's really avoidable vs. what's not and to get the numbers better. An explanation of how the avoidable vs. non-avoidable cost centers are allocated would have been nice (and I might have missed that in the appendices and/or footnotes).
> 
> Adding: At the risk of adding in another consideration and making this reply too long - the more I think about it, the SWC bustitution proposal from Anderson logically makes more sense if taken from a coverage standpoint in the face of potential safety liability concerns with lack of PTC and/or track upgrades. Keep in mind the average person in the public knows about PTC but not the details about dark track like we do, and has seen the news where Amtrak and/or other rail operators had accidents where PTC wasn't available and could have saved lives. However, I'm not saying that's 100% accurate or the right thing to do; it's just that I can see a line of reasoning there.
Click to expand...

Liability is undoubtedly something that is on Amtrak's mind when making decisions like this. I call liability insurance no fun. The massive expense that liability insurance has become has killed off a lot of fun things, my favorite example is the collapse in small ski areas. We're starting to see it kill off things in the railroad industry now.On the coverage versus ridership, I think with the many forced train offs that Amtrak has had to do in it's history, the message has been clear to Amtrak. Focus on ridership over coverage, even on the LD system. Now whether Amtrak has kept the right trains to accomplish that is up for debate.


----------



## neroden

It's important to remember that Amtrak's cost accounting is essentially fraudulent. I've had a lot of experience trying to decode "creative accounting", and there's been enough information released over the years to get a decent sense (ballpark) of the actual avoidable cost structure. Recently the amount of data released has been reduced sufficiently that I haven't been able to back-calculate anything since Anderson's lackeys removed the crucial data from the monthly reports.

But anyway: the long-distance trains as a group are profitable. With the exception of the Sunset Limited, I am now quite sure every last one of them provides incremental profits to Amtrak; that is, incremental revenues including connecting revenue is greater than avoidable costs.


----------



## neroden

ohle said:


> This from Amtrak's presentation to lawmakers to discontinue the SW Chief.
> 
> Note how the trains with the biggest ridership "lose" the most money (according to Amtrak's rigged accounting).
> 
> More riders = more losses.
> 
> No successful business runs like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak ridership.jpg


Yeah, that's because Amtrak accounting is lying through their teeth, as the RPA report has pointed out.

I'm glad they're finally being called on it.


----------



## NW cannonball

neroden said:


> ohle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This from Amtrak's presentation to lawmakers to discontinue the SW Chief.
> 
> Note how the trains with the biggest ridership "lose" the most money (according to Amtrak's rigged accounting).
> 
> More riders = more losses.
> 
> No successful business runs like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak ridership.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's because Amtrak accounting is lying through their teeth, as the RPA report has pointed out.
> 
> I'm glad they're finally being called on it.
Click to expand...

Me too


----------



## ehbowen

neroden said:


> It's important to remember that Amtrak's cost accounting is essentially fraudulent. I've had a lot of experience trying to decode "creative accounting", and there's been enough information released over the years to get a decent sense (ballpark) of the actual avoidable cost structure. Recently the amount of data released has been reduced sufficiently that I haven't been able to back-calculate anything since Anderson's lackeys removed the crucial data from the monthly reports.
> 
> But anyway: the long-distance trains as a group are profitable. With the exception of the Sunset Limited, I am now quite sure every last one of them provides incremental profits to Amtrak; that is, incremental revenues including connecting revenue is greater than avoidable costs.


And the _Sunset Limited_ would very probably improve its net performance substantially if it could be made a daily train.


----------



## GBNorman

railiner said:


> I wonder just how the general ridership of Amtrak feels about all of this, as compared to advocate's...meaning organization's like RPA et al, as well as forum's like AU?
> 
> That may be the ultimate measure of whether Anderson remains in office, or not. While it is all very much in our thoughts, how many 'ordinary' Amtrak passenger's know about what is going on, or how much they are really concerned about it?


It appeared this topic took on added life while I was overseas during the past two weeks. Lest we forget, WLAN mobile data "over there" costs "big time" - try $25 for 100 megs. That's enough to make one "think twice" before indulging.
But simply because riding passenger trains is a hobby and pastime for I'd dare say the majority around here, it is a means of economic and efficient movement from "Ehh to Bee" for the traveler Amtrak wishes to attract. That only occurs in markets where rail travel is time competitive with air, with frequencies allowing a passenger to go when convenient rather than the "one a day at Oh Dark Thirty", and provide sufficient amenities to accommodate a four or so hour trip.

All told, away from the hobby community, the passenger using rail travel today, simply could care less about what happens to the Chief, or for that matter, the others within that particular Tribe.


----------



## fredmcain

"All told, away from the hobby community, the passenger using rail travel today, simply could care less about what happens to the Chief, or for that matter, the others within that particular Tribe."

I'm not sure if I agree with that statement or not. It seems to me like everytime the national network has been threatened, the American public has rallied to "save Amtrak". It seems to me like there are an awful lot of people in our country who want to keep the intercity rail option open even though most of them do not use passenger trains on a regular basis. I could be wrong but I can already see this happening again.

Problem is, everytime this happens, the system gets "saved" but that's all - no extra money for improvements or expansion.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## CAMISSY55

Agreed, Fred. The response from those most effected by Anderson's contemplated changes to the Chief was swift.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

GBNorman said:


> It appeared this topic took on added life while I was overseas during the past two weeks. Lest we forget, WLAN mobile data "over there" costs "big time" - try $25 for 100 megs. That's enough to make one "think twice" before indulging.


Sounds like you took a locked US phone to a foreign country and paid a massive middleman fee to a US carrier with pricing plans from the 1990's. The vast majority of industrialized democracies have cheaper mobile plans than the US.



GBNorman said:


> All told, away from the hobby community, the passenger using rail travel today, simply could care less about what happens to the Chief, or for that matter, the others within that particular Tribe.


What are you basing this upon? The people I met on my most recent Southwest Chief trip (earlier this month) seemed extremely concerned about the future of the route. If there was anything they could _not_ care less about it was some indifferent armchair quarterback trying to speak on their behalf.


----------



## cpotisch

ehbowen said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's important to remember that Amtrak's cost accounting is essentially fraudulent. I've had a lot of experience trying to decode "creative accounting", and there's been enough information released over the years to get a decent sense (ballpark) of the actual avoidable cost structure. Recently the amount of data released has been reduced sufficiently that I haven't been able to back-calculate anything since Anderson's lackeys removed the crucial data from the monthly reports.
> 
> But anyway: the long-distance trains as a group are profitable. With the exception of the Sunset Limited, I am now quite sure every last one of them provides incremental profits to Amtrak; that is, incremental revenues including connecting revenue is greater than avoidable costs.
> 
> 
> 
> And the _Sunset Limited_ would very probably improve its net performance substantially if it could be made a daily train.
Click to expand...

But of course management is way too shortsighted to recognize that. Their logic seems to be that if a route is struggling, why spend money trying to revitalize it or make it daily? Just let it die on its own.


----------



## cpotisch

GBNorman said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder just how the general ridership of Amtrak feels about all of this, as compared to advocate's...meaning organization's like RPA et al, as well as forum's like AU?
> 
> That may be the ultimate measure of whether Anderson remains in office, or not. While it is all very much in our thoughts, how many 'ordinary' Amtrak passenger's know about what is going on, or how much they are really concerned about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appeared this topic took on added life while I was overseas during the past two weeks. Lest we forget, WLAN mobile data "over there" costs "big time" - try $25 for 100 megs. That's enough to make one "think twice" before indulging.
Click to expand...

Not to nit-pick, but there is a little thing called WiFi...


----------



## bretton88

Devil's Advocate said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appeared this topic took on added life while I was overseas during the past two weeks. Lest we forget, WLAN mobile data "over there" costs "big time" - try $25 for 100 megs. That's enough to make one "think twice" before indulging.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you took a locked US phone to a foreign country and paid a massive middleman fee to a US carrier with pricing plans from the 1990's. The vast majority of industrialized democracies have cheaper mobile plans than the US.
> 
> 
> 
> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All told, away from the hobby community, the passenger using rail travel today, simply could care less about what happens to the Chief, or for that matter, the others within that particular Tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you basing this upon? The people I met on my most recent Southwest Chief trip (earlier this month) seemed extremely concerned about the future of the route. If there was anything they could _not_ care less about it was some indifferent armchair quarterback trying to speak on their behalf.
Click to expand...

Probably on the fact that the travel share on Amtrak LD trains is little more than a rounding error above zero. However these small towns on the route have much more to lose and so they mobilize. The people that are being loud about it are indeed a small, but vocal, minority. The old proverb goes: the squeaky wheel gets the grease. That's what's happening here.


----------



## keelhauled

I've lived near the routes of the Vermonter or Adirondack all my life. It's nice to have a daily passenger train, looks nice when it comes through town, but nine times out of ten if I'm going anywhere in the northeast the single daily schedule just doesn't work. It kills an entire day just to get wherever I'm going, another to get back, and I have to pay for two nights in a hotel. Almost always I drive/bus to Boston, occasionally Albany or Springfield, and take a train that fits my schedule better from there. If I want to see a concert or something on New York, it's a three day endeavor via the Vermonter, vs barely 24 hours leaving from Boston in the afternoon and returning overnight. Once a day trains are an anachronism left over from the days when the railroad was the primary route of commerce for small towns, but like it or not that role has been completely supplanted by highways for the vast majority of the country. Can't say I think much for how Amtrak is going about it, but they aren't wrong in looking at the network and deciding that it's an inefficient way to move insignificant numbers of people.


----------



## jis

Bringing this back to the Southwest Chief, there is an informative article in Trains Mag...

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/08/27-amtrak-says-it-will-not-run-trains-on-routes-without-ptc

I am not sure that that list of trains was provided by Amtrak. It was put together by Trains Mag, but yeah, if the rule is that no trains shall be run over FRA exempt segments, then the list would look something like that.

Note that this has been posted in a thread of its own too, but it has direct relevance to Southwest Chief hence I thought it may be prudent to post it here too. If mods think that is in[appropriate, they can feel free to can this post.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

keelhauled said:


> Once a day trains are an anachronism left over from the days when the railroad was the primary route of commerce for small towns, but like it or not that role has been completely supplanted by highways for the vast majority of the country.


When the railroad was the primary route of passenger transit (it still is a primary route for freight) there were way more than 1 train a day in most places. The one train a day is left over from a time when our government thought passenger trains should be reduced to 1 train a day and then cancelled altogether. Despite terrible call times, prices that are the same as airlines, and inconsistent customer service and condition of equipment, more and more people are taking the train.

The highways are not public transit, they are a publicly funded infrastructure that serves private automobiles and for-profit businesses (commercial trucking).

The preferred public transit in this country is Air... which makes sense for longer routes, and doesn't make sense for shorter hops.


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> Bringing this back to the Southwest Chief, there is an informative article in Trains Mag...
> 
> http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/08/27-amtrak-says-it-will-not-run-trains-on-routes-without-ptc
> 
> I am not sure that that list of trains was provided by Amtrak. It was put together by Trains Mag, but yeah, if the rule is that no trains shall be run over FRA exempt segments, then the list would look something like that.
> 
> Note that this has been posted in a thread of its own too, but it has direct relevance to Southwest Chief hence I thought it may be prudent to post it here too. If mods think that is in[appropriate, they can feel free to can this post.



Ya know, JIS, I don’t pretend to know how all this is going to turn out – I don’t think any of us do – but I can say this*:* The Amtrak board has now succeeded in making even more political enemies and that quite possibly includes me.

Let me make this very clear*:* As an American I do not and will not support an Amtrak “system” that consists of a few widely-scattered corridors in diverse places. And why should I? I will _NEVER _use them without the rest of the LD system. I mean, it’s not even an option for me. If I can’t get to California on the train, why would I ride on a California corridor train?

The senate has just passed a huge Amtrak appropriation – possibly the biggest in Amtrak’s history. Although the House has yet to pass it, if we assume that they do, what the heck is Amtrak going to do with all that money if most of the system is gone? It makes no sense.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that Congress should completely “zero out” all federal funding if Amtrak goes ahead with this lame-brain scheme. They should get no more federal dollars, nichts, zip, nada!

As I have tried to suggest a couple of times on this group, the time may have finally come to find some other way to save these services – without Amtrak. I think I could still support an Amtrak “system” consisting of diverse corridors if they were all interconnected by a national system – run by someone else. That, in a way, was how the old Class 1 passenger trains operated. They at least made an effort to make connections.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain,

Topeka, IN


----------



## jis

Apparently we are all getting excited by a piece of possibly fake news [emoji57]


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> Apparently we are all getting excited by a piece of possibly fake news [emoji57]


Didn't this come straight from Gardner? How is it not reasonable or logical to be concerned about it?


----------



## jis

It was reported by someone that he said so. Who knows what he said and what happened in transmission. Amtrak subsequently stated their official position, which is unchanged from the testimony given to Congress.

One possibility is that Gardner has gone rogue, in which case Anderson will have to deal with it.

The other possibility is that the reporter interpreted what was said in a particular way, possibly misled by ambiguous language used by the speaker. There are many possible explanations I am sure.

But the official position is unchanged and we await the results of SMS analysis. Until then I suppose all options also remain on the table.

It is possible that the so called SMS analysis is a bureaucratic smoke screen. But we should know soon enough.

We should remain very concerned and keep the fire lit under them. But that does not mean we should lose our heads and go off the rails ourselves.


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> It was reported by someone that he said so. Who knows what he said and what happened in transmission. Amtrak subsequently stated their official position, which is unchanged from the testimony given to Congress.
> 
> One possibility is that Gardner has gone rogue, in which case Anderson will have to deal with it.
> 
> The other possibility is that the reporter interpreted what was said in a particular way, possibly misled by ambiguous language used by the speaker. There are many possible explanations I am sure.
> 
> But the official position is unchanged and we await the results of SMS analysis. Until then I suppose all options also remain on the table.
> 
> It is possible that the so called SMS analysis is a bureaucratic smoke screen. But we should know soon enough.
> 
> We should remain very concerned and keep the fire lit under them. But that does not mean we should lose our heads and go off the rails ourselves.


JIS,

Thanks for your insight and level-headedness. Not to pat you on the back or anything but it seems to me like you know what you're talking about. It sounds to me like you know something about the transportation industry,

Regards,

FMC


----------



## mlanoue

Here is the most recent PowerPoint show from Amtrak about the SWC. It contains all the alternatives they have considered--most of which I think we would consider decent ideas as additional routes, but ultimately they love that bus bridge. Sounds like they are willing to work with Congress (or at least they acknowledge that they kind of have to), but really, really, really hope they don't get the funding to install PTC on the Raton section.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fdvs5Ne8SQobfH5LX3Xz1Tf_lx-MUGXr/view?usp=sharing


----------



## jis

They also want Congress (and the rail advocacy community) to eat their own posturing and say it is OK to run without PTC where FRA says it is OK to do so. This is a rear end covering exercise.


----------



## GBNorman

Devil's Advocate said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appeared this topic took on added life while I was overseas during the past two weeks. Lest we forget, WLAN mobile data "over there" costs "big time" - try $25 for 100 megs. That's enough to make one "think twice" before indulging.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you took a locked US phone to a foreign country and paid a massive middleman fee to a US carrier with pricing plans from the 1990's. The vast majority of industrialized democracies have cheaper mobile plans than the US.
Click to expand...

