# What is happening to the SWC route?



## Casinocim (Jun 12, 2014)

Do we know yet if it will be re-routed or when?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jun 12, 2014)

Hard deadline for making the switch is Dec. 31, 2015, which gives us about one more year of trying to get Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico on board to provide funding for the current route. Apparently Kansas has allocated some funds, Colorado has approved funding, but that involves a silly out and back reroute to Pueblo and New Mexico is up in the air with the governor opposed to the funding. So look for another year of political games before a final decision is reached.


----------



## CHamilton (Jun 12, 2014)

Via Facebook, the Kansas Congressional delegation seems to be united in their opposition to Amtrak. But the decision may well be made on the state rather than the federal level, so I'm not sure how far to take this.



> The US House rejected cuts to Amtrak! Here is how your reps voted:...
> 
> Bad Guys who voted to cut Amtrak:
> Tim Hullskamp KS
> ...


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 12, 2014)

60 Minutes had a show on the "/Conservative" Stare Government in Kansas and how they are cutting funding to Education and other vital services!

It doesn't look good for any funding from Kansas for the Chief and since the Cantor Earthquake hit it probably means that the other states involved may back out on any funding also!

The obvious thing is to re+route the Chief via the Southern Transcona from Witchita via Amarillo since BNSF and Texas and Oklahoma politicians support it! Amtrak can't afford their share of maintaining the current route let alone fund it all! Its nice to see Raton Pass from the train but not at the price involved!


----------



## neroden (Jun 12, 2014)

MikefromCrete said:


> Hard deadline for making the switch is Dec. 31, 2015, which gives us about one more year of trying to get Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico on board to provide funding for the current route. Apparently Kansas has allocated some funds, Colorado has approved funding, but that involves a silly out and back reroute to Pueblo and New Mexico is up in the air with the governor opposed to the funding. So look for another year of political games before a final decision is reached.


The hard deadline for a decision is December 31, *2014*. Not 2015.

The train would move when Amtrak's contract with BNSF is up for renewal in 2016. Amtrak has said it needs two years lead time to do the switch to the new route. So unless the money is committed for the old route by the end of 2014, Amtrak will start working on the switch to the new route, so as to make sure it happens in 2016 rather than the train getting cancelled entirely. Amtrak has said that after December 31, 2014, they will start talking to the communities along the new route -- implying that those communities will have to put in money for the new route to work (probably for stations).

For what it's worth, in Kansas, Garden City and Dodge City support the current route, but (much bigger) Wichita supports the reroute. Think about that for a minute. There's also a pro-Amtrak Congressman in the panhandle of Oklahoma (!!!) and local support from Amarillo and Clovis (unsurprisingly). I feel that the reroute has a lot of potential politically. I really hope it can be pulled off successfully, as I think it would be a major improvement for the train service. (It would also make the Heartland Flyer extension into a significantly easier project.)


----------



## Casinocim (Jun 12, 2014)

Thanks for the info!

I will be taking the SWC to L.A. in December. Glad it will still be running through Raton.


----------



## Bedford (Jun 12, 2014)

Two fact corrections that may not make any difference.

1. The bill Colorado passed does not require the train to detour thru Pueblo. It requires a detour to Pueblo be considered five years from the bills passage with the money to do that not the responsibility of Amtrak, BNSF, Kansas or New Mexico but from Colorado. The big selling point of the bill was a probable contract for new rail from steel mill in Pueblo (they are the biggest domestic producer of rail now). Labor Unions were a major factor in getting the bill passed.

2. The drop dead date is not the end of this year but 2015. The New Mexico legislature passed and Gov. Martinez signed a bill to do an economic study of the current route and to have it ready for the 2015 legislative secession.


----------



## neroden (Jun 12, 2014)

Sorry, the drop dead date was specifically stated as *2014* several times by Amtrak. NOT 2015. I can get you citations.

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_25504604/southwest-chief-could-be-rerouted-from-rural-colorado

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/21/small-western-towns-to-lose-amtrak-service-if-states-cant-pay-up/

If Amtrak is reneging on this, dang them. It's not going to give Amarillo and Wichita much time to get ready and may kill the route entirely.

But I don't think they are:



> "We'll need a way forward by the end of this year, or else in the calendar year 2015 we'll need to spend time working on rerouting the train," said Marc Magliari, a spokesman for Amtrak,


(From April 2014).



> "By the end of 2014 if it's not very clear that there's a way forward, we'll spend 2015 looking at rerouting the train between Kansas and Albuquerque,"


(Also from April 2014, same spokesman)

The New Mexico bill for consideration in 2015 is useless. Call it a sop: it's deliberately scheduled after Amtrak has to commit to the new route.


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 13, 2014)

What if...

NO ONE puts in money for Amtrak to move OR to stay? Then what happens? Will they move to the transcon with no additional stops? Will they move at all? Will they kill off the SWC?


----------



## Ryan (Jun 13, 2014)

Move to the transcon with no stops is probably the best bet.

But that's highly unlikely. The new cities are going to put up money for stops if the train runs on the transcon.


----------



## neroden (Jun 13, 2014)

I have read rumors elsewhere that Amtrak may be giving the states additional time during 2015 to preserve the existing route. This is just such an awful idea, as it makes it more likely that the train will blow past Amarillo and Wichita without stopping. Cities need lead time to build platforms.


----------



## CHamilton (Jun 13, 2014)

It borders on criminal that this rich country of ours has such a skeletal rail system. As a result, important cities are forced to play a zero-sum game with each other to fight for service. Why can't we get everyone in the southwest to band together and lobby for trains on *both* routes?

I know, I'm dreaming. But really, we need to start thinking about ways to serve more places, not fewer.


----------



## Paulus (Jun 13, 2014)

neroden said:


> I have read rumors elsewhere that Amtrak may be giving the states additional time during 2015 to preserve the existing route. This is just such an awful idea, as it makes it more likely that the train will blow past Amarillo and Wichita without stopping. Cities need lead time to build platforms.


Pfft, Palmdale and Lancaster did it in three days. Amarillo and Wichita just need to want it bad enough.


----------



## neroden (Jun 14, 2014)

Paulus said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > I have read rumors elsewhere that Amtrak may be giving the states additional time during 2015 to preserve the existing route. This is just such an awful idea, as it makes it more likely that the train will blow past Amarillo and Wichita without stopping. Cities need lead time to build platforms.
> ...


Not with required EISes they didn't. :-(

....though actually I don't know Texas and Kansas law. If there's a state equivalent of NEPA (there is in most states), practically any municipal action now has to go through the EIS process or some equivalent, with a short list of exceptions. There are sometimes appropriate exceptions.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jun 14, 2014)

One of the reasons that the current Chicago to Los Angeles route was chosen in 1971 was because the smaller cities along the route had less alternative transportation than Wichita and Amarillo. Both routes had train service prior to Amtrak. That's is also why the highline and Empire Builder were chosen over the more southerly North Coast Limited route. The North Coast Hiawatha was a political train that came back for 7 years.


----------



## jis (Jun 14, 2014)

The Lake Shore Limited was also a political train that came back in spite of being not chose initially, funded variously by New York and Ohio. It somehow managed to outlast the chosen Broadway Limited, mostly thanks to choices made by Conrail. So one can never quite tell what might happen. Of course changing the route of the Southwest Chief, won't cause it to change its name to the old train whose route it will follow.