I signed up for a Verizon International plan good for Austria that cost $45. While there was ample allowance for voice and text for both over there and back to the States, data was 100megs within the plan, and $25 for each 100megs or fraction thereof in excess.

WLAN (what Wi-Fi is called over there) was "problematic" on both OBB and the private Westbahn. I like to know where I am, and I prefer to walk - even in cities like Graz, Linz, and Innsbruck that were all new to me (I confess, I did use a taxicab back to the Hbf in Linz). All told it seemed like every other minute, it was time for "free text from Verizon" which meant $25 more into the kitty.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.



Devil's Advocate said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> All told, away from the hobby community, the passenger using rail travel today, simply could care less about what happens to the Chief, or for that matter, the others within that particular Tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you basing this upon? The people I met on my most recent Southwest Chief trip (earlier this month) seemed extremely concerned about the future of the route. If there was anything they could _not_ care less about it was some indifferent armchair quarterback trying to speak on their behalf.
Click to expand...

Of course I respect Advocate's thought. I'm sure the folks he talked with aboard the Chief were concerned about its possible discontinuance. Were the folks those just going from "Ehh to Bee" and the train was simply there, or were perhaps were they more likely "enthusiasts"? Regardless, one must accept that any such "universe" was a "microcosm".


----------



## jis

GBN, when I travel abroad, I just bite the bullet and take the $10per day of actual use roaming extension from AT&T which basically gives me unlimited everything (including 4G/LTE data) in any of the vast list of countries and also country to country and within country unlimited calling and texting among all those countries. Yeah if I am traveling for more than a week or ten days it starts getting expensive, but the convenience is well worth it for me.

The other alternatives is to simply get a local SIM, but that changes the telephone number, which is less convenient than using the US SIM if one can.

Anyway, I am now permanently signed up for AT&T's international per day roaming, and now I don;t even have to do anything special when I travel abroad. Just continue using my phone exactly as I would at home.


----------



## jebr

Yeah, typically Verizon's international roaming packages are more expensive than the competition. Unless you need access to your US number (or a US IP address for streaming and such) when abroad, it'd probably be cheaper to use a local service if your phone supports it.

Sprint and T-Mobile have free 2G data internationally. When I was in Canada on Sprint, the free 2G data was usable for basic surfing, maps, etc. Streaming would be a challenge, but it was enough to get things done until I reached a wi-fi spot or similar.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

If I am reading all the information about PTC and the Chief correctly (sorry, can't remember where with several threads going on this), then:

1. The bus bridge is about 10 hours long? If so, that is outrageous, especially for someone taking the whole route in a sleeper.

2. There is a loophole (qualifying for extension on PTC) that even NJ Transit is going to be qualified to get (and if they, being as muddle-headed as they are, can prepare and qualify for it in time, it should be a piece of cake for anybody else). If this is true, the eight trains that Trains magazine lists as in danger may not be in quite as much danger?

Have I read both those items correctly? Or, if not, please correct me so I can get all this straight in my head--thanks



.


----------



## mlanoue

I don’t think they plan to have sleepers on either of the train sections of the fresh and contemporary SWC. Just coaches and a lounge.


----------



## jis

Mystic River Dragon said:


> If I am reading all the information about PTC and the Chief correctly (sorry, can't remember where with several threads going on this), then:
> 
> 1. The bus bridge is about 10 hours long? If so, that is outrageous, especially for someone taking the whole route in a sleeper.
> 
> 2. There is a loophole (qualifying for extension on PTC) that even NJ Transit is going to be qualified to get (and if they, being as muddle-headed as they are, can prepare and qualify for it in time, it should be a piece of cake for anybody else). If this is true, the eight trains that Trains magazine lists as in danger may not be in quite as much danger?
> 
> Have I read both those items correctly? Or, if not, please correct me so I can get all this straight in my head--thanks
> 
> 
> 
> .


On point 2, no you have not read it correctly. The route segments in question are FRA PTC Exempt, that is they do not require PTC and hence there currently is no plan to install PTC, barring a few exceptions which I mention below. So there is no question of getting extensions. To get an extension PTC hardware installation must be substantially completed, staff trained and a demonstration segment operated under PTC before December 31. That is clearly not going to be the case on segments that are PTC exempted and no PTC is getting installed there. The eight trains listed all travel over such segments. Trains that travel on segments where PTC is being installed and will get extensions are not listed, e.g. the Silver Service and Auto Train.

Amtrak's position was clarified by spokesman Magliari, and it has not changed from what was stated in the Congressional hearings, which was not an unqualified discontinuance of service. There are many things that have to happen before such. SWC is a specialc ase because in addition to PTC there is a huge infrastructure upgrade and maintenance issue for which Amtrak is doing some hard headed "negotiating" apparently to get guaranteed funding, instead of doing an year to year Kabuki dance around it. That is what makes the SWC issue more fraught than any of those others.

The exception is the segment San Louis Obispo - Gilroy where Caltrans has chosen to install PTC even though it is potentially an FRA Exempted segment.



mlanoue said:


> I don’t think they plan to have sleepers on either of the train sections of the fresh and contemporary SWC. Just coaches and a lounge.


Maybe this is their way to find enough equipment for a sixth consist for the Empire Builder


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

Okay--thanks, mlanoue and jis.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

GBNorman said:


> Of course I respect Advocate's thought. I'm sure the folks he talked with aboard the Chief were concerned about its possible discontinuance. Were the folks those just going from "Ehh to Bee" and the train was simply there, or were perhaps were they more likely "enthusiasts"? Regardless, one must accept that any such "universe" was a "microcosm".


It was a combination of motivations. Some folks were riding because they loved trains, some were riding because they hated flying, some were riding because they were unable or unwilling to drive, and others simply liked the shake things up once in a while. I didn't meet anyone who was happy about the idea of the Southwest Chief becoming a bus.



jis said:


> GBN, when I travel abroad, I just bite the bullet and take the $10per day of actual use roaming extension from AT&T which basically gives me unlimited everything (including 4G/LTE data) in any of the vast list of countries and also country to country and within country unlimited calling and texting among all those countries. Yeah if I am traveling for more than a week or ten days it starts getting expensive, but the convenience is well worth it for me. The other alternatives is to simply get a local SIM, but that changes the telephone number, which is less convenient than using the US SIM if one can. Anyway, I am now permanently signed up for AT&T's international per day roaming, and now I don;t even have to do anything special when I travel abroad. Just continue using my phone exactly as I would at home.


I pay $35 per month all-in for a domestic plan that includes unlimited international data and text at 2G speeds in a 100+ countries. Looking up schedules, finding addresses, and sending/receiving emails works fine on 2G. Around 99% of my trips are leisure activities but I'm not a social media attention seeker so it's rare that I need to move large amounts of data or communicate in real time.



jebr said:


> Yeah, typically Verizon's international roaming packages are more expensive than the competition. Unless you need access to your US number (or a US IP address for streaming and such) when abroad, it'd probably be cheaper to use a local service if your phone supports it. Sprint and T-Mobile have free 2G data internationally. When I was in Canada on Sprint, the free 2G data was usable for basic surfing, maps, etc. Streaming would be a challenge, but it was enough to get things done until I reached a wi-fi spot or similar.


On my T-Mobile plan Canada and Mexico are treated like US domestic service. Best plan in the business but you need a phone with the most recently licensed bands included in the baseband transceiver chipset to get the most out of it. I really hope T-Mobile isn't allowed to merge with Sprint.


----------



## jis

Yeah. If I was not a moderator of half a dozen rowdy internet forums here and there, I could live with 2G too. But that is not the case.... yet. Maybe some day.


----------



## frequentflyer

Devil's Advocate said:


> GBNorman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I respect Advocate's thought. I'm sure the folks he talked with aboard the Chief were concerned about its possible discontinuance. Were the folks those just going from "Ehh to Bee" and the train was simply there, or were perhaps were they more likely "enthusiasts"? Regardless, one must accept that any such "universe" was a "microcosm".
> 
> 
> 
> It was a combination of motivations. Some folks were riding because they loved trains, some were riding because they hated flying, some were riding because they were unable or unwilling to drive, and others simply liked the shake things up once in a while. I didn't meet anyone who was happy about the idea of the Southwest Chief becoming a bus.
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> GBN, when I travel abroad, I just bite the bullet and take the $10per day of actual use roaming extension from AT&T which basically gives me unlimited everything (including 4G/LTE data) in any of the vast list of countries and also country to country and within country unlimited calling and texting among all those countries. Yeah if I am traveling for more than a week or ten days it starts getting expensive, but the convenience is well worth it for me. The other alternatives is to simply get a local SIM, but that changes the telephone number, which is less convenient than using the US SIM if one can. Anyway, I am now permanently signed up for AT&T's international per day roaming, and now I don;t even have to do anything special when I travel abroad. Just continue using my phone exactly as I would at home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I pay $35 per month all-in for a domestic plan that includes unlimited international data and text at 2G speeds in a 100+ countries. Looking up schedules, finding addresses, and sending/receiving emails works fine on 2G. Around 99% of my trips are leisure activities but I'm not a social media attention seeker so it's rare that I need to move large amounts of data or communicate in real time.
> 
> 
> 
> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, typically Verizon's international roaming packages are more expensive than the competition. Unless you need access to your US number (or a US IP address for streaming and such) when abroad, it'd probably be cheaper to use a local service if your phone supports it. Sprint and T-Mobile have free 2G data internationally. When I was in Canada on Sprint, the free 2G data was usable for basic surfing, maps, etc. Streaming would be a challenge, but it was enough to get things done until I reached a wi-fi spot or similar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*On my T-Mobile plan Canada and Mexico are treated like US domestic service. Best plan in the business but you need a phone with the most recently licensed bands included in the baseband transceiver chipset to get the most out of it. I really hope T-Mobile isn't allowed to merge with Sprint.*_
Click to expand...

It is why T Mobile is popular to military personnel, one can get stationed overseers and still call home as it was a regular call.............Well, it used to be that way.


----------



## fredmcain

O.K., group, anybody for a "bus bridge"? Anderson would tell us it'd be "safer" than operating a passenger train on a line with no PTC. No? O.K., how 'bout installing "PTC" on I-40? Has it occurred to anyone that there is a kind of double standard here with railroads vs highways?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/blown-tire-may-have-caused-horrific-new-mexico-bus-semi-crash-authorities-say/ar-BBMGYWS?ocid=spartandhp 



> ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A blown tire on a semitrailer may be to blame for a deadly head-on crash with a commercial passenger bus along Interstate 40 in New Mexico near the Arizona border, according to authorities. At least seven people were killed in the crash and many of the 49 passengers aboard the Greyhound bus were injured, although authorities couldn't immediately provide an exact count of how many were hurt or their conditions.
> 
> The truck driver is expected to recover, reports CBS Albuquerque affiliate KRQE-TV.
> 
> .....
> 
> New Mexico State Police said the semi was headed east on the freeway Thursday afternoon when one of its tires blew. They said that sent the rig, which was carrying produce, across the median into oncoming traffic, where it slammed into the Greyhound bus. It was heading to Phoenix from Albuquerque.


----------



## frequentflyer

Condolences to those who lost love ones.

A freak accident, the Greyhound bus driver did nothing wrong. He or she was not expecting a semi with a flat tire to veer across the median.

If this is a bad idea, so is the network of Thruway motorcoaches that Amtrak uses in California uses to connect to Amtrak trains.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

In my experience poor maintenance, sloppy driving, and proud indifference to safety regulations are all core tenants of commercial trucking culture. Not every truck is a future disaster rolling on borrowed time, and some companies do a better job than others of ensuring meaningful compliance, but a lot of them are tempting fate with our lives in the balance.


----------



## fredmcain

Devil's Advocate said:


> In my experience poor maintenance, sloppy driving, and proud indifference to safety regulations are all core tenants of America's commercial trucking culture. Not every truck is a future disaster rolling on borrowed time, and some companies do a better job than others of ensuring meaningful compliance, but a lot of them are tempting fate with our lives in the balance.


Yeah, I know I'm drifting off topic here but there are _WAY_ too many big, dangerous trucks on the highways. And it might just get worse. They are talking about driverless trucks. In my own personal, honest, humble opinion "driverless trucks" should _NEVER_ be allowed on our highways. Think about this for a minute*:* What if that truck that blew a tire had actually been the leading truck of a four-truck "platoon" with the following three driverless. O.K., so what happens to those following three trucks after he blows a tire and loses control? These are not trains; they can't just automatically dump the air and stop. The American people should begin asking some very serious questions about this before this genie is let out of the bottle 'cause once she's out it might be extremely difficult to put back in again.

Back the _Chief_: My question is, will passengers really and truly be safer on a bus than on a train operating over a line with an automatic block signal system but no PTC and only a few trains a day in each direction? Really?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## jis

Since it is generally believed (based on considerable credible documentation) that train passengers are safer while on board a train than when they are getting on or off it and getting to/from the train, it should follow that each transfer adds additional risk, irrespective of whether you are transferring to a bus or a golf cart, though exactly how much is open to debate. Ergo, a trip that involves two transfers should be a bit more risky than a trip that involves none, even if LD buses are as safe as trains (which is probably close to reality).

Frankly I think a service involving such transfers will destroy the through service market, with only those who absolutely must travel through the transfers remaining as customers.


----------



## fredmcain

J.I.S.,

Good points. I agree with all.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> O.K., group, anybody for a "bus bridge"? Anderson would tell us it'd be "safer" than operating a passenger train on a line with no PTC. No? O.K., how 'bout installing "PTC" on I-40? Has it occurred to anyone that there is a kind of double standard here with railroads vs highways?


Are you serious? A bus can come to a stop in 1/20 the distance that a train can. A bus can steer out of the way of obstacles. Trains can not. A bus won't fly off the road if it goes slightly too fast around a slight bend. A train going too fast around a curve can fly off the rails. The two are completely unrelated and incomparable.


----------



## keelhauled

fredmcain said:


> These are not trains; they can't just automatically dump the air and stop.


That is actually exactly what happens. The emergency/parking brake on trucks are spring loaded, and air pressure is used to release the brake. In the event of a loss of air pressure, it fails to safe and the brake applies.


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience poor maintenance, sloppy driving, and proud indifference to safety regulations are all core tenants of America's commercial trucking culture. Not every truck is a future disaster rolling on borrowed time, and some companies do a better job than others of ensuring meaningful compliance, but a lot of them are tempting fate with our lives in the balance.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know I'm drifting off topic here but there are _WAY_ too many big, dangerous trucks on the highways. And it might just get worse. They are talking about driverless trucks. In my own personal, honest, humble opinion "driverless trucks" should _NEVER_ be allowed on our highways. Think about this for a minute*:* What if that truck that blew a tire had actually been the leading truck of a four-truck "platoon" with the following three driverless. O.K., so what happens to those following three trucks after he blows a tire and loses control? These are not trains; they can't just automatically dump the air and stop. The American people should begin asking some very serious questions about this before this genie is let out of the bottle 'cause once she's out it might be extremely difficult to put back in again.
> 
> Back the _Chief_: My question is, will passengers really and truly be safer on a bus than on a train operating over a line with an automatic block signal system but no PTC and only a few trains a day in each direction? Really?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
Click to expand...