----------



## railiner (Jun 14, 2014)

jphjaxfl said:


> One of the reasons that the current Chicago to Los Angeles route was chosen in 1971 was because the smaller cities along the route had less alternative transportation than Wichita and Amarillo. Both routes had train service prior to Amtrak. That's is also why the highline and Empire Builder were chosen over the more southerly North Coast Limited route. The North Coast Hiawatha was a political train that came back for 7 years.


Your history is correct, but I don't believe Amtrak currently considers that reason for route selection....they are looking for the best, fastest, cheapest route with the best market potential for profitability, just like any business would. They leave it up to the states to support any 'essential services', if they want it.....


----------



## neroden (Jun 14, 2014)

At this point, Amtrak's best political move is generally to run the trains with the most riders per dollar of subsidy; or to put it another way, the lowest subsidy per passenger.

Running trains through areas with few alternative forms of transportation *may* help in getting more riders and more revenue (as with the Empire Builder vs. the North Coast Hiawatha).... or it may not help. In the case of the Empire Builder vs. the North Coast Hiawatha, none of the cities along either route has much population, so preferring the route with fewer alternatives makes sense. In the case of Raton vs. Amarillo, the Amarillo route has far, far more population, which should more than compensate for the lower percentage of the population using the trains.


----------



## Eugene S (Jun 15, 2014)

New Mexico is prohibited by its state Constitution, and is so stated in its State Rail Plan in chapter 5 from giving monies directly or indirectly to private railroads. Also New Mexico has put in its budget and is so stated money in the state Rail Plan to rework the wye near Albq.. This reroute train has left the station and it is just a matter of time This idea of New Mexico doing a study is a sham/ A bridge or track washout tor track goes exempted the reroute happens because the Transcon is already designated an alternate route for SWC. In reality the reroute has already happened--just a matter of time


----------



## amtkstn (Jun 15, 2014)

Checking the ontime status of the Chief it has not been doing very well. The last two month it has been losing from ten minutes to three hours late. The track in western Kansas has a lot to two with it. Also I noticed that the station stops are longer now. Number 4 has the worse record.


----------



## henryj (Jun 15, 2014)

Eugene S said:


> New Mexico is prohibited by its state Constitution, and is so stated in its State Rail Plan in chapter 5 from giving monies directly or indirectly to private railroads. Also New Mexico has put in its budget and is so stated money in the state Rail Plan to rework the wye near Albq.. This reroute train has left the station and it is just a matter of time This idea of New Mexico doing a study is a sham/ A bridge or track washout tor track goes exempted the reroute happens because the Transcon is already designated an alternate route for SWC. In reality the reroute has already happened--just a matter of time


The reroute is not a bad thing. The scenery is just as good going through Abo Canyon and it's all double track and the population of the online cities is much greater. And a thru way bus from Lubbock is a possibility. All they will have to do is turn the train on the wye in Albuquerque each trip. And BNSF is already to do this. The Raton line will just be banked until a need is determined for it's use. It's not going to go away. And the line across Kansas is still in use for freights so It will stay around also.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 17, 2014)

Paulus said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > I have read rumors elsewhere that Amtrak may be giving the states additional time during 2015 to preserve the existing route. This is just such an awful idea, as it makes it more likely that the train will blow past Amarillo and Wichita without stopping. Cities need lead time to build platforms.
> ...


That was a post-earthquake emergency measure. The work was done without any of the usual delay mechanisms having a chance to function.


----------



## Eugene S (Jun 18, 2014)

Amarillo is crew change point on the Transcon .


----------



## Railroad Bill (Jun 18, 2014)

I would agree with Charlie that we should all be supporting more routes instead of trading one for another. But the trackage situation on the current SWC-Raton Pass route is one that may not be solvable without the support of BNSF to keep the track in operational condition. If the states will not support paying for the line, then it seems inevitable that the Transcom route will take precedence.

We just returned from a trip CHI-ABQ and back and always enjoy the nice scenery in Colorado and New Mexico. But we will also look forward to riding the new route if and when it comes.

With Railrunner providing transportation between Belen -ABQ- Santa Fe, the people of New Mexico have a viable rail line between some of its major cities and connections to Amtrak in ABQ. I doubt the current governor or legislature will provide funding for the Raton Pass route.

My advice is to ride the Chief ASAP if you want to see Raton one more time.


----------



## neroden (Jun 18, 2014)

Put it this way: I'd much rather ride the train on the Transcon than have the route severed or cancelled. And if ridership and revenue can be improved by the change, why then, that means more funds to try to expand the system somewhere else.... and goodness knows I can think of a dozen more valuable places to put money in to improve and expand the national rail system (South of the Lake exclusive tracks from Chicago to Porter, standalone train from MSP to CHI, corridor train across Iowa, New Orleans to Mobile, Bethelehem/Allentown PA, daily Cardinal, just off the top of my head...)


----------



## George Harris (Jun 18, 2014)

neroden said:


> Put it this way: I'd much rather ride the train on the Transcon than have the route severed or cancelled. And if ridership and revenue can be improved by the change, why then, that means more funds to try to expand the system somewhere else.... and goodness knows I can think of a dozen more valuable places to put money in to improve and expand the national rail system (South of the Lake exclusive tracks from Chicago to Porter, standalone train from MSP to CHI, corridor train across Iowa, New Orleans to Mobile, Bethelehem/Allentown PA, daily Cardinal, just off the top of my head...)


Daily Sunset, second New York to Atlanta train, at least two more New York to Chicago trains, just for starters.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 18, 2014)

Daily Texas Eagle CHI-LAX,Daily Cardinal run NYP-STL instead of CHI, Return of the Pioneer/Desert Wind, Coast Daylight and a resurrection of the Broadway Ltd.just for starters!


----------



## Bedford (Jun 18, 2014)

How about a daily train connecting the two biggest cities in Texas connecting with the Eagle with sleeping car and serving the best university in Texas?


----------



## Eric S (Jun 18, 2014)

Bedford said:


> How about a daily train connecting the two biggest cities in Texas connecting with the Eagle with sleeping car and serving the best university in Texas?


Two biggest cities? Or two biggest metropolitan areas?


----------



## George Harris (Jun 18, 2014)

Eric S said:


> Bedford said:
> 
> 
> > How about a daily train connecting the two biggest cities in Texas connecting with the Eagle with sleeping car and serving the best university in Texas?
> ...


Been there, done that, too slow, not much ridership, gave up on it.

It would be a great idea, but unless the end to end run time can get under four hours at its worst the ridership will probably be pathetic. When SP had a train on this route it took 4 hours 25 minutes and they gave up on it long before the trains on the BRI route that made it in 4 hours went away. I think the discontinuance date for the SP trains was before 1960.


----------



## henryj (Jun 18, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Bedford said:
> ...


The Sunbeam and Hustler trains were discontinued in 1955 and 1956. The Sam Houston Zephyr in 1965. Houston to Dallas will get passenger rail when a private company sees that it can make money on the route such as the AAF project. The BNSF(former B-RI) route is just sitting there waiting. Fix up the track for 90-110 mph, eliminate some grade crossings and you can have 3 1/2 hour service. Probably not in our lifetime George. Neither Amtrak nor the state of Texas is going to fund it.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 18, 2014)

henryj said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Eric S said:
> ...


Afraid you are right. However, if you chose to it could happen in 6 months to one year max. When the Sam Houston Zephyr went away it was at about the end of it being even possible. I have seen a track chart for this line. It is still something like half or better in 90 lb rail, the speed limit is 40 mph, and it has basic automatic block signalling, which was probably put in after the 1947 ICC order requiring signals to be allowed to run passenger trains at "60 mph or faster". The alignment is good with the exception of a few widely spaced curves if your target is 110. 3 1/2 hours might be pushing it, but 3h 45m should be fairly easy.


----------



## afigg (Jun 18, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Bedford said:
> ...


Or Dallas to Houston in 90 minutes if the backers of Texas Central Railway can get the necessary political support, assemble the financing, get through the long and slow environmental review process, get the permits, and acquire the ROW. Their website is on the sparse side, but they do have a lengthy team page. JR Central Railway appears to be quite serious about building a Dallas to Houston HSR corridor.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 18, 2014)

afigg said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Eric S said:
> ...


I just dunno about that.

Open carry meets eminent domain?

*Duck!*

JR Central should know something of this. Tokyo's Narita Airport was planned to have five runways. Nearly 50 years gone by and it still has not acquired all the needed land.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 19, 2014)

Mexico City had the same problem with their proposed, badly needed new airport! The peasants backed by the drug cartels fought the government to a stand still and the biggest city in the world still has an inadequate, unsafe airport located on a sinking lake bed and trash dump!

You're sure right about the guns in Texas too, these folks beat down Rick Perry and his highways to everywhere scheme when Perry was at the height of his powers!


----------



## cirdan (Jun 19, 2014)

CHamilton said:


> It borders on criminal that this rich country of ours has such a skeletal rail system. As a result, important cities are forced to play a zero-sum game with each other to fight for service. Why can't we get everyone in the southwest to band together and lobby for trains on *both* routes?
> 
> I know, I'm dreaming. But really, we need to start thinking about ways to serve more places, not fewer.


It might even be possible to split the train where the routes diverge and have them recombine where they join. With journey times apparently being equivalent on both routes, that should be doable. That way more stations could get service without having to start a new route from scratch.


----------



## henryj (Jun 19, 2014)

cirdan said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > It borders on criminal that this rich country of ours has such a skeletal rail system. As a result, important cities are forced to play a zero-sum game with each other to fight for service. Why can't we get everyone in the southwest to band together and lobby for trains on *both* routes?
> ...


I have always thought the route could support two trains a day even on the same route. But they have to keep the schedule in the low 40's to be competitive. It can start up as soon as Amtrak finds five more Superliner train sets. lol.


----------



## printman2000 (Jun 19, 2014)

cirdan said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> > It borders on criminal that this rich country of ours has such a skeletal rail system. As a result, important cities are forced to play a zero-sum game with each other to fight for service. Why can't we get everyone in the southwest to band together and lobby for trains on *both* routes?
> ...


Though you still have the original problem of deteriorating rail that must be fixed.

So the cost of fixing the current route and the cost of adding the reroute. Plus the logistics of splitting/reconnecting the train in route would be a big hurdle.

Has splitting AND then reconnecting a train along a route ever happened before? Even pre-Amtrak?


----------



## Ispolkom (Jun 19, 2014)

printman2000 said:


> Has splitting AND then reconnecting a train along a route ever happened before? Even pre-Amtrak?


Burlington Northern ran the Western Star and the Mainstreeter together with the Black Hawk between Chicago and Minneapolis, then split the two long distance trains from Minneapolis to Spokane. This site says that the Portland sections of the two trains ran together from Pasco to Portland. That seems odd -- I'd think that they'd meet up in Spokane.

I think that at some point a similar swap of Portland and Seattle sections of the Empire Builder and the North Coast Limited happened, but I don't know if the two trains ever ran together between Minneapolis and Chicago.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 19, 2014)

Its not quite what you asked but when the late Pioneer and Desert Wind ran out of CHI to the West Coast a Very Loooong Train left CHI since they were combined with the California Zephyr!

I honestly forget the exact details of the split between the Three Trains but in Utah the Pioneer headed for Washingtin State via Montana and Idaho, the Desert Wind headed for LAX via Vegas and the Zephyr for Oakland via Reno!

On the turn around the three were combined again in Utah I believe and the Looking Train headed back to CHI!!


----------



## greatcats (Jun 19, 2014)

Honorable Mr. Hudson: I beg to differ. The Pioneer did not go through Montana. I rode it once in 1990 boarding in Boise. The three trains were combined in Salt Lake City.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 19, 2014)

ThanksEric, that's why I put in the disclaimer! The mind plays tricks when you get old! LOL

I was probably thinking about the North Coast Hiawatha which I never got to ride!


----------



## JayPea (Jun 19, 2014)

Ispolkom said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Has splitting AND then reconnecting a train along a route ever happened before? Even pre-Amtrak?
> ...



The reason the Portland sections of both trains is because the configuration of rail lines in Spokane today is much different than it was back in the day of the Western Star and the Mainstreeter. Today there is only the one set of tracks that is shared by Amtrak, BNSF, and the UP through downtown Spokane. This is the NP set of tracks, and the Mainstreeter was run by the NP. Back in the day, though, the UP and Milwaukee, which had trackage rights through Spokane, ran on a different set of tracks, to the north of the current BNSF tracks, and the GN/SP&S ran on a third set of tracks, just to the north of the UP tracks. The iconic railroad bridge just to the west of Spokane, with its Y configuration, was not in existance then; it was completed in late 1972, about a year and a half after A-Day. The SP&S had trackage rights with the GN, for a mile or two, at least, and the Western Star ran on those tracks. They were on separate tracks through Spokane, and didn't join until Pasco. The SP&S and GN shared tracks westward for a mile or so from Spokane, crossed the Spokane River, and split at a junction with the GN going north (and west) to Seattle and the SP&S running south (and west) to Portland. All that changed in the early 1970's as, in preparation for the site of Spokane's World Fair, Expo '74, the three sets of tracks were consolidated and the GN/SP&S trackage and the UP/Milwaukee trackage were all dismantled, as were the GN station and the Union Pacific station. All that is left of any trace of these two railroads is the Clock Tower in Spokane's Riverfront Park, site of the World's Fair. It was part of the Great Northern Station. The former BN reconfigured its tracks west of Spokane, constructing the aforementioned Y bridge, in 1972. Today's EB runs on the NP tracks to Pasco, and the SP&S tracks from Pasco to Portland. A long, confusing, and complex answer to a simple question. :lol:


----------



## Eugene S (Jun 24, 2014)

Back on subject of "Southwest Chief" So what if Amtrak and BNSF are trying to pull a scam (I am referencing the anti-donation clause in the New Mexico State constitution)?Does it really matter? If morals don't matter, then where are we as a nation?


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Jun 25, 2014)

The Raton route is dead, accept it and move on. Amtrak is much better off without it. I mean honestly who wants to see the southwest chief die over a route that the freight railroads say is dead..... If there's no freight there sure as h#### isn't enough population to support Amtrak.


----------



## Eugene S (Jun 25, 2014)

Amtrak doesn't believe its dead, if they did they would have already moved to the transcon. They are showing they want to operate at a loss. That means it is past time to change entire board.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 25, 2014)

I know it's early, and I'm about to head into a meeting, so this title may not last for long, but calling for the board to be replaced is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

Amtrak isn't supposed to make a profit. It's a public service. It should look to maximize revenues and minimize its costs to taxpayers, but at the end of the day, transporting people doesn't make money. Roads don't make money. Air travel doesn't make money (when you factor in all of the costs of providing it). Rail travel doesn't make money. Trying to insist that it does is pants-on-head-retarded. The folks along the Raton line deserve service and should keep it. The people along the transcon deserve it as well and should get it - just not at the expense of the others.