Driverless vehicles are statistically much safer than human operated vehicles. I have no idea what you're talking about with driverless truck "platoons", but your argument that it's safest to keep people in the driver seat, is objectively false.


----------



## Ryan

This is a driverless truck platoon.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

cpotisch said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> O.K., group, anybody for a "bus bridge"? Anderson would tell us it'd be "safer" than operating a passenger train on a line with no PTC. No? O.K., how 'bout installing "PTC" on I-40? Has it occurred to anyone that there is a kind of double standard here with railroads vs highways?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? A bus can come to a stop in 1/20 the distance that a train can. A bus can steer out of the way of obstacles. Trains can not. A bus won't fly off the road if it goes slightly too fast around a slight bend. A train going too fast around a curve can fly off the rails. The two are completely unrelated and incomparable.
Click to expand...

A bus will fly off the road, or topple over if it goes too fast around a curve. A bus going 80 mph can stop faster than a train... But not instantly to avoid collisions.

As a side note, I've been on a prevost (tour bus) that hit a concrete wall and I've been on an Amtrak train that hit a cement truck. Survived them both.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Had a talk to a railroad consultant the other day. We have truck platoon and automation trucks today. There call intermodal or TOFC Trailer on Flat Cars.

No need to reinvent the wheel here.

A lot of money is going in these new truck, not one is capable of doing, what I do ever day. Adapt to ever changing conditions. Cant be programmed. No two days are ever the same.

.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Had a talk to a railroad consultant the other day. We have truck platoon and automation trucks today. There call intermodal or TOFC Trailer on Flat Cars. No need to reinvent the wheel here. A lot of money is going in these new truck, not one is capable of doing, what I do ever day. Adapt to ever changing conditions. Cant be programmed. No two days are ever the same..


Even if an automatic truck is less safe and adaptable than your personal abilities it only has to be statistically safer than the _average_ human trucker to be a net positive for everyone else. Just yesterday the ground beneath my feet shook and shuddered as a careless trucker suddenly bottomed out on a paved wash. It was so loud and jarring I had to look up from some paperwork about another trucker who had fallen off and under his own truck before it crushed him to death. I've seen these truckers ignore signs, drive double the speed limit, and take sharp turns like they're in a sports car. Playing cowboys and idiots is just part of the job for them and the current administration is doing what it can to roll our safety restrictions even further back.


----------



## railiner

What really would have made a difference in the referenced accident, would have been an adequate guard rail, to prevent an out-of-control vehicle from breaching the opposing lanes...

Better tire construction and/or maintenance may have helped, as well....


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> What really would have made a difference in the referenced accident, would have been an adequate guard rail, to prevent an out-of-control vehicle from breaching the opposing lanes...
> 
> Better tire construction and/or maintenance may have helped, as well....


Lack of guard rail protecting against excursions off the highway was a significant scary issue on the NEC near Claymont DE, when a truck blew onto the 125mph NEC track after blowing a tire. Fortunately there was no 125mph train approaching at that speed on that track at that time. An accident that no PTC would have prevented without much more robust incursion detection in place. Incursion prevention is way more effective. Protecting the track there with Jersey Barriers is probably a relatively cheap and effective solution, but AFAICT, that has not happened yet, while we are busy trying to discontinue an LD train because supposedly of the lack of PTC.


----------



## JRR

The whole idea of taking an LD train is to take a train, not a bus.


----------



## Ryan

For some.

For others, it's a means to getting from Point A to Point B.


----------



## west point

Not all travelers ( all modes ) are traveling for the same reason and never will. Stop trying to make it all homogenous .


----------



## JRR

I should have been more specific. What I meant was, for me, the whole idea of an LD train is taking a train not a bus.

Actually, from Boca where I live, a bus would probably be faster and clearly more direct but I do not want to take a bus!

Finally, other than an emergency “bustitution” necessary to get passengers from A to B, I fail to understand how anyone, let alone the President of Amtrak, could possibly consider interrupting the SWC by placing a bus ride in the middle.

Those who may have a different opinion, are welcome to have such.


----------



## GBNorman

Changing modes, but within where this topic has evolved, a Flight Attendant (deceased. 55, Big C) once said to me at a Block Party, "If --- CEO of her airline ---- had his way, we'd all be flying around in drones".

Think of it folks; the only activity of air transport remaining done in the "good old fashioned way" is Air Traffic Control - and we have enough aviation hands around here to know automation of such is feasible.

Finally and completely off topic, a first for me since 9/11. Coming home from overseas last month, the United captain actually turned on Channel 9, or ATC for passengers to hear - well at least for departure from EDDM/MUC. English may be the universal ATC language....but some of THAT English.....?


----------



## fredmcain

You know, one thing that makes me hopeful is that the opposition to Anderson's "plans" appears to be becoming well organized. Interesting article here:

http://www.lajuntatribunedemocrat.com/news/20180904/southwest-chief-rolls-on 



> City Manager Rick Klein of La Junta was one of the local leaders invited to the special meeting of Amtrak officials, Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad, and local officials in Raton last week. Klein was out of the office after the meeting last week, but was available for comment the next week. As we would expect from his tireless efforts on behalf of the Southwest Chief, he regards the bus proposal as a no-starter and totally agrees with former Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman, who has visited La Junta several times. Klein believes a plan can be worked out with BNSF and Amtrak by which $3 million required to start TIGER IX ($25.5 million in all) can be attained. Klein said, “The federal government is on our side. We saw the overwhelming vote of the Senate to amend the transportation bill to release the TIGER IX money. When have you ever seen that overwhelming cooperation among Democrats, Republicans and Independents? The vote was 95-6.” This will have to be affirmed by the House to make it actually happen, and everyone has been requested to contact his representative in the House. The very future of Southeastern Colorado and Northern New Mexico depends upon it. “When the grassroots speak out, Congress listens,” said Klein. Further, “The rebuilding of La Castaneda in Las Vegas is under way, but the train connection is vital for its existence. The economy of the region is at stake.”


----------



## fredmcain

And, another interesting article:

https://ladailypost.com/content/luj%C3%A1n-leads-efforts-support-southwest-chief-line 




> [SIZE=1em]WASHINGTON, D.C. [/SIZE][SIZE=1em]―[/SIZE][SIZE=1em] U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) sent bipartisan letters to Amtrak Headquarters and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) expressing support for the Amtrak Southwest Chief Line.[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> The letter to THUD requests the inclusion of the bipartisan Senate amendment that provides $50 million for maintenance and safety improvements along the Southwest Chief route in the final THUD Appropriations bill.


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> And, another interesting article:
> 
> https://ladailypost.com/content/luj%C3%A1n-leads-efforts-support-southwest-chief-line
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=1em]WASHINGTON, D.C. [/SIZE][SIZE=1em]―[/SIZE][SIZE=1em] U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) sent bipartisan letters to Amtrak Headquarters and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) expressing support for the Amtrak Southwest Chief Line.[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> The letter to THUD requests the inclusion of the bipartisan Senate amendment that provides $50 million for maintenance and safety improvements along the Southwest Chief route in the final THUD Appropriations bill.
Click to expand...

Now _that_ seems promising (to me). Maybe Anderson will start to actually give a **** about the consequences of his actions and how it makes Amtrak look now that 13 different New Mexico reps are starting to get involved. JMO.


----------



## west point

fredmcain said:


> You know, one thing that makes me hopeful is that the opposition to Anderson's "plans" appears to be becoming well organized. Interesting article here:
> 
> http://www.lajuntatribunedemocrat.com/news/20180904/southwest-chief-rolls-on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ? The vote was 95-6.” This will have to be affirmed by the House to make it actually happen, and everyone has been requested to contact his representative in the House.
Click to expand...

How can the vote have been 95- 6 ? There are only 100 Senators and McCain for sure was not present.


----------



## frequentflyer

GBNorman said:


> Changing modes, but within where this topic has evolved, a Flight Attendant (deceased. 55, Big C) once said to me at a Block Party, "If --- CEO of her airline ---- had his way, we'd all be flying around in drones".
> 
> Think of it folks; the only activity of air transport remaining done in the "good old fashioned way" is Air Traffic Control - and we have enough aviation hands around here to know automation of such is feasible.
> 
> Finally and completely off topic, a first for me since 9/11. Coming home from overseas last month, the United captain actually turned on Channel 9, or ATC for passengers to hear - well at least for departure from EDDM/MUC. English may be the universal ATC language....but some of THAT English.....?


Enjoy Channel 9 while you can, UA is removing it from aircraft now or turning it off.


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> You know, one thing that makes me hopeful is that the opposition to Anderson's "plans" appears to be becoming well organized. Interesting article here:
> 
> http://www.lajuntatribunedemocrat.com/news/20180904/southwest-chief-rolls-on


You've got extraneous characters in the link. Here's the correct one.


----------



## nti1094

hey did anyone catch this notice?




I guess the previous TIGER grants are paying dividends now! What a waste if they go and throw this away and annul the train.


----------



## nti1094

nti1094 said:


> hey did anyone catch this notice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMG_2027.jpg
> 
> I guess the previous TIGER grants are paying dividends now! What a waste if they go and throw this away and annul the train.


I’m guessing this rams back to solid 79mph and not 90 since the old Santa Fe ATS is long gone?

That reminds me, on my last trip on the chief I noticed the lead unit had ATS shoes, which I am used to seeing on the California fleet, especially Metrolink and the surfliners, And obviously across Arizona there must be ATS because I noticed a lot of 90mph running early in the morning... But I don’t think I ever remember seeing ATS shoes on any P-42’s elsewhere before. Does Amtrak maintain only certain ones and keep them assigned to the chief exclusively? I must say I’m shoved if they do. Seems like something beyond their usual ability in regards to operational logistics.


----------



## Ryan

They’re removable and can be swapped onto whatever engines need them.


----------



## railiner

Ryan said:


> They’re removable and can be swapped onto whatever engines need them.


I never really noticed them before...is this it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_inductive_automatic_train_stop#/media/File:Coaster_2103-ATS-inductor.jpg


----------



## neroden

fredmcain said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience poor maintenance, sloppy driving, and proud indifference to safety regulations are all core tenants of America's commercial trucking culture. Not every truck is a future disaster rolling on borrowed time, and some companies do a better job than others of ensuring meaningful compliance, but a lot of them are tempting fate with our lives in the balance.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know I'm drifting off topic here but there are _WAY_ too many big, dangerous trucks on the highways. And it might just get worse. They are talking about driverless trucks. In my own personal, honest, humble opinion "driverless trucks" should _NEVER_ be allowed on our highways. Think about this for a minute*:* What if that truck that blew a tire had actually been the leading truck of a four-truck "platoon" with the following three driverless. O.K., so what happens to those following three trucks after he blows a tire and loses control? These are not trains; they can't just automatically dump the air and stop. The American people should begin asking some very serious questions about this before this genie is let out of the bottle 'cause once she's out it might be extremely difficult to put back in again.
> 
> Back the _Chief_: My question is, will passengers really and truly be safer on a bus than on a train operating over a line with an automatic block signal system but no PTC and only a few trains a day in each direction? Really?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
Click to expand...

Mr. Cain, I strongly advise that you write an open letter to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Coscia, and Congress explaining this and asking why Mr. Anderson wants to *reduce* the safety of Amtrak passengers by putting them in the much riskier situation of transferring to a bus on the extremely dangerous roads.

We can get you the address for Amtrak's board, and you can send the letter certified mail.

We can help you get statistics and additional newspaper articles if you wish to write this letter; I'd be happy to help.


----------



## neroden

I started researching and I found that infuriatingly, in the US railroad passenger injuries and intercity bus passenger injuries aren't reported on a comparable basis, so it's hard to compare the statistics. *Sigh*

Still, more passengers on buses were killed in the 2013-2016 period than the number of Amtrak passengers killed in the 1975-2015 period. Which certainly says something about bus safety. Disturbingly, the number of bus fatalities and injuries has been *rising* even as ridership and route coverage has been dropping.

The experts' consensus is that trains are safer than buses. In Europe, where the statistics are comparable, it's absolutely clear: buses are less safe than trains. Both are much safer than cars by orders of magnitude, and airplanes are somewhat safer than either.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/04/trains-safer-than-cars-buses-passengers-experts-say/82613144/

In both buses and trains, the big problem is other dangerous drivers on the road -- for trains, the problem is at grade crossings, while for buses, the problem is along their entire route.

Some "Chinatown" bus companies had significantly worse safety records than other bus companies, and were shut down, but even Greyhound had 79 crashes involving injuries in the last 24 months. Amtrak... didn't.

Buses are less safe in general, and there's consensus on that.


----------



## fredmcain

http://www.thekansan.com/news/20180907/moran-talks-amtrak-in-halstead 



> Moran talks Amtrak in Halstead
> 
> Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) made a listening stop tour in Halstead Sept. 8, hosting a town hall meeting in a full lecture hall at the Kansas Learning Center for Health.
> 
> Moran took time to discuss efforts to help Veterans get medical care through reforms of the Veteran’s Administration, attacks on the press by President Donald Trump, dysfunction in Washington, tariffs, rural life and other topics as they came up in the form of questions from his audience.
> 
> He also was able to take a very short victory lap, as Newton resident Sue Ice thanked Moran for his work this year to preserve the Southwest Chief — a long distance passenger train operated by Amtrak between Chicago and Los Angeles that makes six stops in Kansas, including a daily stop in Newton.


----------



## jebr

neroden said:


> I started researching and I found that infuriatingly, in the US railroad passenger injuries and intercity bus passenger injuries aren't reported on a comparable basis, so it's hard to compare the statistics. *Sigh*
> 
> Still, more passengers on buses were killed in the 2013-2016 period than the number of Amtrak passengers killed in the 1975-2015 period. Which certainly says something about bus safety.


It says nothing without how many passenger-miles (or some other similar metric) were traveled on each individual mode of transport.



neroden said:


> but even Greyhound had 79 crashes involving injuries in the last 24 months. Amtrak... didn't.


Is the Greyhound count of "crashes involving injuries" including those where no Greyhound passengers were hurt, but passengers in the other vehicle were (and the fault was with the other vehicle?) If so, there's a lot of grade crossing incidents that would count against Amtrak as well.



neroden said:


> Buses are less safe in general, and there's consensus on that.


Is there, though? A couple pages ago I took a look at the fatality count on both, and on the fatality count in the US it looked like buses came out safer than trains. (I ran into the same issue with how the data was counted, so it was hard to do a true side-by-side comparison.) One thing was clear, and that's that either is orders of magnitude more safe than private automobile use.

I think there's a lot of reasons that the bus bridge idea is bad, most notably that it's going to kill through traffic (transferring onto a bus and then back onto a train will lose almost all choice riders.) Safety is one that's a lot harder to defend, at least from the perspective of "a bus is significantly less safe than a train." Saying that having a bus bridge would lead to more people opting to drive rather than take either the bus or the train would be a better starting point for safety concerns; it's clear that automobile driving is much, much more dangerous than either bus or train, and it's much easier to defend the position that people will opt to drive rather than deal with transferring from a train to a bus, then back onto the train from the bus hours later.


----------



## bms

The burden of proof is on those claiming the bus option is safer, since they're the ones proposing a change in the name of safety. It's very hard to disprove since the necessary statistics aren't available, but that's immaterial since Anderson never proved it in the first place.