----------



## yarrow (Jun 25, 2014)

JayPea said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


 

nice spokane rr history post, JayPea. i like riverfront park but would trade in a minute for gn and union stations and the old viaducts and trestles


----------



## JayPea (Jun 25, 2014)

Yarrow, I feel the same way. I'd love to go back to the good old days of the GN and Union Stations and all those old bridges. I still remember as a 10 year old going with my friend and his dad from Spokane to Hinkle on the UP's City of Hinkle (or the Spokane; I've heard it referred to as both) and how cool it was crossing over the big bridge over the Spokane River and Latah Creek. Missed out on riding the GN/SP&S over the Spokane River on the Fort Wright bridge, however......and riding the SP&S through the tunnel under Greenwood Cemetery.


----------



## Paulus (Jun 25, 2014)

RyanS said:


> Amtrak isn't supposed to make a profit. It's a public service. It should look to maximize revenues and minimize its costs to taxpayers, but at the end of the day, transporting people doesn't make money. Roads don't make money. Air travel doesn't make money (when you factor in all of the costs of providing it). Rail travel doesn't make money.


Amtrak is a for profit corporation and there are several railroads making a profit on their passenger divisions (some don't even have freight divisions).



> Trying to insist that it does is pants-on-head-retarded. The folks along the Raton line deserve service and should keep it. The people along the transcon deserve it as well and should get it - just not at the expense of the others.


Why do the very few folks on the Raton pass deserve several hundred million dollars in additional subsidy for rail travel instead of simply Greyhound? Heck, you could probably build a small airport and give EAS service to replace each station for less money.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 25, 2014)

Paulus said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak isn't supposed to make a profit. It's a public service. It should look to maximize revenues and minimize its costs to taxpayers, but at the end of the day, transporting people doesn't make money. Roads don't make money. Air travel doesn't make money (when you factor in all of the costs of providing it). Rail travel doesn't make money.
> ...


All-in, infrastructure, rolling stock and operations, and providing nationwide service?



> > Trying to insist that it does is pants-on-head-retarded. The folks along the Raton line deserve service and should keep it. The people along the transcon deserve it as well and should get it - just not at the expense of the others.
> 
> 
> Why do the very few folks on the Raton pass deserve several hundred million dollars in additional subsidy for rail travel instead of simply Greyhound? Heck, you could probably build a small airport and give EAS service to replace each station for less money.


They pay taxes, just like you and I. There's also the issue of the other 290-something million of us that might like to visit there. Should we be limited to just one mode of transportation, or should we have the freedom to choose how we move about the country?


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 25, 2014)

RyanS said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


You didn't say it had to provide nationwide service. You said "Rail travel doesn't make money". There are several instances around the world - even national services - that do make profit. Interestingly, they tend to be ones that not directly subsidized by the government - operated as a business using "supply" and "demand" models.

Hardly retarded - which, as the husband of a special education teacher, I find great offense at your use of that word.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 25, 2014)

It's pretty easy to make money when you only do the profitable stuff.

But that's not Amtrak's charter, which is the topic of conversation here. Amtrak could make money too, if all they served was the NEC and someone else built and maintained the tracks. Fortunately, we've decided as a nation that there are some things worth doing, even if you can't turn a profit doing it.


----------



## Paulus (Jun 25, 2014)

RyanS said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


Yep, though the split of the operating companies and infrastructure companies in Europe hasn't helped clarify things terribly.



> They pay taxes, just like you and I. There's also the issue of the other 290-something million of us that might like to visit there.


So what if they pay taxes? Should we build an HSR line to every podunk little town in the middle of nowhere just because they pay taxes? And quite frankly, there's already an expressed disinterest in visiting there by the other 300 million Americans given the actual station boarding figures.



> Should we be limited to just one mode of transportation, or should we have the freedom to choose how we move about the country?


Freedom to choose how we move about the country does not entail the rest of the country massively subsidizing your travel.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Jun 25, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> You didn't say it had to provide nationwide service. You said "Rail travel doesn't make money". There are several instances around the world - even national services - that do make profit. Interestingly, they tend to be ones that not directly subsidized by the government - operated as a business using "supply" and "demand" models.
> 
> Hardly retarded - which, as the husband of a special education teacher, I find great offense at your use of that word.


Yes, Ryan--please choose your words more carefully. As a member of our local developmentally disabled housing board, this term is no longer acceptable in polite company. :mellow:


----------



## Ryan (Jun 25, 2014)

> Freedom to choose how we move about the country does not entail the rest of the country massively subsidizing your travel.


Good for you. You lobby to elect politicians that would change that mandate. I'll fight fiercely to oppose them. But until that happens, service along the Raton pass route is a part of Amtrak's service. Suggesting that the board be replaced for providing that service is insane.

As a reminder, here's what Congress said about Amtrak's purpose at in 1970:


----------



## jis (Jun 25, 2014)

Paulus said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > All-in, infrastructure, rolling stock and operations, and providing nationwide service?
> ...


Which company(ies) in which nation(s) did you have in mind?


----------



## SarahZ (Jun 25, 2014)

Paulus said:


> Freedom to choose how we move about the country does not entail the rest of the country massively subsidizing your travel.


I don't have kids, but I happily pay school taxes. I vote for every millage increase. You know why? Because I want our country to be full of educated people, and I believe every child should have a good education. I don't mind "subsidizing" my neighbors' children's education for that very reason.

I could expand that argument to state that I believe everyone should have access to transportation, especially since that means more people will travel, which boosts local economies, and more people will have access to jobs, which has multiple benefits. Additionally, creating rail lines and adding service creates jobs. That is why I vote for pro-train local and state representatives every single time, just like voting "yes" for school millages.


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 25, 2014)

jis said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


I'm not Paulus, but let's look at two text books - the UK and Japan. UK split up and privatised with massive problems, yet Japan managed to privatise in a very healthy manner.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 25, 2014)

Pretend I know nothing about rail travel in Japan (it shouldn't be hard, I don't know anything about it).

One company pays for everything from the ground up (tracks, rolling stock and operations)? And serves "crowded urban areas and ... other areas of the country"? And still makes a profit?


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Jun 25, 2014)

I don't think it's fair to compare any two countries geographically - especially comparing "first world" countrues like the UK and Japan to the US. I don't remember the exact numbers, but something like 90% of the country lives on 10% of the land (along the coast) in Japan. In the UK, 60 million people are crammed into an area the size of North Dakota.

Air travel is terrible for the environment. So are cars. Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world. We need rail travel to continuenow ifwestill want a viable system decades from now.


----------



## Paulus (Jun 25, 2014)

jis said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


SNCF and RFF for instance (especially when you get into weirdness like SNCF paying tolls to RFF to pay SNCF to maintain the tracks which SNCF may do at a loss).


----------



## Paulus (Jun 25, 2014)

RyanS said:


> As a reminder, here's what Congress said about Amtrak's purpose at in 1970:


The Raton Pass is the exact opposite of modern and efficient


----------



## jis (Jun 25, 2014)

Paulus said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


Are you counting the huge subsidies that SNCF gets from the various departments for running the TER services?


----------



## henryj (Jun 25, 2014)

D.P. Roberts said:


> Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world.


Did you mean 'increasingly'? Or did you mean to say they are becoming more popular. Personally, I think it is the latter, particularly in the so called third world where people are finally able to afford a car. Apparently you ain't from around here.


----------



## henryj (Jun 25, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > Freedom to choose how we move about the country does not entail the rest of the country massively subsidizing your travel.
> ...


I don't happily pay ANY taxes. LOL. Pay mine if you like to do it so much.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 25, 2014)

That's fine - go ahead and stop using any government services and you can stop paying.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 25, 2014)

henryj said:


> D.P. Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world.
> ...


Thank you for confirming my long standing suspicion that Texas is indeed a third world country.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 25, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > D.P. Roberts said:
> ...


What with the high taxes, the mob and the crooked politicians I thought New Jersey was a third world place!


----------



## neroden (Jun 25, 2014)

Like I said, I got no problem with serving Raton Pass, but the resources necessary to keep it open (what was it, $500 million?) could be much better spent on providing rail service in *so* many other places. The Lackawanna Cutoff comes to mind, locally, since the full cost is supposed to be in the same ballpark. Scranton-Wilkes Barre has 560K population, and that's without considering people driving from further out. The Raton route has no population worth mentioning.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 25, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


Ever heard the Randy Newman song 'I Love LA'? I wrote a take off called 'I Hate NJ'


----------



## D.P. Roberts (Jun 28, 2014)

henryj said:


> D.P. Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world.
> ...


Okay, that's what I get for typing on my phone as I'm getting onto a train...

Driving in this country is becoming increasingly unpopular (or decreasingly popular).

Many other countries that are industrializing (like China and India) are also putting cars on the roads in huge numbers. However, they're also experiencing all the problems that go with that - some places in China have traffic jams that last for days.

But again, I think every country is a unique political, geographic entity, with its own transportation issues. In the US, it has often been said that we have "a love affair with the car." But there are many signs that this love affair is at an end. For one thing, teenagers aren't getting licenses at the rates they used to:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131217-four-theories-why-teens-drive-less-today/

If current teens aren't driving like they used to, and don't own cars, they're going to need alternate forms of transportation to go longer distances. As much as people seem to prefer flying over trains, almost no one wants to see a new airport get built near them, or to see more air traffic into their airports. Rail travel can expand relatively easily to fill this need.


----------



## henryj (Jun 28, 2014)

D.P. Roberts said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > D.P. Roberts said:
> ...


Like I said Roberts, it all depends on where you are. Here in Katy, Tx I see driver's Ed cars every day all over the place. So I would say teens are getting their licenses just like they always have. Driving is just as popular here as always. Maybe where you are it's different. But here in Texas people drive everywhere or they fly SWA. We have very few trains and public transportation is lightly used, usually for commuting or by the poor who can't afford a car. I just don't see any of these' trends' you seem to be talking about. Also, you should read the comments posted about the article you gave us the link too. LOL.


----------



## neroden (Jun 28, 2014)

Katy, the town named after the Missouri-Kansas-Texas ("M-K-T") railroad. Sigh.

Anyway, the drop in drivers' licenses, drop in Vehicle Miles Travelled, aging of the population with drivers' licenses, and drop in car ownership are all real nationwide trends.

I haven't seen a state or local breakdown of those numbers. Maybe they're still car-crazy in Katy, but if they are, it means that the trend is even *stronger* elsewhere.


----------



## henryj (Jun 28, 2014)

neroden said:


> Katy, the town named after the Missouri-Kansas-Texas ("M-K-T") railroad. Sigh.
> 
> Anyway, the drop in drivers' licenses, drop in Vehicle Miles Travelled, aging of the population with drivers' licenses, and drop in car ownership are all real nationwide trends.
> 
> I haven't seen a state or local breakdown of those numbers. Maybe they're still car-crazy in Katy, but if they are, it means that the trend is even *stronger* elsewhere.


Neroden, your in New York. That's a totally different world. The only reason for a drop in teen drivers is they can't get a job and don't have the money for a car and the insurance. Here in Texas there are plenty of jobs and money for cars. This railfan type dream that all this means more demand for trains is just hallucinating.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 28, 2014)

Listen, I have been an auto enthusiast and race car driver. And I have one of the largest collection of car magazines in the country (every issue of MT, C&D, R&T and Automobile). And even the car magazines are reporting- with lament- that the love affair is ending and overall teens aren't that interested in learning to drive. More over, most that are are mostly interested in A-B transportation and would happily ride an effective transit system instead if such existed.


----------



## SarahZ (Jun 28, 2014)

henryj said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Katy, the town named after the Missouri-Kansas-Texas ("M-K-T") railroad. Sigh.
> ...


http://www.statemaster.com/graph/trn_lic_dri_tot_num-transportation-licensed-drivers-total-number

NY isn't far behind TX when it comes to the number of drivers. I wouldn't call it a totally different world at all.

Car and gas prices have gone up, but wages haven't. Summer jobs at the shore don't cover the price tag of a decent used car anymore.


----------



## neroden (Jun 28, 2014)

I read some more in-depth analysis from surveys: when teens are asked why they're not getting licenses, it looks like it's about 1/3 "prefer not to drive", 1/3 "can't afford to drive", and 1/3 "can't be bothered, other priorities".


----------



## henryj (Jun 29, 2014)

SarahZ said:


> NY isn't far behind TX when it comes to the number of drivers. I wouldn't call it a totally different world at all.
> 
> Car and gas prices have gone up, but wages haven't. Summer jobs at the shore don't cover the price tag of a decent used car anymore.


When I worked for Sohio(later BP) they had just moved their HQ from San Francisco to Houston. Several people had just gotten their driver's license as they had no need for a car in SF. In Houston, they couldn't live without one. Like I said, it's a totally different world. Those that don't live in it have no idea.


----------



## Train person (Jun 29, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Listen, I have been an auto enthusiast and race car driver. And I have one of the largest collection of car magazines in the country (every issue of MT, C&D, R&T and Automobile)


Does that rather uninteresting factoid make you an expert or a foamer??


----------



## dart330 (Jun 29, 2014)

henryj said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Katy, the town named after the Missouri-Kansas-Texas ("M-K-T") railroad. Sigh.
> ...


Katy is so suburban you really have no other options than to drive. The entire "city" was designed around the automobile. If you look at the Houston metro as a whole the places where you don't have to drive a car are booming (Downtown, Midtown & Montrose) and there is a huge shortage in available housing in these areas.

The younger generation just does not find it acceptable to sit in traffic 90min in order to get to work. They'd rather give up the convenience of a car and sit on the bus playing on the smartphone. There are plenty of studies showing this shift and how the suburbs are starting to die off due to the lack of alternative transportation options.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 29, 2014)

Train person said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Listen, I have been an auto enthusiast and race car driver. And I have one of the largest collection of car magazines in the country (every issue of MT, C&D, R&T and Automobile)
> ...


I called myself an enthusiast. I don't recall calling myself an expert. Since I have won several races, I might call myself an expert race driver. I know cars fairly well, but would not call myself an expert. And your commentary is no more interesting than mine.


----------



## Train person (Jun 29, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Train person said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


It wasn't meant to be. I am not claiming to be the greatest at everything I do. You do. I suppose it's easy to be who you want to be on the internet. Quite tedious.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 29, 2014)

I am an expert or knowledgable on anything I feel qualified to open my mouth about. If I don't think I know anything about a subject, which would be the vast majority of non transportation subjects talked about here, I simply don't say anything at all.