----------



## jebr

bms said:


> The burden of proof is on those claiming the bus option is safer, since they're the ones proposing a change in the name of safety. It's very hard to disprove since the necessary statistics aren't available, but that's immaterial since Anderson never proved it in the first place.


Here's what I found. Based on what I could find on the National Transportation Database, buses appear to have less fatalities per passenger mile than intercity trains do. It's plausible that Anderson sees something similar, and truly believes without PTC that trains will be more dangerous than they could be, and doesn't want to carry that liability/risk.

There's also plenty of people that are claiming that buses are more dangerous than trains. That also requires the burden of proof to be on the person making the "more dangerous" accusation, and so far I haven't seen any hard data, at least on the US side, to definitively prove that trains are significantly safer than buses. (Which, by the way, if we're going to take safety as the primary goal, then let's force everyone to fly. That's safer than both, based on what data seems to be available.)

For me, I'd rather focus on getting people out of their own vehicles and onto safer, more sustainable forms of transport. Buses serve as a vital link in many of those areas, and I fear the rhetoric around buses being more dangerous than trains will lead people to a (very false) conclusion that since there's no train on a particular route, they might as well just drive themselves since buses are (in their mind, fed by rhetoric that buses are more dangerous than trains) just as dangerous as driving. It may also lead to legislators not willing to fund those bus links in areas where we do need them, and where we can use them to either serve local needs that a train can't easily serve, or work as a feeder system into train routes.


----------



## JRR

My planned trip on the Chief this year was cancelled when the Meteor derailed in Savanah. We hoped to take the Chief next year as part of a cross country trip, but if there is a “bus bridge”, we will not take the Chief or any other LD train that would require part of the trip being on a bus.


----------



## cpotisch

neroden said:


> Mr. Cain, I strongly advise that you write an open letter to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Coscia, and Congress explaining this and asking why Mr. Anderson wants to *reduce* the safety of Amtrak passengers by putting them in the much riskier situation of transferring to a bus on the extremely dangerous roads.


I feel like it's a bit of a stretch to call them "extremely dangerous roads". Maybe it's less safe than a train, but the term "extremely dangerous" seems a bit...extreme.


----------



## cpotisch

JRR said:


> My planned trip on the Chief this year was cancelled when the Meteor derailed in Savanah. We hoped to take the Chief next year as part of a cross country trip, but if there is a “bus bridge”, we will not take the Chief or any other LD train that would require part of the trip being on a bus.


That was my train! I was on that Meteor!


----------



## fredmcain

cpotisch said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Cain, I strongly advise that you write an open letter to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Coscia, and Congress explaining this and asking why Mr. Anderson wants to *reduce* the safety of Amtrak passengers by putting them in the much riskier situation of transferring to a bus on the extremely dangerous roads.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like it's a bit of a stretch to call them "extremely dangerous roads". Maybe it's less safe than a train, but the term "extremely dangerous" seems a bit...extreme.
Click to expand...

Well, "extremely dangerous" has to do with one's perception. Personally, I think they are dangerous especially with so many big trucks. Until recently, trains have had a far better safety record than highways. Until recently. Amtrak has had some bad accidents that should never have happened. Also, when you look at statistics involving rail fatalities, sometimes those statistics include highway/rail grade crossing accidents which are often as much highway fatalities as rail fatalities especially where an errant motorist disregards stop signals at a grade crossing.

I can relate one interesting experience I had. One time about 20 years ago I was riding the Chief eastbound late at night over Raton Pass during a really bad bout of snow and freezing rain. Sitting in the dining car we could look out and see all the vehicles that had veered off into the ditch on nearby I-25. We just rolled on as if nothing was happening. One of the diners lifted his glass and said "Here, here! Let's hear it for Amtrak" Sadly, the rail option on this line may soon be a thing of the past in good weather or bad.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## fredmcain

neroden said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience poor maintenance, sloppy driving, and proud indifference to safety regulations are all core tenants of America's commercial trucking culture. Not every truck is a future disaster rolling on borrowed time, and some companies do a better job than others of ensuring meaningful compliance, but a lot of them are tempting fate with our lives in the balance.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know I'm drifting off topic here but there are _WAY_ too many big, dangerous trucks on the highways. And it might just get worse. They are talking about driverless trucks. In my own personal, honest, humble opinion "driverless trucks" should _NEVER_ be allowed on our highways. Think about this for a minute*:* What if that truck that blew a tire had actually been the leading truck of a four-truck "platoon" with the following three driverless. O.K., so what happens to those following three trucks after he blows a tire and loses control? These are not trains; they can't just automatically dump the air and stop. The American people should begin asking some very serious questions about this before this genie is let out of the bottle 'cause once she's out it might be extremely difficult to put back in again.
> 
> Back the _Chief_: My question is, will passengers really and truly be safer on a bus than on a train operating over a line with an automatic block signal system but no PTC and only a few trains a day in each direction? Really?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred M. Cain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Cain, I strongly advise that you write an open letter to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Coscia, and Congress explaining this and asking why Mr. Anderson wants to *reduce* the safety of Amtrak passengers by putting them in the much riskier situation of transferring to a bus on the extremely dangerous roads.
> 
> We can get you the address for Amtrak's board, and you can send the letter certified mail.
> 
> We can help you get statistics and additional newspaper articles if you wish to write this letter; I'd be happy to help.
Click to expand...

Neroden,

For what it's worth (probably nothing) I did write to Anderson a while back and received a kind of form letter in return. It was noncommittal but my efforts probably didn't hurt. Personally, I believe that Anderson's plan to truncate the Chief has run into so much opposition that I don't believe he's gonna be able to pull this one off. But at the same time I don't want us to become overconfident, either, 'cause, who knows?

Regards,

FMC


----------



## lordsigma

cpotisch said:


> JRR said:
> 
> 
> 
> My planned trip on the Chief this year was cancelled when the Meteor derailed in Savanah. We hoped to take the Chief next year as part of a cross country trip, but if there is a “bus bridge”, we will not take the Chief or any other LD train that would require part of the trip being on a bus.
> 
> 
> 
> That was my train! I was on that Meteor!
Click to expand...

Was that the one last December where they had all the cold weather down south and a frozen switch broke as they backed over it derailing a couple cars?


----------



## JRR

lordsigma said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRR said:
> 
> 
> 
> My planned trip on the Chief this year was cancelled when the Meteor derailed in Savanah. We hoped to take the Chief next year as part of a cross country trip, but if there is a “bus bridge”, we will not take the Chief or any other LD train that would require part of the trip being on a bus.
> 
> 
> 
> That was my train! I was on that Meteor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was that the one last December where they had all the cold weather down south and a frozen switch broke as they backed over it derailing a couple cars?
Click to expand...

That was the trip but it was the first week of January!


----------



## lordsigma

JRR said:


> lordsigma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRR said:
> 
> 
> 
> My planned trip on the Chief this year was cancelled when the Meteor derailed in Savanah. We hoped to take the Chief next year as part of a cross country trip, but if there is a “bus bridge”, we will not take the Chief or any other LD train that would require part of the trip being on a bus.
> 
> 
> 
> That was my train! I was on that Meteor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was that the one last December where they had all the cold weather down south and a frozen switch broke as they backed over it derailing a couple cars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the trip but it was the first week of January!
Click to expand...

Ok I guess I had the timing wrong. I know someone who was on the southbound Meteor that night and was over 10 hours late to Miami. In addition to that derailment I remember hearing the weather was causing lots of problems with track and signals and tons of resulting delays and congestion.


----------



## cpotisch

JRR said:


> lordsigma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRR said:
> 
> 
> 
> My planned trip on the Chief this year was cancelled when the Meteor derailed in Savanah. We hoped to take the Chief next year as part of a cross country trip, but if there is a “bus bridge”, we will not take the Chief or any other LD train that would require part of the trip being on a bus.
> 
> 
> 
> That was my train! I was on that Meteor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was that the one last December where they had all the cold weather down south and a frozen switch broke as they backed over it derailing a couple cars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the trip but it was the first week of January!
Click to expand...

Yep. 98(3). We were pulling into Savannah but the switch that would have led us to the platform was frozen (it was stuck in the "straight ahead" position and we needed to go left or something), and they weren't able to unfreeze it, so the crew decided that we would continue straight and reverse into the station through an unfrozen switch up ahead. When we backed in, the baggage car rolled over that first switch, which sprung the other way and pulled the last three cars (the baggage and two sleepers) off the rails. We eventually got into NYC 20 hours late, and they had to order pizza to the train for dinner the second day.


----------



## JRR

We were going to LA for a cruise through the Panama Canal and back to Ft Lauderdale. Plan was for a circle trip. Had to fly to LA, a bummer, but the cruise was memorable.


----------



## jebr

Side discussion on issues posting links has been moved here:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/73684-forum-breaking-url/


----------



## JRR

We were going to LA for a cruise through the Panama Canal and back to Ft Lauderdale. Plan was for a circle trip. Had to fly to LA, a bummer, but the cruise was memorable.


----------



## jis

Though not directly about the SWC, but more about the Vermonter, this is a nice article discussing the lay of the land

https://vermontbiz.com/news/2018/september/10/amtrak-services-future-there-canary-coal-mine


----------



## pennyk

JRR said:


> We were going to LA for a cruise through the Panama Canal and back to Ft Lauderdale. Plan was for a circle trip. Had to fly to LA, a bummer, but the cruise was memorable.


I am planning a similar trip this December. Southwest Chief to LA, then cruise through Panama Canal to Ft. Lauderdale. I am hoping I will not have to use my trip insurance if something happens to the SWC.


----------



## JRR

I got the insurance because of the trip down through Central America and too risky to take a chance on a medical issue.

Hope it works for you.


----------



## fredmcain

jis said:


> Though not directly about the SWC, but more about the Vermonter, this is a nice article discussing the lay of the land
> 
> https://vermontbiz.com/news/2018/september/10/amtrak-services-future-there-canary-coal-mine


Here's another one from this morning. Let's see if our forum "breaks" the URL again.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/amtrak-may-put-passengers-on-buses-in-fight-over-safety-upgrade 

Yep! Sure enough! Not sure why this is happening but I'm certain it has something to do with the Amtrak forum.

Let's see if a "TinyURL" works:

*https://tinyurl.com/ydcmtqlg *


----------



## VentureForth

Sometimes the forum makes the link shorter, but the first link worked. The second link (first one in your response) added some junk to the end of the url in the hyperlink (not seen, but when you edit the hyperlink you can see the $C2%A0 that is screwing up the link. Don't know why.


----------



## jebr

Somehow a space is getting added to the end of the links. I'd check the settings on your device or make sure that there's no additional spaces at the end after pasting a link. It doesn't seem to do that for me (Chrome browser on Windows 10.)


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Lets focus on the story not the link.

https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/37801999



> About 4.5 million people rode the Chief in 2016, according to a June presentation by Richard Anderson, the passenger railroads president and chief executive officer. It costs more than $1 billion a year, yet brings in less than $600 million, he said.


The math is off, is this a attack on the entire network?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

The Bloomberg story reference above:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/amtrak-may-put-passengers-on-buses-in-fight-over-safety-upgrade

Does have different facts from June meeting:



> About 363,000 people rode the Chief in 2017, according to a June presentation by Richard Anderson, the passenger railroads president and chief executive officer. Its one of the railroads biggest money losers compared to other long-distance routes, he said.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

NARP/RPA

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/amtrak-to-congress-trains-will-run-on-january-1/

Statement from Amtraks Executive Vice President and CEO Scot Naparstek

The trains are still under threat, as there is a lack of detail of what there going to do. A bus bridge is a valid solution to some of these questions that Amtrak has. No solid answer today.


----------



## Ryan

fredmcain said:


> Well, "extremely dangerous" has to do with one's perception. Personally, I think they are dangerous especially with so many big trucks.


No, it doesn't. We live in a world of facts and statistics. Do you have any statistics comparing bus safety to train safety?

Feelings don't hurt you. Go where the data takes you.


----------



## bretton88

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Lets focus on the story not the link.
> 
> https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/37801999
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About 4.5 million people rode the Chief in 2016, according to a June presentation by Richard Anderson, the passenger railroads president and chief executive officer. It costs more than $1 billion a year, yet brings in less than $600 million, he said.
> 
> 
> 
> The math is off, is this a attack on the entire network?
Click to expand...

This sounds like numbers for the LD network as a whole.


----------



## desertflyer

I wrote Diane Feinstein and Kamala Harris around the proposed changes to Amtrak and the Southwest Chief. Feinstein got back to me today with a form letter, but at least it shows that her office has some understanding of what is going on - though it's not really the California senators that need to be convinced.



Senator Feinstein said:


> Thank you for writing to share your thoughts regarding recent and proposed changes to Amtrak service. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
> 
> I understand you are concerned about Amtrak service changes under the leadership of Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson because you believe those changes will reduce ridership, deteriorate customer service, and erode the overall comfort of the passenger rail experience.
> 
> As you know, Amtrak made several changes to long-distance routes in early 2018, citing the need to cut costs. Amtrak eliminated station agents and checked luggage services at a number of stops with lighter traffic, replaced the traditional dining car with pre-made boxed meals on certain long-distance routes, announced it would no longer operate special or charter trains, and discontinued towing private rail cars along many routes. Amtrak is reportedly considering reducing the frequency of daily trains along certain long-distance routes and breaking up other routes into shorter segments while asking for more financial support from the states serviced by each route.
> 
> As a federally-owned corporation and the United States’ principal intercity passenger rail service, Amtrak has a duty to provide reliable transportation access to the public. Many of these destinations would not otherwise be profitable for a private passenger rail operator to serve. In the absence of Amtrak service, many Americans—particularly those in rural communities—would lose access to long distance ground transportation.
> 
> I am concerned that some of Amtrak’s proposed changes could negatively impact the quality of passenger rail service along routes servicing California. Amtrak proposed suspending train service for a segment of the Southwest Chief, which runs daily from Chicago to Los Angeles. Train service along the route from Dodge City, Kansas, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, would be replaced instead with motor coaches. Amtrak cited the capital costs required to upgrade the current route as a reason for the proposal. In response to this news, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators on the attached letter to Richard Anderson urging Amtrak to continue full rail service and to seek available federal grants to help pay for the costs of capital upgrades along the route.
> 
> In addition, I cosponsored an amendment to the Senate Minibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 6147) that expresses the sense of the Senate in support of Amtrak’s long distance routes. The Senate adopted this amendment by a vote of 95-4 and passed its version of H.R. 6147 by a vote of 92-6 on August 1, 2018.
> 
> I have long supported funding for Amtrak and other critical rail transportation projects. Improving and expanding our nation’s passenger rail infrastructure is critical to providing alternative modes of transportation for millions of Americans, reducing congestion on our roads, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and curbing our dependence on oil. I have made careful note of your concerns, and I will be sure to keep them in mind should related legislation be considered by the Senate.


----------



## railiner

That's a pretty nice response considering what could have been...


----------



## jis

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> NARP/RPA
> 
> https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/amtrak-to-congress-trains-will-run-on-january-1/
> 
> Statement from Amtraks Executive Vice President and CEO Scot Naparstek
> 
> The trains are still under threat, as there is a lack of detail of what there going to do. A bus bridge is a valid solution to some of these questions that Amtrak has. No solid answer today.