----------



## henryj (Jun 29, 2014)

dart330 said:


> Katy is so suburban you really have no other options than to drive. The entire "city" was designed around the automobile. If you look at the Houston metro as a whole the places where you don't have to drive a car are booming (Downtown, Midtown & Montrose) and there is a huge shortage in available housing in these areas.
> 
> The younger generation just does not find it acceptable to sit in traffic 90min in order to get to work. They'd rather give up the convenience of a car and sit on the bus playing on the smartphone. There are plenty of studies showing this shift and how the suburbs are starting to die off due to the lack of alternative transportation options.


Well actually we have the park and ride option to go downtown which I have used many times. It's faster than driving. But that is all we have in Katy and that doesn't run on weekends. Downtown, which you seem to be talking about, now has the light rail system developing and such that it might be feasible to live there without a car. However, let me remind you that cities such as Houston and the DFW metroplex cover vast areas and are very diverse. One can live and work without ever going downtown as I have all my life here. It's also very HOT here most of the year. So public transport works, but only for a few. Even flying or taking a train, if we had one, to DFW is inconvenient to many including myself. It's just faster and more convenient to drive up there than to try and drive to Hobby airport or if we had trains to the downtown station. Even if they added a suburban stop, it would be in Tomball or Huntsville and that's just as far and as long a drive for me as the airport as it would be for most of the people living around Houston. This idea that somehow the younger generation is going to flock downtown to live and the suburbs are doing to die off triggering a sudden increase in the demand for public transport is just a foamers dream. It will never happen. What actually may develop is clusters of businesses and working people living together in cells around the big cities and the option of working at home with the development of the digital/electronic culture which would actually eliminate the need for public transport expansion, particularly downtown. The thing that may die out is actually the downtown itself, just becoming another cluster. Something to think about.

Now can we get back to talking about the SWC re-route and GML, can you and your friends take your pissing contest somewhere else. I am really interested in news about the SWC.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2014)

henryj said:


> This idea that somehow the younger generation is going to flock downtown to live and the suburbs are doing to die off triggering a sudden increase in the demand for public transport is just a foamers dream.


Maybe in Texas (but I doubt it).

In the rest of the country, it's reality.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 29, 2014)

neroden said:


> Like I said, I got no problem with serving Raton Pass, but the resources necessary to keep it open (what was it, $500 million?) could be much better spent on providing rail service in *so* many other places. The Lackawanna Cutoff comes to mind . . .


Now, now. Don't do math like Cong Mica, please. He couldn't work up a scandal

over Amtrak's annual losses on food & beverages until he added up 10 years

into a total. Only that 10-year number was big enuff to support a press release

(and even then failed to crack a billion).

The $500 million to continue the current route of the SW Chief is a 10-year total,

or $50 million a year, divided among five proposed partners: Amtrak, BSNF, Kansas,

Colorado, New Mexico.

I'm guessing BSNF believes that avoiding the aggravation of carrying the Chief on

the main line is worth $5 million a year. So that $5 million, or $50 million over 10 years,

ain't going to the Lackawanna Cutoff no way, no how.

Likewise, Kansas might in theory spend the $5 million a year on the route thru Wichita,

or extending the Heartland Flyer, but that money is not going out of state. Colorado

will spend its $5 or $50 million in Colorado but not on the Lackawanna Cutoff. And

New Mexico, ditto.

So only Amtrak's lousy $5 million a year could be directed elsewhere if the SW Chief

is not kept on the current route. That amount is probably not easily transferrable to

another project in any case. Wonder if it isn't being offered to appease BSNF, which

so clearly doesn't want the Chief on the Trans Con, and on the good will and lengthy

trackage of which Amtrak operates.

So that "$500 million" ain't going nowhere. We'll have to get the Lackawanna Cutoff

rebuilt without it.


----------



## jebr (Jun 29, 2014)

You'd need $10 million a year from each of the five partners to get $50 million a year, not $5 million.


----------



## the Duck (Jun 29, 2014)

There are only 4 partners not 5. New Mexico is out of the picture, Their state constitution does not allow public funds directly or indirectly to be given to a private railroad. Amtrak said to the 3 states--We don't; have the money--you 3 States divide our share amongst yourselves Now the 5 partners are down to 3. Kansas really not want to put money on SWC route. Now the 5 partners is down to 2. and Colorado voted to take care of only that which is in Colorado. Now the 5 is down to 1----the owner of the track. So the whole monkey is back in their ball court.


----------



## henryj (Jun 29, 2014)

RyanS said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > This idea that somehow the younger generation is going to flock downtown to live and the suburbs are doing to die off triggering a sudden increase in the demand for public transport is just a foamers dream.
> ...


Only in your dreams Ryan.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2014)

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304830704577493032619987956



> Many U.S. cities are growing faster than their suburbs for the first time in decades, reflecting shifting attitudes about urban living as well as the effect of a housing bust that has put a damper on moving.
> 
> According to Census data released Thursday, in 27 of the nation's 51 largest metropolitan areas, city centers grew faster than suburbs between July 2010 and July 2011. By contrast, from 2000 to 2010 only five metro areas saw their cores grow faster than the surrounding suburbs.





> Among those favoring cities over suburbs are Sarah Talbot, a 35-year-old in Washington who works at a nonprofit. Ms. Talbot and her husband bought their Capitol Hill-area home in November 2009 and today have an eight-month-old daughter. They can walk to public transportation, grocery stores and parks, all while avoiding suburban gridlock. Ms. Talbot says they plan to stay at least several years as their daughter moves into elementary school, but will continue to reassess based on the quality of the school system.


----------



## SarahZ (Jun 29, 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/nyregion/suburbs-try-to-hold-onto-young-adults-as-exodus-to-cities-appears-to-grow.html?_r=0



> Since 2000, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk have experienced a drop in the number of 25- to 44-year-olds, with the declines particularly sharp in more affluent communities. Between 2000 and 2011, Rye, for example, had a 63 percent decrease in 25- to 34-year-old residents and a 16 percent decrease in 35- to 44-year-olds.





> Some suburbs are working diligently to find ways to hold onto their young. In the past decade, Westbury, N.Y., has built a total of 850 apartments — condos, co-ops and rentals — *near the train station*, a hefty amount for a village of 15,000 people. Late last year it unveiled a new concert venue, theSpace at Westbury, that books performers like Steve Earle, Tracy Morgan and Patti Smith.
> 
> Long Beach, N.Y., with a year-round population of 33,000, has also been refreshing its downtown *near the train station* over the last couple of decades. The city has provided incentives to spruce up signage and facades, remodeled pavements and crosswalks, and provided more parking. A smorgasbord of ethnic restaurants flowered on Park Avenue, the main street.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 29, 2014)

But Henry sees driver's ed cars, so none of that liberal media crap is to believed.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 29, 2014)

RyanS said:


> But Henry sees driver's ed cars, so none of that liberal media crap is to believed.


Katy is a classic example of of a nice small town that was ruined by people leaving the evil Houston when living in the burbs was "the hot thing" to do!"
Now youngsters don't want to live in the burbs and split heading for the bright lights of the city soon as they can! Houston is the new LA, but all cities in Texas were like when the car (and pickup) was king this but now living downtown is the hot new thing! (Sorry henry )


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 30, 2014)

Wow. I take a weekend off, and the SWC Reroute thread is talking about Katy, TX - nice town where my cousin lives, but no where near the Transcon or existing SWC route.

I digress...


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jun 30, 2014)

jebr said:


> You'd need $10 million a year from each of the five partners to get $50 million a year, not $5 million.


I used to think that maybe I had early Alzheimer's.

But now I think it's too late for that diagnosis. 