So you think “trains will continue to run” has a plausible interpretation that they will run as buses? OK. [emoji57]
I think the danger that exists and is independent of the PTC issue is that some through trains may get segmented into multiple shorter trains. But that had gotten buried in the Buses and PTC noise.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

jis said:


> So you think trains will continue to run has a plausible interpretation that they will run as buses? OK.
> 
> I think the danger that exists and is independent of the PTC issue is that some through trains may get segmented into multiple shorter trains. But that had gotten buried in the Buses and PTC noise.


What I think is Amtrak failed to answer the question clearly. Had the chance but chose not to. Amtrak needs to be provided Congress and the people there vision of the future.


----------



## fredmcain

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think trains will continue to run has a plausible interpretation that they will run as buses? OK.
> 
> I think the danger that exists and is independent of the PTC issue is that some through trains may get segmented into multiple shorter trains. But that had gotten buried in the Buses and PTC noise.
> 
> 
> 
> What I think is Amtrak failed to answer the question clearly. Had the chance but chose not to. Amtrak needs to be provided Congress and the people there vision of the future.
Click to expand...

Well, let's be clear here. The LD trains and ESPECIALLY the _Chief_ are not out of the woods yet but I still regard this new development as a major "back pedaling". I mean, Anderson has repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that he will NOT operate trains on tracks without PTC after December 31st. This announcement is clearly a retreat from that. So, is the _Chief _safe for now? NO. But I still feel better about this than I did yesterday.

Many thanks to all of you who have written either to your congressman or to the Amtrak board and complained.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain who has reason today to be more optimistic.


----------



## fredmcain

Ryan said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, "extremely dangerous" has to do with one's perception. Personally, I think they are dangerous especially with so many big trucks.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. We live in a world of facts and statistics. Do you have any statistics comparing bus safety to train safety?
> 
> Feelings don't hurt you. Go where the data takes you.
Click to expand...

Well, for me personally, and speaking only for myself, I no longer feel as safe as I once did traveling by Interstate highways. Period. Statistics are not going to reassure me even if they prove that my perception is unwarranted. Irrational? Maybe. But surely there are more people who feel the way I do. Would a bus bridge really be more dangerous than the train? Perhaps not but I still feel like the rail option should remain open and there are plenty others who agree with. Just look at the overwhelming response we've gotten in opposition to this truncation. I really don't feel I have anything else to say about this.

Regards,

FMC


----------



## cpotisch

fredmcain said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, "extremely dangerous" has to do with one's perception. Personally, I think they are dangerous especially with so many big trucks.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. We live in a world of facts and statistics. Do you have any statistics comparing bus safety to train safety?
> 
> Feelings don't hurt you. Go where the data takes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, for me personally, and speaking only for myself, I no longer feel as safe as I once did traveling by Interstate highways. Period. Statistics are not going to reassure me even if they prove that my perception is unwarranted. Irrational? Maybe. But surely there are more people who feel the way I do. Would a bus bridge really be more dangerous than the train? Perhaps not but I still feel like the rail option should remain open and there are plenty others who agree with. Just look at the overwhelming response we've gotten in opposition to this truncation. I really don't feel I have anything else to say about this.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC
Click to expand...

Seriously? You're admitting that what you're saying has no factual basis and is "maybe" irrational, yet you still claim that it's a sound argument? And the fact that there has been overwhelming opposing to this truncation doesn't tell you anything about how many people are afraid of taking a bus over a train.


----------



## ehbowen

cpotisch said:


> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredmcain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, "extremely dangerous" has to do with one's perception. Personally, I think they are dangerous especially with so many big trucks.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. We live in a world of facts and statistics. Do you have any statistics comparing bus safety to train safety?
> 
> Feelings don't hurt you. Go where the data takes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, for me personally, and speaking only for myself, I no longer feel as safe as I once did traveling by Interstate highways. Period. Statistics are not going to reassure me even if they prove that my perception is unwarranted. Irrational? Maybe. But surely there are more people who feel the way I do. Would a bus bridge really be more dangerous than the train? Perhaps not but I still feel like the rail option should remain open and there are plenty others who agree with. Just look at the overwhelming response we've gotten in opposition to this truncation. I really don't feel I have anything else to say about this.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> FMC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously? You're admitting that what you're saying has no factual basis and is "maybe" irrational, yet you still claim that it's a sound argument? And the fact that there has been overwhelming opposing to this truncation doesn't tell you anything about how many people are afraid of taking a bus over a train.
Click to expand...

This bridge carried 140,000 vehicles a day and lasted 40 years...before it collapsed due to a design flaw. So you're telling us that, statistically, it was safe?


----------



## jebr

ehbowen said:


> This bridge carried 140,000 vehicles a day and lasted 40 years...before it collapsed due to a design flaw. So you're telling us that, statistically, it was safe?


I honestly have no clue what point you're trying to make. The bridge was deemed structurally deficient, but thanks to a GOP governor who made his lieutenant governor the head of MnDOT (and thus, to try and keep taxes low and score political points, wouldn't properly advocate for needed infrastructure repairs,) the funding for a replacement bridge was kicked far enough down the road that the bridge collapsed from that failure instead of being properly repaired/replaced.

We could throw around incidents of deadly failures for all sorts of modes of transportation. Is walking unsafe, because of this? Is taking the train unsafe because of derailments? Anecdotes and individual incidents can scare us, but can also lead us to make decisions that are less safe because we weigh the few flashy incidents instead of looking at the total span and actual risk for each mode of transport.


----------



## ehbowen

jebr said:


> ehbowen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This bridge carried 140,000 vehicles a day and lasted 40 years...before it collapsed due to a design flaw. So you're telling us that, statistically, it was safe?
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly have no clue what point you're trying to make. The bridge was deemed structurally deficient, but thanks to a GOP governor who made his lieutenant governor the head of MnDOT (and thus, to try and keep taxes low and score political points, wouldn't properly advocate for needed infrastructure repairs,) the funding for a replacement bridge was kicked far enough down the road that the bridge collapsed from that failure instead of being properly repaired/replaced.
> 
> We could throw around incidents of deadly failures for all sorts of modes of transportation. Is walking unsafe, because of this? Is taking the train unsafe because of derailments? Anecdotes and individual incidents can scare us, but can also lead us to make decisions that are less safe because we weigh the few flashy incidents instead of looking at the total span and actual risk for each mode of transport.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but especially in questions of "safety" (which is often, frankly, a matter of blind luck) you need to be sure you are comparing apples to apples. There are just too many variables involved to say, "Trains are safer than buses" or, "Buses are safer than trains." All it takes is one bad break to make the "statistics" meaningless for everyone who actually is involved.

Now if we are comparing apples to apples, we can see some valid trends. Freeways are safer than surface streets. Rail safety is improved with block signals, CTC, and (presumably) PTC. Air travel is a lot safer if pilots wait out or divert around thunderstorms rather than try to penetrate them. But while Ryan is correct that facts are facts and statistics are real, you also need to consider that a lot of pertinent facts may not be in evidence. Such as a design flaw in a major bridge which (originally) wasn't scheduled to be corrected until 2020....


----------



## jebr

ehbowen said:


> I agree with you, but especially in questions of "safety" (which is often, frankly, a matter of blind luck) you need to be sure you are comparing apples to apples. There are just too many variables involved to say, "Trains are safer than buses" or, "Buses are safer than trains." All it takes is one bad break to make the "statistics" meaningless for everyone who actually is involved.
> 
> Now if we are comparing apples to apples, we can see some valid trends. Freeways are safer than surface streets. Rail safety is improved with block signals, CTC, and (presumably) PTC. Air travel is a lot safer if pilots wait out or divert around thunderstorms rather than try to penetrate them. But while Ryan is correct that facts are facts and statistics are real, you also need to consider that a lot of pertinent facts may not be in evidence. Such as a design flaw in a major bridge which (originally) wasn't scheduled to be corrected until 2020....


Simply because there's a lot of variables in what makes something safe doesn't mean that you can't state that x is safer than y, at least if there's some generally accepted idea of what's "safer." Having a catastrophic incident generally doesn't change the overall calculus significantly unless those catastrophic events keep happening. For example, it's very likely that the 8 killed on board Amtrak 188 when it crashed in 2015 would have lived had they driven themselves instead of taking the train. That doesn't mean that driving yourself suddenly becomes safer than taking the train, or that it's now disputable whether the train or driving yourself is safer. What it means is that, despite choosing the safer mode of transport, no mode of transport is 100% safe and sometimes fatal incidents will happen no matter which mode you choose.

We _can_ look at current data and make determinations on what is safer. We don't know what the future holds, but that doesn't mean we have to hold off judgement on what's been shown to be safer so far because of some potential future unknown. I have no qualms saying that driving a private automobile is significantly more dangerous than taking a bus, plane, or train; the evidence is so strong that even with the few accidents on other modes it's still much safer to do...pretty much anything except drive yourself or be a passenger in a private automobile when trying to go somewhere.


----------



## neroden

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The Bloomberg story reference above:
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/amtrak-may-put-passengers-on-buses-in-fight-over-safety-upgrade
> 
> Does have different facts from June meeting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About 363,000 people rode the Chief in 2017, according to a June presentation by Richard Anderson, the passenger railroads president and chief executive officer. Its one of the railroads biggest money losers compared to other long-distance routes, he said.
Click to expand...

Someone is lying to Mr. Anderson, and I think it's whoever's preparing the "allocated" numbers.
I suppose there's some leeway or vagueness in the words "one of" in the claim that that the SWC "one of Amtrak's biggest money-losers". But it's not really -- it's doing much better than the biggest money-losers.

If you use credible estimates for avoidable costs, the biggest money-losers are the Sunset Limited (~12 million), the Texas Eagle (~6 million), and the California Zephyr (~6 million), followed by the Capitol Limited (~5 million) and only then the Southwest Chief (~4 million).

If you use Amtrak's phony, dishonest, faked-up allocated costs numbers, the Empire Builder looks worst, the California Zephyr looks second-worst and the Southwest Chief looks third-worst, but those numbers are fake.

This is why it's critically important for someone to get through Mr. Anderson's head that those numbers are fraudulent.

There are people inside Amtrak who know the real situation; they wrote the Performance Improvement Plans.


----------



## neroden

jebr said:


> bms said:
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on those claiming the bus option is safer, since they're the ones proposing a change in the name of safety. It's very hard to disprove since the necessary statistics aren't available, but that's immaterial since Anderson never proved it in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I found. Based on what I could find on the National Transportation Database, buses appear to have less fatalities per passenger mile than intercity trains do. It's plausible that Anderson sees something similar, and truly believes without PTC that trains will be more dangerous than they could be, and doesn't want to carry that liability/risk.
> 
> There's also plenty of people that are claiming that buses are more dangerous than trains. That also requires the burden of proof to be on the person making the "more dangerous" accusation, and so far I haven't seen any hard data, at least on the US side, to definitively prove that trains are significantly safer than buses. (Which, by the way, if we're going to take safety as the primary goal, then let's force everyone to fly. That's safer than both, based on what data seems to be available.)
> 
> For me, I'd rather focus on getting people out of their own vehicles and onto safer, more sustainable forms of transport. Buses serve as a vital link in many of those areas, and I fear the rhetoric around buses being more dangerous than trains will lead people to a (very false) conclusion that since there's no train on a particular route, they might as well just drive themselves since buses are (in their mind, fed by rhetoric that buses are more dangerous than trains) just as dangerous as driving. It may also lead to legislators not willing to fund those bus links in areas where we do need them, and where we can use them to either serve local needs that a train can't easily serve, or work as a feeder system into train routes.
Click to expand...

I've been in buses which have collided with other vehicles; the standards for bus drivers in this country are *negligible*. In Europe, we *know* buses are less safe than trains, and in the US, the statistical collection is non-comparable, so I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that buses are in fact somewhat less safe than trains. That said, I think it does depend substantially on the bus companies; some have higher standards for drivers than others.

In addition, I'm certain it depends on the roads and the tracks; there are some roads I'd be comfortable on a bus, and then there's the Lincoln Tunnel approach where I've been in buses which sideswiped other vehicles in hit-and-runs.

Switching from train to bus to train is definitely less safe than staying on a train all the way through, because it's documented that there are higher chances of injury during the boarding/deboarding process on both trains and buses than while onboard.

That said, the fact that most people would say "to hell with this" to a train-bus-train trip, and would drive instead, which is *demonstrably much less safe*, is probably the strongest argument against such a stupid bus bridge idea.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Thats exactly right. Elderly going down steps, out into the elements, plus any time waiting out in the elements (it wont be a 2 min walk train to bus), repeating in other side. All this in the middle of the night makes it unfeasible. Im sure an actuary could tell you how many people will trip, break ankles and etc. Thats not even considering truly handicap who wont be able to travel at all.

I wouldnt let an elderly family member do it thats for sure.


----------



## me_little_me

Safety, shafety. I'll drive or fly before I take a long distance bus trip. Two hours on one of those things is more than my limit.


----------



## jis

New about the Southwest Chief from the Congressional hearing today (10/3/18) [courtesy of Jim Matthews of RPA]:



> Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) led off the inquiry, posing tough questions to Amtrak’s Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Scott Naparstek.
> 
> “Will Amtrak commit, publicly, to stop pursuing the proposal of replacing the train with buses for the Southwest Chief for fiscal year 2019,” asked Senator Udall.
> 
> “We are well aware of the Senate’s position as well as the directive that is in the Senate’s version of the 2019 appropriations act,” Naparstek responded. “We plan on running the Southwest Chief, as is, through fiscal year 2019 and we await the Congress’ dealing with the Southwest Chief issue during conference as well as in the final spending bill.”


So Southwest Chief is safe through FY2019 pending direction from the Congress.

My suspicion is that Amtrak will fail to kill the national network, but they will possibly succeed in getting some additional directed funding from Congress, most likely not much additional money net net though. The most likely scenario is that the existing pot with minor increases will be divvied up by Congress for Amtrak, removing some flexibility that Amtrak has at the moment. Unintended consequences. Hope we can actually manage to get significant additional funding, but seems more and more difficult with the fiscal mess in Washington.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Good info jis,thanks for sharing!

Following Congress in operation is like herding Wildcats while Blinfolded!


----------



## CAMISSY55

Watching a replay of Wednesdays Senate Commerce Committee hearing on PTC and am impressed with Senators Udalls (NM), Morans (KS), and Gardners (CO) firm pressure on Amtraks VP Naparstek for answers regarding maintaining the SWC in its current configuration and the hold up in the release of the $3 million Tiger grant funds.

What is amazing to me as a relative novice on these matters, is how seemingly unprepared, evasive, and almost irritated Amtrak VP Naparstek is. The FRA administrator, Batory, seems so much more informed and clear spoken. Unlike Naparstek, Batorys affect reflects a deep understanding and love of what he does. The only interactions in which VP Naparstek perked up and seemed engaged was with Senator Baldwin about her bill about violence prevention on the rails (didnt catch the exact name) and new Lactation Stations and also when asked about if additional funding would help resolve some of the critical issues facing Amtrak.

Having never watched a Congressional committee hearing envolving Amtrak, Im curious if Naparsteks performance is typical of Amtrak representatives testimony?

p.s. Totally off subject, but does anyone know why apostrophes are not appearing as typed? I am posting using an iPhone X, iOS 12. (FYIW, I just got this phone and am new to iPhone/Apple.)