Now I need all the help I can get just to make coherent posts.

Thanks for the correction.

But with five proposed partners, at $5 or at $10 million

per year, we're looking at nickels and dimes.

So I have no passion for this argument. If the current route

is saved, fine. If the SW Chief moves to the Trans Con, fine.

In a more perfect world, we'd have two trains each way on

every LD route every day. So I'd like to see one SW Chief on

both routes, making a second frequency Chicago-Newton

(near-Wichita) and again Albuquerque-L.A.

An extended Heartland Flyer could make a second frequency

Wichita-Chicago. And a Front Line train Cheyenne-Ft Collins-

Denver-Colorado Springs-Pueblo-Raton Pass-Albuquerque-

Las Cruces-El Paso would mean a second (or third) frequency

over the Raton Pass tracks.

But in the long meanwhile, we'll be lucky to save the LD trains

from the haters, no matter which route the SW Chief takes.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 8, 2014)

Looks like a special train to talk about this issue...

http://m.therepublic.com/view/story/75f311c6b51c4133be1797151e109133/KS--Amtrak-Southwest-Chief

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## the Duck (Jul 9, 2014)

Greyhound is moving into Amtrak"s Amshack in Raton ,NM. Does that fact tell you anything?


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 9, 2014)

Here is another link to the same story from a local news station. They fixed an error in the first link...

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/25969151/amtrak-ceo-to-make-kansas-whistle-stop-tour

First one says "The service is in jeopardy because BNSF, which owns the track, needs to upgrade it for its freight trains."

Second correctly says "The route is in jeopardy because the track, which is owned by BNSF, needs to be upgraded for passenger service, but BNSF doesn't require the upgrades for its freight operations."


----------



## Bedford (Jul 9, 2014)

This is confusing. If the transcon would be faster, attract more riders and be cheaper to operate what is the head of Amtrak and the head of BNSF doing spending their valuable time riding a train through western Kansas promoting the inferior route?


----------



## Ryan (Jul 9, 2014)

It's not inferior for the people that live along it.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 9, 2014)

Bedford said:


> This is confusing. If the transcon would be faster, attract more riders and be cheaper to operate what is the head of Amtrak and the head of BNSF doing spending their valuable time riding a train through western Kansas promoting the inferior route?


Its called Politics and with State and Local Funding of Rail now being the Hot Thing right now they're doing bridge building!
Wonder if the VIPs ate riding around like Royalty in Beech Grove or are actually on the Chief interacting with Passengers and Employees???


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 9, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> Wonder if the VIPs ate riding around like Royalty in Beech Grove or are actually on the Chief interacting with Passengers and Employees???


The story states they will be leaving Topeka at 9:00am and heading West. That is not the Southwest Chief schedule. I am also pretty sure I saw the Beech Grove on an Eastern train right now. I am guessing they will be using a BNSF business train for this trip. But that is just a guess.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 9, 2014)

printman2000 said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder if the VIPs ate riding around like Royalty in Beech Grove or are actually on the Chief interacting with Passengers and Employees???
> ...


The story is confusing as it says they will be on the SWC in the first paragraph but as you said it does say they will leave @ 9am and make special stops in several towns along the route so a BNSF Special does make sense!
And isn't it good to see Joe Boardman and a BNSF VIP cooperating on this? Perhaps they'll discuss the Hi- Line Mess while aboard also!


----------



## yarrow (Jul 9, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


or perhaps they will just sip wine and nibble on cheese


----------



## the Duck (Jul 9, 2014)

Its a money raising scheme. Go back to the beginning--- 1. BNSF orginal intent was end east/west tracks at La Junta, Co 2.abandon stretch between La Junta and Trinidad--severe it and take it out. 3. sell off portion from lamy to Trinidad. Sounds like plan might have changed or else reroute is fixing to happen. Note that Newton is in this time. Never before has Newton, KS been included in reroute talks. Raises question "Is Kansas going to be punished for not coming up with money?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 9, 2014)

Kansas would probably benefit from the reroute on a people served basis. Your losing a bunch of empty podunks and picking up the large city of Witchita.


----------



## neroden (Jul 9, 2014)

RyanS said:


> It's not inferior for the people that live along it.


Yeah, but there are fewer of them, and it's inferior for the people living in Wichita and Amarillo.
The total number of people living along the entire route to be bypassed is less than the population of Amarillo. A lot less. By city population, Amarillo -- 195K; every city on the bypassed route together -- roughly 135K.

On top of that, about 30% of the bypassed population (42K) is in Hutchinson, only 30 miles from Newton and only 42 miles from Wichita. Since I have to drive 60 miles to get to the nearest train station, I have relatively little sympathy for them if they get bypassed.

Every other city on the route is smaller.

You get slightly different numbers if you look at metro areas rather than cities. Hutchinson goes up to 64K; the total for the to-be-bypassed route goes up to 190K; but this favors Amarillo by the same amount, because Amarillo's metro area has 250K.

And I haven't even considered Wichita, which would benefit greatly from restoring its downtown station.

If the little cities on the route can raise the money to maintain the route, then more power to them, since service goes to those who make it happen -- but *they can't*. They've had several years to do so and they haven't come *close*.

I look forward to visiting beautiful downtown Wichita and Amarillo. ;-)


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 9, 2014)

Wichita and Amarillo _ always on the top 10 places to visit in the USA! You also have to take into account that the SWC will lose the Boy Scout traffic; Santa Fe, a real tourist attraction, will be harder to reach, and Albuquerque will be on dead end detour. And, of course, the scenery on the new route will be nothing to brag about.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 9, 2014)

neroden said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > On top of that, about 30% of the bypassed population (42K) is in Hutchinson, only 30 miles from Newton and only 42 miles from Wichita. Since I have to drive 60 miles to get to the nearest train station, I have relatively little sympathy for them if they get bypassed.
> ...


----------



## neroden (Jul 9, 2014)

Eh, Santa Fe won't be that much harder to reach, though it might be worth tweaking the schedule to allow a connection from the southbound weekend RailRunners. And honestly, I've heard some pretty good things about the scenery in eastern New Mexico (Abo Canyon, for example); I suppose it's a matter of taste.


----------



## The Chief (Jul 9, 2014)

Lotsa elitist-sounding shots at _population centers_ on this key legacy route in Kansas.

Shall they examine the *Empire Builder* pop base in say Montana and North Dakota?

Didn't realize there were so many flyover types on here.

geographic edit. whoops. TY JayPea


----------



## JayPea (Jul 9, 2014)

If the EB is running through South Dakota, no wonder it's having all sorts of timekeeping problems.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 9, 2014)

Yeah, running the Builder through South Dakota sure would account for some the major delays and loss of passengers! LOL


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 9, 2014)

Info about the special from Trainorders...

Currently scheduled with the following Amtrak equipment: 145, 822, 62049-Winter View, 10021-Pacific Cape, 10001-Beech Grove, 10031-Ocean View, & 10004-American View.

Friday, July 11, 2014-Train 991 departs Kansas City 630a, Topeka arrive 805a/dp 9am, Newton 1105a/1110a, Hutchinson 1150a/1155a, Dodge City 140p/145p, Garden City 240p/245p, Lamar 250p/255p, ar LaJunta 405p.

Saturday, July 12, 2014-Train 993 departs LaJunta 9a, Trinidad 1020a/1035a, Raton 1135a/1150a, Springer 1235p/3p (meet with Philmont Scout Ranch representatives), Las Vegas 430p/5p, Lamy 7p/715p, ar Albuquerque 830p.