----------



## riderails

What is the deal regarding the $3 million that the AMTRAK representative refused to commit to the TIGER grant? (at the above referred to hearings)


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

CAMISSY55 said:


> Watching a replay of Wednesdays Senate Commerce Committee hearing on PTC and am impressed with Senators Udalls (NM), Morans (KS), and Gardners (CO) firm pressure on Amtraks VP Naparstek for answers regarding maintaining the SWC in its current configuration and the hold up in the release of the $3 million Tiger grant funds.
> 
> What is amazing to me as a relative novice on these matters, is how seemingly unprepared, evasive, and almost irritated Amtrak VP Naparstek is. The FRA administrator, Batory, seems so much more informed and clear spoken. Unlike Naparstek, Batorys affect reflects a deep understanding and love of what he does. The only interactions in which VP Naparstek perked up and seemed engaged was with Senator Baldwin about her bill about violence prevention on the rails (didnt catch the exact name) and new Lactation Stations and also when asked about if additional funding would help resolve some of the critical issues facing Amtrak.
> 
> Having never watched a Congressional committee hearing envolving Amtrak, Im curious if Naparsteks performance is typical of Amtrak representatives testimony?
> 
> p.s. Totally off subject, but does anyone know why apostrophes are not appearing as typed? I am posting using an iPhone X, iOS 12. (FYIW, I just got this phone and am new to iPhone/Apple.)


So the Amtrak Bosses have totally screwed up lately, and have lost a lot of credibility. So they sent in the B team.

NARP/RPA was heavily involved make sure the Senator had the right question to ask.

FRA Administration is a professional. Or as the DC crowd will say a swamp member.

This web site got issues, trying to fix them by not allowing apostrophes.

It should be noted however a big wig will be in Miami at the NARP/RPA meeting. He is not going to enjoy his visit. Totally interesting that the same big wig did not report to Congress, and allowed the B team to testify. One thinks anything said to the Congress will be denied, claiming he didnt have the authority or knowledge to say that. No proof just that feeling thing again.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

riderails said:


> What is the deal regarding the $3 million that the AMTRAK representative refused to commit to the TIGER grant? (at the above referred to hearings)


Amtrak had a agreement to help fund the SWC Route. Amtrak contribution was to be 3 Million. With the state funds and Amtrak funds, the Federal Government was going add more money in the form of a TIGER Grant.

Amtrak has back off from giving it share of money. So no TIGER Grant.


----------



## PaulM

> Scott Neparstek, Amtrak's executive vice president and chief operating officer, told a senate committee last week that it is committed to keeping the train (the SWC) going at least through September 2019.


After almost 800 posts with no information, this quote from a blurb in the Quincy Herald-Whig indicates that maybe there is some movement.


----------



## jis

PaulM said:


> Scott Neparstek, Amtrak's executive vice president and chief operating officer, told a senate committee last week that it is committed to keeping the train (the SWC) going at least through September 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> After almost 800 posts with no information, this quote from a blurb in the Quincy Herald-Whig indicates that maybe there is some movement.
Click to expand...

I guess you did not bother to read the 800 messages before erroneously claiming that the info that you so graciously provide was already presented in this thread a few posts before yours. [emoji849]


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Actually he was nice to highlight that Amtrak is only planning to continue the SWC into the end of this fiscal year. September 2019. 1 October 2019 is next years budget, so with out wording or funds for the SWC the train will cease. This battle that everyone thinks is over, is not.


----------



## PaulM

jis said:


> PaulM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Neparstek, Amtrak's executive vice president and chief operating officer, told a senate committee last week that it is committed to keeping the train (the SWC) going at least through September 2019.
> 
> 
> 
> After almost 800 posts with no information, this quote from a blurb in the Quincy Herald-Whig indicates that maybe there is some movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you did not bother to read the 800 messages before erroneously claiming that the info that you so graciously provide was already presented in this thread a few posts before yours. [emoji849]
Click to expand...

You got me there!


----------



## Thirdrail7

I'm not sure where this goes, but this seems to be one of two places. So, we'll start here. Hoew much more is needed to complete PTC for this route? Is this enough to turn the tide (track investments aside?):

FRA: PTC round two grants total $46.3 million

https://www.railwayage.com/cs/ptc/fra-ptc-round-two-grants-total-46-3-million/?RAchannel=safety



> The awards will fund many aspects of PTC system implementation for intercity passenger or commuter rail and freight rail transportation, including back office PTC systems; wayside, communications, and onboard PTC system equipment; personnel training; PTC system testing; and interoperability.
> 
> FRA awarded grants in the approximate amounts below to the following programs and entities:
> 
> *CO – PTC Installation for the Amtrak Southwest Chief on BNSF Railway Through Colorado and Kansas (Up to $9,157,600); *_Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). _This rural project from CDOT, in collaboration with the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) and BNSF, includes the design, installation, and*testing of I-ETMS PTC wayside technology on approximately 179 miles of a predominantly single-track route between Dodge City, Kan., and Las Animas, Colo. *
> 
> *NM – New Mexico Rail Runner Express PTC/Wi-Fi Integration Project (Up to $2,496,842); *_Rio Metro Regional Transit District (Rio Metro). _This rural project will restore the New Mexico Rail Runner Express (NMRX) system’s Wi-Fi network from an end-of-life, proprietary WiMAX system to a cross-compatible Long-Term Evolution (LTE) system, providing a redundant path of communication for its I-ETMS PTC system. The project will install 26 towers along the 96 miles of the NMRX system between Belen, N.M. and Santa Fe, N.M., including approximately 74 miles of the Albuquerque Subdivision and 22 miles of the Santa Fe Subdivision. Nine NMRX cab cars, 13 coach cars, and 15 NMRX stations will be equipped with the Wi-Fi technology necessary for its PTC system.


----------



## bretton88

Thirdrail7 said:


> I'm not sure where this goes, but this seems to be one of two places. So, we'll start here. Hoew much more is needed to complete PTC for this route? Is this enough to turn the tide (track investments aside?):
> FRA: PTC round two grants total $46.3 million
> https://www.railwayage.com/cs/ptc/fra-ptc-round-two-grants-total-46-3-million/?RAchannel=safety
> 
> 
> 
> The awards will fund many aspects of PTC system implementation for intercity passenger or commuter rail and freight rail transportation, including back office PTC systems; wayside, communications, and onboard PTC system equipment; personnel training; PTC system testing; and interoperability.
> FRA awarded grants in the approximate amounts below to the following programs and entities:
> *CO – PTC Installation for the Amtrak Southwest Chief on BNSF Railway Through Colorado and Kansas (Up to $9,157,600); *_Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). _This rural project from CDOT, in collaboration with the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) and BNSF, includes the design, installation, and*testing of I-ETMS PTC wayside technology on approximately 179 miles of a predominantly single-track route between Dodge City, Kan., and Las Animas, Colo. *
> *NM – New Mexico Rail Runner Express PTC/Wi-Fi Integration Project (Up to $2,496,842); *_Rio Metro Regional Transit District (Rio Metro). _This rural project will restore the New Mexico Rail Runner Express (NMRX) system’s Wi-Fi network from an end-of-life, proprietary WiMAX system to a cross-compatible Long-Term Evolution (LTE) system, providing a redundant path of communication for its I-ETMS PTC system. The project will install 26 towers along the 96 miles of the NMRX system between Belen, N.M. and Santa Fe, N.M., including approximately 74 miles of the Albuquerque Subdivision and 22 miles of the Santa Fe Subdivision. Nine NMRX cab cars, 13 coach cars, and 15 NMRX stations will be equipped with the Wi-Fi technology necessary for its PTC system.
Click to expand...

  
This seems to leave out the territory from Las Animas to the NMRX trackage. So there's still that.


----------



## illinoisandy

It looks like the section between  Las Animas and La Junta may already have PTC per the BNSF PTC Map and then would the section between La Junta and the NMRX be exempt based on only #3 and #4 traveling over the route?


----------



## neroden

illinoisandy said:


> It looks like the section between  Las Animas and La Junta may already have PTC per the BNSF PTC Map and then would the section between La Junta and the NMRX be exempt based on only #3 and #4 traveling over the route?


Correct.  Even Anderson can probably be convinced that safety can be established without PTC for a route section with one train each way.


----------



## jis

I would be amazed if their much vaunted SMS cannot figure that out. Afterall Delta does operate to several airports that are minimally equipped, let alone being equipped with Cat III and all.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

It all depends if the SMS has an agenda and how the results are interpreted. SMS has done wonders at the airlines but everything has risk in it. The safest time at my cargo airline is Saturday night when the planes are all parked. The rest of the week things are mitigated as best they can by sms policies and employees on all levels. The end result is everything still has a risk even if it’s minuscule.

I just don’t know if Anderson/Gardner/mgmt  are going to be straight shooters and blow something minuscule out of proportion with it. Hopefully they will be called out on it if they do.


----------



## jis

So this is a good experiment to see if there is agenda or not. If the national network continues to operate as is at the end of 2019, it would be an indication that perhaps any agenda about discontinuance, even if it existed at one time, has at least receded for the time being.

Then again it may be running in a very curtailed state or not running at all due to other insane reasons beyond the control of Amtrak management. Who knows? There is always residual risk of such coming to pass this year a bit more than at other saner times. [emoji57]


----------



## Thirdrail7

Amtrakfflyer said:


> It all depends if the SMS has an agenda and how the results are interpreted. SMS has done wonders at the airlines but everything has risk in it. The safest time at my cargo airline is Saturday night when the planes are all parked. The rest of the week things are mitigated as best they can by sms policies and employees on all levels. The end result is everything still has a risk even if it’s minuscule.
> 
> I just don’t know if Anderson/Gardner/mgmt  are going to be straight shooters and blow something minuscule out of proportion with it. Hopefully they will be called out on it if they do.


This is my main concern. Sure, PTC may be available. However,  they can still claim diminished returns from their "right sized" trains, making the infrastructure investment not worth it. They've already mentioned that.


----------



## CHamilton

Amtrak Will Honor SW Chief CRISI Grant Matching Pledge

Posted on January 7, 2019 by Jim Souby

http://colorail.org/amtrak-will-honor-sw-chief-crisi-grant-matching-pledge/


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Wow all that goodwill Amtrak created with this situation. :giggle:


----------



## Anthony V

Now it will be VERY hypocritical for Amtrak to continue to withhold the TIGER grant funding match.


----------



## Thirdrail7

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Wow all that goodwill Amtrak created with this situation. :giggle:


They may have done damage or they may have drawn a line in the sand. If I'm reading this correctly, they will receive the money for PTC and they may receive money for other projects. Perhaps that is what they wanted. In other words, "if you want it, pay for it."

What do you think? Am I giving them too much credit and this was a fiasco all the way around or will this sort of ploy be the future?


----------



## jis

It certainly helps shore up sagging membership of RPA. :lol:


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Thirdrail7 said:


> They may have done damage or they may have drawn a line in the sand. If I'm reading this correctly, they will receive the money for PTC and they may receive money for other projects. Perhaps that is what they wanted. In other words, "if you want it, pay for it."
> 
> What do you think? Am I giving them too much credit and this was a fiasco all the way around or will this sort of ploy be the future?


Fiasco all the way around.  If this is a ploy for the future then the amount of angry politicians will increase to point were there is trains, but no more Amtrak.  Too many States are turn against Amtrak on the 750 miles services. Now the politicians are getting annoyed with Amtrak on the long distance trains too.  Record amount of funding last year, and Amtrak plays hardball for more money?

See New York State.

See Connecticut.

See California.

See Washington, Oregon.

See the recent buying of ever single railcar that Amtrak had for sale by a single organization.

No good will come from this.


----------



## railiner

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> .
> 
> See the recent buying of ever single railcar that Amtrak had for sale by a single organization.
> 
> No good will come from this.


What organization is that?   And for what purpose?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Yes I’m very curious as well. I’ve heard rumors of one buyer for everything including the Parlours. Leads me to believe it’s a scrap company. Pure speculation on my part.


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> See the recent buying of ever single railcar that Amtrak had for sale by a single organization.
> 
> No good will come from this.
> 
> 
> 
> What organization is that?   And for what purpose﻿?
Click to expand...

[email protected][/USER] mentioned this in another thread, but can't who it actually is:


----------



## railiner

To a scrap dealer?   Such 'secrecy'? hboy:


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> To a scrap dealer?   Such 'secrecy'? hboy:


He’s in the industry and is therefore privy to some knowledge he can’t necessarily share. I imagine we’ll find out in time.


----------



## Anderson

My guess is that it's the St. Louis guys.  If nothing else, the bags probably do have value for some of their parts, and I can _easily_ see something happening like the Horizons getting leased out to a state or commuter operation (i.e. being used to replace Amtrak-sourced Amfleets on the Surfliner).


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Those guys were my other thought  besides the scrapping option. But haven’t the hi levels they got their hands on earlier just sat a decade. Have they leased anything at all to anyone so far?


----------



## MikefromCrete

I doubt if  Corridor Capital (or is  it  the other way around) would be the    buyer.  They've been sitting on those  hi-levels forever, with nobody showing any interest. The Horizon cars in question are probably wrecks and wouldn't be good for any future use.


----------



## cpotisch

If I win the lotto, I will definitely buy one of Ozark's Hi-Level diners and then replace half the upper-level dining area with eight or so Heritage roomettes. Then I'll have a dining car, lounge, and sleeper. But considering how long they've been sitting on those cars and how cheap they are listed at, I imagine that they will require quite a bit of refurbishment before they can be roaming the rails again. And I guess loading gauge restrictions and the fact that the passage between cars is on the upper-level, really limits the practical use of them. :unsure:


----------



## neroden

I'm betting it's Corridor Capital.  Seems to have an outside source of income to support his hobby...


----------



## Thirdrail7

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Fiasco all the way around.  If this is a ploy for the future then the amount of angry politicians will increase to point were there is trains, but no more Amtrak.  Too many States are turn against Amtrak on the 750 miles services. Now the politicians are getting annoyed with Amtrak on the long distance trains too.  Record amount of funding last year, and Amtrak plays hardball for more money?
> 
> See New York State.
> 
> See Connecticut.
> 
> See California.
> 
> See Washington, Oregon.
> 
> See the recent buying of ever single railcar that Amtrak had for sale by a single organization.
> 
> No good will come from this.


I keep thinking: isn't that what a lot of people want? Is that what many people have asked for? Turn the railroad to the states and private enterprise? Isn't this what various people were put in place to do? However, most Amtrak executives didn't play along, particularly David Gunn.

Maybe they finally found their man....and it may work.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

_Asked if Amtrak would continue to run its rail service “as is” beyond Sept. 30, which is when fiscal 2019 ends, Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said there were “too many moving parts” to determine that at this time._

https://www.abqjournal.com/1273304/study-bisecting-southwest-chief-rail-service-a-costly-plan.html

NARP/RPA has update on the SWC with the above link to a recent story.

(29 January 2019)

The NARP/Story is at:

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/hotline/hotline-1-102/


----------



## Seaboard92

neroden said:


> I'm betting it's Corridor Capital.  Seems to have an outside source of income to support his hobby...



I can't imagine what their storage bill must be.


----------



## cpotisch

Seaboard92 said:


> I can't imagine what their storage bill must be.


So what do you think they'll actually do with the PPCs, diners, crew-dorms, and so on?


----------



## fredmcain

Updating this thread just a bit.  I guess Congress has now passed Amtrak's funding for 2019 (finally) and it has been signed into law according to the RPA (formerly NARP).  RPA reported in their hotline some interesting features as some of you know.  First off the bat it was reported, and I'm gonna quote here, that " A requirement to invest in the capital improvements for the Southwest Chief, and a prohibition on the use of these funds to “discontinue, reduce the frequency of, suspend, or substantially alter” the route "  Wow !  So much for Anderson's plan for the _Chief_!

Then it was reported that " Bringing back station agents to any Amtrak station that had a ticket agent position eliminated in fiscal year 2018 "  Amazing!  Looks like Anderson kinda got his wings clipped on this.  I don't know if these are mandates or just "directions" but they seem like they are mandates.

This was reported (among other things) in RPA's "Hotline" #1104 from Feb. 15th

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## keelhauled

Per the FY2019 funding bill, Amtrak has announced that it will provide the $3 million necessary to release the previous federal grant for track work in in KS, CO, and NM.


----------



## jis

Did they really have a choice left for them? Seems like the multiple choice question had pretty much been reduced to a single choice by the development of events.


----------



## dlagrua

I'm not real encouraged by what I have been reading about the SWC of late but hope that Amtrak is preserved and hopefully expanded.  On a separate note, just for curiosity I checked  a fare from   PHL-WAS  (BC)  then WAS-CHI-SLC (BR)   in Mid May 2019, and it prices out at a whopping $2028 one way!! . Congress probably has no idea what LD rail travelers are charged.. I would assume that the SWC charges a similar fare for a trip of this distance


----------



## cpotisch

dlagrua said:


> I'm not real encouraged by what I have been reading about the SWC of late but hope that Amtrak is preserved and hopefully expanded.  On a separate note, just for curiosity I checked  a fare from   PHL-WAS  (BC)  then WAS-CHI-SLC (BR)   in Mid May 2019, and it prices out at a whopping $2028 one way!! . Congress probably has no idea what LD rail travelers are charged.. I would assume that the SWC charges a similar fare for a trip of this distance


That doesn't surprise me, considering that is for the nicest accommodations available on each respective train, and it doesn't sound like you at all looked for the cheapest fares. That's sort of stacking the cards against Amtrak.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Random mid-May departure for Chicago to LAX on the chief sees -

$143 for coach 

$544 for Roomette

$1622 for bedroom 

Delta shows $122 for coach 

$462 for comfort class

$793 for first class 

so prices don’t seem too off. (Yes there are cheaper airlines, there’s also Greyhound... I felt delta was a fair and ironic comparison to use.)


----------



## crescent-zephyr

It should be noted for those that don’t fly that delta domestic first class is not a fair comparison to a bedroom, delta one or a 1st class suite would be a better comparison hard product wise.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> It should be noted for those that don’t fly that delta domestic first class is not a fair comparison to a bedroom, delta one or a 1st class suite would be a better comparison hard product wise.


There is someone's idea of fair comparison and there is the idea of reasonable comparison. For a six - seven hour daytime trip I would not spring for Sleeper on a train either, so why would I need a suite on Delta to go to San Fran from Orlando?

Now for a 10+ hour flight it starts getting into the Sleeper territory, but that is where I have been campaigning for cheaper berths on Amtrak. The current situation is rediculous and elitis on Amtrak.

So in my mind for a journey from say New York to San Francisco, realistically I would compare Coach fares and I would compare Amtrak Sleeper fare with Delta's First Class fare as what people would realistically use on each mode.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Delta offers delta one on select nyc to Cali flights. 

I’m in no way rich but I have paid for a sleeper for day trips and I’ve paid for delta first class for fairly short flights. It’s a thing people do. 

Delta does offer delta one on nyc to lax flights, that’s a 5.5 hour flight.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Did you miss that The chief in a roomette is cheaper than delta first class? I was saying a bedroom should be compared to delta one.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Delta offers delta one on select nyc to Cali flights.
> 
> I’m in no way rich but I have paid for a sleeper for day trips and I’ve paid for delta first class for fairly short flights. It’s a thing people do.
> 
> Delta does offer delta one on nyc to lax flights, that’s a 5.5 hour flight.


I did not say they don't. Each of the US3 offer lie flat seat service with enhanced soft product under various brand names on that route, and on many other routes. For example United offer two or three lie flat hard product, but basic domestic first class soft product on the Newark - Orlando route too, and I use it often since I get comp upgraded to them. They are usually connecting flights to bank of international flights in and out of Newark. But would I pay more than double the fare for a 2.5 hour access to a lie flat? probably not.

Fortunately I am able to purchase or cash in upgrade coupons to Business where it is really needed - 15+ hour intercontinental flights, and actually for the same number of hours traveled, typical  air Business Class is spectacularly more expensive than Amtrak's most expensive room. The soft product delivered with it is vastly superior to anything Amtrak has to offer on its best day. But you also travel over 8,000 miles in that time, instead of 1000.


----------



## andytiedye

What does "soft product" and "hard product" mean here?


----------



## cpotisch

andytiedye said:


> What does "soft product" and "hard product" mean here?


The hard product is the actual physical and tangible aspect (so the legroom, the seats, the equipment, and so on), while the soft product refers to the separate amenities provided such as food and drinks or service.


----------



## jis

andytiedye said:


> What does "soft product" and "hard product" mean here?


Hard Product is essentially the hardware, the seats restrooms, compartments etc.

Soft Product is the associated services provided, like food and beverage, help with baggage, reservation, handling of irregular situations etc.

So for example in the international 757s the hard p-roduct for Business Class is a lie flat seat. When that aircraft is used in internation service Business class using that hard product has the associated soft product of at least one five course meal and possibly additional meals, provision of pillows and blankets etc. The same plane used in domestic service with the same hard product has a much less elaborate soft product - no pillow and a much less elaborate meal.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

The point is... Amtrak is priced competitively with airlines for the various classes of service. The travel time is somewhat irrelevant as no one will choose ld train for speed. If you don’t want to, or can’t fly (there are medical conditions that keep people from flying remember) a train is a much more practical way to travel across the USA than personal vehicle (stopping at hotels or sleeping in seats while taking turns driving) or long distance busses which typically require changing busses when traveling long distances. 

(Naturally ld trains should run as fast as possible,  and having a few more areas where they can go 90 could make a big difference for time... but that’s not the overall point).


----------



## Chas

"The Southwest Chief and [Colorado] Front Range Passenger Rail Commission has selected its first project director.

"Officials announced this week that they have selected Randy Grauberger to fill the role.

"Grauberger served as senior transportation planning manager at the engineering firm WSP and also was employed at the Colorado Department of Transportation for more than 28 years, serving in a number of planning positions, including as a branch manager in the Division of Transportation Development.

“'Front Range passenger rail service is vital for the future mobility of the state’s rapidly growing population,' Grauberger said."

Read the rest at the Pueblo Chieftain.


----------



## jiml

Tonight's 60 Minutes is not going to help the future of any train without PTC.


----------



## cpotisch

jiml said:


> Tonight's 60 Minutes is not going to help the future of any train without PTC.


What do you mean?


----------



## PRR 60

cpotisch said:


> What do you mean?


60 Minutes


----------



## cpotisch

PRR 60 said:


> 60 Minutes


Thanks, couldn't find that earlier.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Apparently Mark James has no problem placing blind trust in his coworkers while at the same time having zero faith in the safety of the services they're employed to provide. I'd have a lot more respect for this man if he had blown the whistle _before_ he was involved in a fatal crash. His demand to be employed by an industry he claims would harm or kill his daughter if given the chance doesn't pass the sanity test. Sounds like this man has twisted his brain into a pretzel of incomprehensible (but self-affirming) nonsense.


----------



## Bob Dylan

It's obvious that the guy is suffering, ( PTSD is real)but I agree with Chris and others that there's no credit due to anyone involved in this tragic situation.

The only blameless parties I can see in this situation is Amtrak and the poor souls aboard #91.


----------



## fredmcain

Well, group, I don't know what happened but either Anderson or the board or someone blinked.  It was reported in the latest NARP "Hotline" that Amtrak management is now releasing the $3 million match that they were reneging on last year.  That's gonna leverage money from the feds, the states (CO, KS, NM) and BNSF for the track improvements to go forward.  It is beginning to appear that this storm has blown over (for now).  But, why do we have to keep going through this every few years?  Amtrak has always been managed like a yo-yo.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain


----------



## bretton88

https://gazette.com/premium/money-s...cle_5f488762-fcfe-11e9-ac67-93d31a23642c.html

This has been discussed before. One of the options on the table during the height of the SWC crisis was to reroute the chief to Denver and bus La Junta to ABQ. I'll be really curious to see what the formal study comes up with. A SWC serving the front range would be significantly more useful to Kansas residents too.


----------



## F900ElCapitan

bretton88 said:


> https://gazette.com/premium/money-s...cle_5f488762-fcfe-11e9-ac67-93d31a23642c.html
> 
> This has been discussed before. One of the options on the table during the height of the SWC crisis was to reroute the chief to Denver and bus La Junta to ABQ. I'll be really curious to see what the formal study comes up with. A SWC serving the front range would be significantly more useful to Kansas residents too.



The article appears to be behind a pay wall.


----------



## bretton88

F900ElCapitan said:


> The article appears to be behind a pay wall.


I can't find anything else to share, unfortunately. It was free clicking through the RPA's Facebook link. In summary, Colorado is seeking 20 million $ to study routing a branch of the SWC through Pueblo and Colorado Springs. My guess is it will probably use Denver as an endpoint, as that would be logical, though always subject to whatever costs would be needed to get over the Palmer divide. This would be an in depth study (not a feasibility one) that would give Colorado a report on what infrastructure would be required for such a routing and cost estimates.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

Endpoint of Denver, meaning a CHI-DEN train, or a feeder train to connect thru cars to the SWC? Amtrak needs a LA-CHI train to continue in some form and I don’t count the SSL/TE. Either way same ole more money for a “study.”


----------



## jis

Amtrakfflyer said:


> Endpoint of Denver, meaning a CHI-DEN train, or a feeder train to connect thru cars to the SWC? Amtrak needs a LA-CHI train to continue in some form and I don’t count the SSL/TE. Either way same ole more money for a “study.”



A section from SWC to serve Pueblo and possibly further North along the Front Range eventually. Most likely the split will happen at La Junta. This has been talked about before and arguable this possibility is one one of the things that Colorado fully on board to save the SWC.


----------



## F900ElCapitan

I think the bigger question is does this service need to be centered about the Southwest Chief or the California Zephyr (and just originate at Denver)? And question 2 is would they want the SWC connections to be more centered around service to the east of La Junta or west? Because obviously the schedules would change dramatically for those answers. If easterly is the main connection, could the train split at Newton and allow the SWC to head south through Wichita and on to the transcontinental main to allow much faster running times to LA? This would also facilitate passengers being able to go either direction from Newton as those trains arrive close together.


----------



## jis

Past experience shows that in general only the most minimal change is likely, if anything happens at all.

I suspect the Front Range train, if and when it happens, will be a Colorado funded train with possibly some through cars from the SWC. I also do not expect the section from SWC to get to Denver for quite a while yet. What could happen in short order is a connection to Pueblo from the SWC. Beyond that it starts getting more and more spectacularly expensive the further you try to go.


----------



## Chatter163

F900ElCapitan said:


> The article appears to be behind a pay wall.



I clicked on the link and immediately saw the article.


----------



## bretton88

jis said:


> Past experience shows that in general only the most minimal change is likely, if anything happens at all.
> 
> I suspect the Front Range train, if and when it happens, will be a Colorado funded train with possibly some through cars from the SWC. I also do not expect the section from SWC to get to Denver for quite a while yet. What could happen in short order is a connection to Pueblo from the SWC. Beyond that it starts getting more and more spectacularly expensive the further you try to go.


I suspect initial investigation must have been more promising than they thought, because now they're including Colorado Springs into the SWC through car.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> Past experience shows that in general only the most minimal change is likely, if anything happens at all.
> 
> I suspect the Front Range train, if and when it happens, will be a Colorado funded train with possibly some through cars from the SWC. I also do not expect the section from SWC to get to Denver for quite a while yet. What could happen in short order is a connection to Pueblo from the SWC. Beyond that it starts getting more and more spectacularly expensive the further you try to go.


Agreed! And then there is the problem of getting into the DEN station, since they cut off the route to the SW. Trains would have to go 'around' the station, and come in/out from the NE end.


----------



## jis

Amtrak is already quite used to backing into Denver Union Station. The new thing will be backing out of it for the Southbound trip. [emoji57]


----------



## dogbert617

F900ElCapitan said:


> I think the bigger question is does this service need to be centered about the Southwest Chief or the California Zephyr (and just originate at Denver)? And question 2 is would they want the SWC connections to be more centered around service to the east of La Junta or west? Because obviously the schedules would change dramatically for those answers. If easterly is the main connection, could the train split at Newton and allow the SWC to head south through Wichita and on to the transcontinental main to allow much faster running times to LA? This would also facilitate passengers being able to go either direction from Newton as those trains arrive close together.



Honestly myself, I'd rather see the Southwest Chief keep its existing route, and to not reroute the western part of the train past Newton via Wichita and Amarillo myself. To me I'd prefer the Heartland Flyer be extended north to Newton, KS, and for a spur train(with thru cars that can be attached and detached from the SWC, like what occurs in Spokane, WA with both Empire Builder branches, San Antonio with the Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle 3 days a week, etc) to be created that would run La Junta-Pueblo-Colorado Springs-Denver. If the state of Colorado wanted to run this train south to Trinidad, wouldn't bother me. It either should connect from La Junta or Trinidad, IMO. Though I have a gut feeling starting this spur train from La Junta would probably work better, since Amtrak already has been doing crew changes for many years at La Junta on the Southwest Chief train.

Also to the moderators, sorry I didn't realize that was a rule for this message board to not copy and paste articles behind a paywall. I just greatly hate them so very much myself, hence why I regularly do that on other sites like Reddit(as I share the major frustrations others greatly have with paywalls) myself. As that is a rule for this board to not copy and paste whole articles and to only post links to them, I will not do that again here myself.


----------



## Palmetto

Concerning Denver, trains [5/6] back into DUS so that the head end is in the lead for departure. With this new train--if it ever gets funded to go there--they can head in, then back out to the yard to wye the train if they wished. If they park it on one of the station tracks, then it too will have to back in so that the departure has the engine in the lead.


----------



## jis

Palmetto said:


> Concerning Denver, trains [5/6] back into DUS so that the head end is in the lead for departure. With this new train--if it ever gets funded to go there--they can head in, then back out to the yard to wye the train if they wished. If they park it on one of the station tracks, then it too will have to back in so that the departure has the engine in the lead.


Given the way the tracks are laid out, a train arriving from the South into Denver US will have to back in and a train departing from Denver US to the South will have to back out. There is no way for a train coming from the South to pull in facing forward or a train departing to the South to pull out facing forward. Track connections to enable such do not exist at present. It is at least theoretically possible to shoehorn in a new connection, but it involves some work, and it is not at all clear that it is cost effective for just a train or two a day.

The other more attractive possibility is that there may be enough space to build a siding with a platform adjacent to but a bit skewed to the north along the LRT Union Station.


----------



## Palmland

Where were the urban planners when the Pepsi Center was built (and now other buildings) that obliterated the direct run through track the Rio Grande and Santa Fe used to head south from the station. The convoluted move they would now have to use adds time and increases probability of freight train interference. It could have been incorporated so easily into the Center’s construction and perhaps provided rail access to events there.

When the Santa Fe was running LaJunta to Denver it took about 4 hours for the 185 miles. Using the SWC schedule for connections it might be possible for a crew and engines to make a same day turn from LaJunta to Denver but probably need another set of equipment with the cleaning required. This is certainly a viable project. The hurdle will be UP/BNSF concurrence but with the decline in Powder River coal perhaps it could be done. While each railroad has mostly single track they operate it jointly so it is effectively a double track railroad to Pueblo. Pueblo union station is still in use but not sure about Colorado Springs. No doubt changes for ADA compliance will be needed.


----------



## jis

If they are able to shoehorn a platform adjacent to the LRT Union Station, that would mitigate most of the convoluted move thing. But truth be told, I have never seen anyone give that a serious consideration AFAICT.


----------



## Charles785

I don't know if this was mentioned much earlier in this thread but I'm wondering if this would be way to expedite service for now on the south portion of the Front Range to include Pueblo to Trinidad (with perhaps a stop at Walsenburg) by, not with a stub, but by actually routing the SW Chief from La Junta to Pueblo and then south. Would Amtrak agree to that?

Then whenever, or if, Colorado agreed to front range service, their sounthern-most point could be Pueblo.

As an occasional passenger on the SW Chief, and a fan of long distance travel, I certainly would have no objection to lengtheniing the route and my time on the train.


----------



## Willbridge

Palmland said:


> Where were the urban planners when the Pepsi Center was built (and now other buildings) that obliterated the direct run through track the Rio Grande and Santa Fe used to head south from the station. The convoluted move they would now have to use adds time and increases probability of freight train interference. It could have been incorporated so easily into the Center’s construction and perhaps provided rail access to events there.
> 
> When the Santa Fe was running LaJunta to Denver it took about 4 hours for the 185 miles. Using the SWC schedule for connections it might be possible for a crew and engines to make a same day turn from LaJunta to Denver but probably need another set of equipment with the cleaning required. This is certainly a viable project. The hurdle will be UP/BNSF concurrence but with the decline in Powder River coal perhaps it could be done. While each railroad has mostly single track they operate it jointly so it is effectively a double track railroad to Pueblo. Pueblo union station is still in use but not sure about Colorado Springs. No doubt changes for ADA compliance will be needed.





Charles785 said:


> I don't know if this was mentioned much earlier in this thread but I'm wondering if this would be way to expedite service for now on the south portion of the Front Range to include Pueblo to Trinidad (with perhaps a stop at Walsenburg) by, not with a stub, but by actually routing the SW Chief from La Junta to Pueblo and then south. Would Amtrak agree to that?
> 
> Then whenever, or if, Colorado agreed to front range service, their southern-most point could be Pueblo.
> 
> As an occasional passenger on the SW Chief, and a fan of long distance travel, I certainly would have no objection to lengthening the route and my time on the train.


The route via Walsenburg (former C&S line) is a possibility that has been discussed. Walsenburg is a tourist gateway. It would add 50 to 65 minutes to the runtime, depending on whether an Amshack station is built on the line or whether they would back into the restored Pueblo Union Depot. It would require a PRIIA siding or two in order to run contra the flow of freight traffic. It would add a mountain panorama. BNSF could then choose to abandon the former SFe main line south of the armored division ramps to Trinidad. It would shorten the bus connection for Colorado Springs and Denver areas, but the DEN to LAX Thruway bus would have to leave Denver even earlier than at present. The extra runtime might blow-up the equipment cycle at LA for Trains 3/4; that actually is the biggest potential cost. On the other hand, having myself waited around LAUPT for a delayed departure, the extra trainset should assure that Train 4 would get out of the terminal on time. Cutting off or adding a through-car section would also add time.


----------



## Willbridge

jis said:


> If they are able to shoehorn a platform adjacent to the LRT Union Station, that would mitigate most of the convoluted move thing. But truth be told, I have never seen anyone give that a serious consideration AFAICT.


Well, as a matter of fact it has been considered several times during the three decades that redevelopment of DUS and the Central Platte Valley was in the works. Back in the administration of Mayor Federico Peña one of the City's alternatives was to move the whole station out to alongside the Consolidated Main Line! Then they came up with just moving the station tracks and using shuttles between the building and the platforms (a la Sacramento). When we were forced to move the LRT platforms out to the CML (1,001 feet from the airport trains on Track One) we were told that we could have two outbound trains loading side by side (for Lines C/E and W). Then when detailed engineering was done, there was only room for the storage track that is there now.
On a couple of occasions when project officials were asked, the answer was that there "might be" room for a CML platform for Front Range trains, but there has not been detailed engineering. There are curves and elevation issues there. And, if I were to list all the "might be" positive answers that did not pan out, it would make a book.

The new study will be an opportunity to get more specific. Another "might be" answer from DUS project engineers was whether a P-curve would fit into Prospect Junction. It might clip off the corner of a BNSF garage. And then to simplify train movements there's the issue of Diesel power under the trainshed. All of that will have to be considered, too. A station at I-25 & Broadway / Alameda might be needed!


----------



## Willbridge

Palmland said:


> Where were the urban planners when the Pepsi Center was built (and now other buildings) that obliterated the direct run through track the Rio Grande and Santa Fe used to head south from the station. The convoluted move they would now have to use adds time and increases probability of freight train interference. It could have been incorporated so easily into the Center’s construction and perhaps provided rail access to events there.
> 
> When the Santa Fe was running LaJunta to Denver it took about 4 hours for the 185 miles. Using the SWC schedule for connections it might be possible for a crew and engines to make a same day turn from LaJunta to Denver but probably need another set of equipment with the cleaning required. This is certainly a viable project. The hurdle will be UP/BNSF concurrence but with the decline in Powder River coal perhaps it could be done. While each railroad has mostly single track they operate it jointly so it is effectively a double track railroad to Pueblo. Pueblo union station is still in use but not sure about Colorado Springs. No doubt changes for ADA compliance will be needed.


Originally the urban planners were part of the problem. As Wilbur "Sonny" Conder said in 1973, "the only thing worse than a private developer is a public developer."

We don't have room for all the details, but what we have now took almost exactly thirty years to develop. On the front end, in the administration of Mayor Federico Peña, ALL - repeat ALL - tracks were to be stripped from DUS; the central portion of the historic building was to become the atrium of twin high-rise towers. Various alternative sites were tossed into the pot whenever anyone questioned this. The only one that was feasible from a technical standpoint would have prevented construction of Coors Field. From a marketing standpoint it would have been a disaster. (Keep in mind that it was considered to be a big joke that Denver would ever build rail transit.)

It was never clear as to who was doing what, but it was clear that the City''s objective was to get somebody else to pay for relocating Amtrak and constructing "roadsnbridgez" into the cleared Central Platte Valley. That somebody else, the planners, engineers, and politicians said, might be Amtrak or the Regional Transportation District. When a journalist finally figured this out, the upset promoters went through Washington, DC to stop Amtrak spokesperson Art Lloyd from saying that Amtrak did not have a budget for getting out of DUS.

What is there now is a compromise, with a convoluted funding plan that gave the City and developers a majority of the say (see "Dolllars Flow" PDF from 2009). But, Amtrak and the RTD were able to find allies in ColoRail, NARP, private car owners, tourist and restaurant businesses. A few far-sighted individuals like micro-brewer John Hickenlooper and longtime local politico Dennis Gallagher were able to visualize a revitalized station as the hub of the Rocky Mountain Empire. Had the developers had their way at a dozen turns of events, Denver could have become another Richmond or Saskatoon.


----------



## Willbridge

jis said:


> Past experience shows that in general only the most minimal change is likely, if anything happens at all.
> 
> I suspect the Front Range train, if and when it happens, will be a Colorado funded train with possibly some through cars from the SWC. I also do not expect the section from SWC to get to Denver for quite a while yet. What could happen in short order is a connection to Pueblo from the SWC. Beyond that it starts getting more and more spectacularly expensive the further you try to go.


Yes, although the Pueblo-Colorado Springs segment is better than the lines north of there.

From Colorado Springs north:
-- Station in private hands(see attached station photo by George Hinds)
-- Single track on the slowest part of the line, due to abandonment of the SFe track.
-- Distance between paired main lines varies, but wide separations make x-overs impractical.
-- "Fleeting" of freights to get through bottlenecks.
-- Congestion in Denver.
-- DUS access.
-- Add'l. trainset due to otherwise tight layover in Denver.

Solving all these issues would be about as much work as setting up a Front Range corridor service that would have a much wider appeal. It might result in a transfer in Pueblo. In the meantime, since May 1, 1971 there has been no DEN<>LAJ bus connection to Train 4 or from Train 3. DEN<>KCY remains a strong potential travel link, even though the last time Amtrak publicly looked into it was 1975.


----------



## Palmetto

I'll just throw this in here, and we can move on. It would be interesting to restore the Pioneer in tandem with a Caprock Express down to Texas. [I know: when Hell freezes over.]


----------



## jis

Palmetto said:


> I'll just throw this in here, and we can move on. It would be interesting to restore the Pioneer in tandem with a Caprock Express down to Texas. [I know: when Hell freezes over.]


The restored Pioneer that is being seriously considered by some at present is just the original Salt Lake City - Portland - Seattle portion. Extension to Denver is an entirely different kettle of fish requiring yet another pot of money for the Wyoming routing. So there is little chance of connecting the Front Range effort with the Pioneer effort at the present time.

Some are talking about a combination of Pioneer and Desert Wind loop train LAX - LAS - SLC - BOI - PDX - SEA, but I think chances of that are slim. Just manageing to get the SLC - SEA Pioneer back will take a huge effort and would be a big win in and of itself.


----------



## ShiningTimeStL

I see no greater potential for a new train than in the KC - DEN route. What would bringing back the Colorado Eagle entail?


----------



## jis

ShiningTimeStL said:


> I see no greater potential for a new train than in the KC - DEN route. What would bringing back the Colorado Eagle entail?


Yup. The difference though will be that this train would run on what used to be Santa Fe to La Junta (as part of the Southwest Chief) and then onto Pueblo rather than on MoPac, which is what the original Colorado Eagle ran on.


----------



## Seaboard92

I noted an interesting point in there that Amtrak seams to have forgotten. Private rail car owners were loyal allies when it came to saving DUS as a train station. And we are a loyal, independent, and vocal outlet for Amtrak that can communicate with congress and the general public. But it looks like the current administration doesn’t care about their allies in the PV community in hopes they can ally to the millennials who have a passing interest at best. I would rather stay with a loyal proven ally instead of doing what they’ve done. Which is make the PV community luke warm at the best to a bitter enemy at the worst.


----------



## TiBike

If Millennials only have a passing interest, Amtrak might as well shut down now. The supply of new Boomers dried up a while ago.


----------



## jis

TiBike said:


> If Millennials only have a passing interest, Amtrak might as well shut down now. The supply of new Boomers dried up a while ago.


And not to forget Generation Z, the oldest of which are 22 years old this year as per Pew Research's categorization of generations.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

So when we talk about students riding trains, we are really talking of Gen Z and not Millenials any more. Gen Z is actually already a larger cohort than the Millenials, but they are yet to get to the point where they have money to spend in a big way. I guess Amtrak and others who keep going on and on about Millenials have not caught onto this reality of what is going to become really important in another 5-10 years.


----------



## neroden

Amtrak management has never listened to a Millennial, apparently. Madi Butler can tell them what Millenials are looking for, but Stephen Gardner is not listening and is spewing BS instead.

Millenials, now in their 30s, want quality high-nutrition food. Allergy friendly. Paleo options. The first thing they ask about when I mention trains is "Does it have a dining car?". Amtrak has been straight up chasing away Millenials with its dumbass moves. Amtrak claims to be courting Millenials but they are flat out lying -- millenials such as Graham Rapier are the ones writing savage reviews of Amtrak dumbassery.

Millenials are being used as an excuse by a 50-something with a Baby Boomer "cars, junk food, and plastic" agenda. I could not say for sure who this 50-something is, but the betting pool points to Gardner. IMO Gardner should be sacked -- he lied to Congress, to the newspapers, and to his bosses regarding both costs (where he was caught red handed by AAPRCO, thank you) and Millenials, so firing for cause is suitable and he should lose his pension. Deliberate lying to Congress and the public should be a firing offense.

I can't prove it, but I think Gardner is trying to make a fool of Anderson. He has bamboozled Anderson into defending Amtrak's indefensible cost allocations to Congress (allocations which Moorman, Boardman, and their predecessors openly admitted were bogus). Anderson is looking like a fool, but I do not think he came up with the dumbass ideas himself. They all have Gardner's fingerprints on them.


----------



## Willbridge

jis said:


> The restored Pioneer that is being seriously considered by some at present is just the original Salt Lake City - Portland - Seattle portion. Extension to Denver is an entirely different kettle of fish requiring yet another pot of money for the Wyoming routing. So there is little chance of connecting the Front Range effort with the Pioneer effort at the present time.
> 
> Some are talking about a combination of Pioneer and Desert Wind loop train LAX - LAS - SLC - BOI - PDX - SEA, but I think chances of that are slim. Just managing to get the SLC - SEA Pioneer back will take a huge effort and would be a big win in and of itself.



It was interesting to see the remarks about the loop train. It was alternative 5.1 in the draft schedules I supplied for the "study" in 2009. I wasn't selling a particular alternative, the drafts were prepared to answer questions about all the likely alternatives, but that one was unique. The drafts did not include DEN - Texas or DEN-KCY as that was out of the study area, but I recall discussions of it in the '90's. At that time, the Joint Line was a chaotic mess of coal trains and helper movements.

Someday it will be morning in America and someone in DC will jump out of bed and shout in a bipartisan way that the decent, hard-working average Americans deserve to live in UNITED States and that therefore something that looks a lot like the _Pioneer _-- but has a cool and less politically obsolete name -- should be running on Mr. E. H. Harriman's railroad.

Note that the draft schedules were based on former stations. As I've written before, there are several here that should be replaced in an actual operation.


----------



## Willbridge

jis said:


> Yup. The difference though will be that this train would run on what used to be Santa Fe to La Junta (as part of the Southwest Chief) and then onto Pueblo rather than on MoPac, which is what the original Colorado Eagle ran on.


When my 96-year old father was a kid, he could choose through service DEN<>KCY on the UP (KP), CB&Q, RI, MoPac/D&RGW, and SFe. The Santa Fe had a through CHI<>KCY<>DEN train until the streamliner era. Kansas City was an important place, which is why the Denver office is a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and the KCY Union Station was larger than Denver's. The two cities still have lots of business, school and family links. They compete for spheres of influence in Western Kansas.

In 1975 the USDOT recommended extending the _National Limited_ from Kansas City to Denver. Luckily that did not happen, as the Penn Central portion fell apart and coal train chaos paralyzed the Joint Line into Denver. But, assuming that they had some sort of data, it was not a bad idea.


----------