Cars/Engines depart Chicago on train 3 Thursday, July 10 and depart Albuquerque on train 4 Sunday, July 13.


----------



## neroden (Jul 9, 2014)

The Chief said:


> Lotsa elitist-sounding shots at _population centers_ on this key legacy route in Kansas.
> 
> Shall they examine the *Empire Builder* pop base in say Montana and North Dakota?
> 
> Didn't realize there were so many flyover types on here.


Bluntly, I have a friend in Bismarck, and I don't have one in Minot, so I'd much prefer the NCH route to the EB route. This isn't just my personal bias, though: *Bismarck is higher population than Minot* so it's more likely for someone to be in my position than not.

It's actually elitist by definition to preference a few small towns over larger cities. It means you're preferencing a small elite over a larger unserved population.

Higher population is nearly always the right choice for a railroad route. There's something to be said for stopping at universities, cities with poor road service, etc. -- places which "punch above their weight" in terms of ridership. And since rail service is inherently a political matter, if one route has much more political support than another, then that's fine, go for it -- political support is also a sign that people will ride. The Devil's Lake towns managed to round up the political support; good for them. And they did it without much out-of-state support.

But here the political support seems to be quite the opposite: none of the three states have committed money, New Mexico actually reneged on the purchase of the line, Colorado is really only interested in serving Pueblo (which certainly should have service... to Denver), and the moderate-sized cities in Kansas have put in only token efforts. There seems to be more effort being made in Emporia, frankly.

If the cities along the line can't come up with the money, or the Congressional support, or the state government support, then frankly, Amtrak should go where the people are. It would be different if Amarillo or Wichita didn't want the rail service, but they *do* want it. Heck, for a random example, we have an Amarillo passenger train advocate on this board. I don't see a single member here from any town from Hutchinson through Lamy.

The cities of Amarillo and Wichita have been told that Amtrak and BNSF will not talk to them until the end of the year. I hope they are ready to push hard for service and have earnest money to show for it when the new year comes. The cities on the existing route certainly haven't been.

Amtrak always faces political threats and financial threats. The route with more population should be presumed to generate more political support *and* more money, all else equal; and nothing has rebutted that presumption in this case (unlike the Devil's Lake case).


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 9, 2014)

Pretty fancy consist for the VIPs but maybe showing the Amtrak Flag, so to speak,will help drum up interest across the Prairies!

I just hope that Mr Boardman and his aides actually climb aboard the Chief, talk with the passengers and crew and eat in the Diner!!!!


----------



## XHRTSP (Jul 9, 2014)

Sorry if this was already covered, but how would timelnes compare with the new route to the old? ie will it be a faster run from CHI to LAX, will these new larger population stops have service at acceptable hours, could we expect OTP to improve, etc.


----------



## neroden (Jul 9, 2014)

Estimate is it will take roughly the same amount of time from Newton KS to Albuquerque NM as the SW Chief is scheduled for now.... since a train along the Amarillo route took about that much time in the 1950s!

It could be faster if some effort was made; I don't know whether such effort would be made. There should be no trouble whatsoever in matching the current schedule though. OTP really should be better, though you never know with OTP.

Westbound, Wichita would probably have an 3-something AM stop; Amarillo would have a convenient morning stop and anything from there west would have daytime stops. Eastbound would be much the same: everything would be at reasonable evening times until Wichita, which would be middle of the night.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 10, 2014)

When places like Wichita and Amarillo haven't had passenger train service in over 43 years, it is difficult to get people to ride trains, again. The market that used the San Francisco Chief until April 30, 1971 is long gone. The average person even in cities with passenger train service doesn't even know it exists or where the station is unless they are in areas with frequent train service like the NEC, or some of the other corridors in the Midwest or West. Yes, there will be die hard rail fans that will be pleased with change, but they cannot cause a train to have the required patronage.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Jul 10, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> Pretty fancy consist for the VIPs but maybe showing the Amtrak Flag, so to speak,will help drum up interest across the Prairies!
> 
> I just hope that Mr Boardman and his aides actually climb aboard the Chief, talk with the passengers and crew and eat in the Diner!!!!


Jim, This sounds more like a "farewell tour" than a promo  . Perhaps BNSF is showing Boardman the tracks they are about to abandon and point out the few population centers served on the route?? And it looks like this train is not the SWC but a special with only big wigs on board. Too bad he doesnt just ride a regular train, sleep in 0330 car bedroom and eat in the diner and spend some time in the lounge car. Might give him a different perspective on riding the real Chief.


----------



## njulian (Jul 10, 2014)

Back to the SWC. As one who lives in southern New Mexico (where the Rail Runner will never even dream of approaching), and being in a place with NO mass transit (can't drive to Alb to get on the train? Good luck.) and with the only other option being the Sunset Limited and its 3 day a week service with no way to get points east of New Orleans without a convoluted route, the SWC is my main train route west and sometimes east. I know I've seen this somewhere but can't recall where..can someone direct me to the proposed route if Raton is bypassed? BTW, everytime I take this route the Raton station is bustling much more than others..especially during the high Boy Scout time and campers going to Philmont.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 10, 2014)

Distance wise---- close to same distance Time wise---should be a lot faster. Transcon splits at Amarillo and part goes southeast to Dallas/FTW Amarillo yard is all time busy. The north and south traffic is as busy as east and west. With new siding and platform there will be no problem at all in Amarillo


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 10, 2014)

Railroad Bill said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty fancy consist for the VIPs but maybe showing the Amtrak Flag, so to speak,will help drum up interest across the Prairies!
> ...


Bill, the train orders post says that the VIP consist will depart CHI on #3 and return from ABQ on #4 so my hope is that the suits will get out of Beech Grove and Ocean View etc. And climb aboard the Chief for @ least a Meal each way and to interact with the passengers and crew!

I'm old and retired but I still think MBWA, Management By Walking Around,,is the way to go for Execs!!!

"Let them eat cake!" just doesn't work!!


----------



## henryj (Jul 10, 2014)

njulian said:


> Back to the SWC. As one who lives in southern New Mexico (where the Rail Runner will never even dream of approaching), and being in a place with NO mass transit (can't drive to Alb to get on the train? Good luck.) and with the only other option being the Sunset Limited and its 3 day a week service with no way to get points east of New Orleans without a convoluted route, the SWC is my main train route west and sometimes east. I know I've seen this somewhere but can't recall where..can someone direct me to the proposed route if Raton is bypassed? BTW, everytime I take this route the Raton station is bustling much more than others..especially during the high Boy Scout time and campers going to Philmont.


http://www.bnsf.com/about-bnsf/pdf/fact_sheet.pdf

The Transcon goes way south of the current Raton Pass line and passes through Wichita, Amarillo, Clovis, Ft Sumner, Vaughn and Mountainair to Belen where the SWC will have to run up the Rail Runner line to get into Albuquerque and then reverse on the wye south of there to continue on to LA. My guess is it will only make a few stops like Amarillo and Wichita, the last being Clovis, NM. Really depends on which towns get serious about providing facilities and demanding service. It basically follows Hwys 60 and 47.


----------



## XHRTSP (Jul 10, 2014)

njulian said:


> Back to the SWC. As one who lives in southern New Mexico (where the Rail Runner will never even dream of approaching), and being in a place with NO mass transit (can't drive to Alb to get on the train? Good luck.) and with the only other option being the Sunset Limited and its 3 day a week service with no way to get points east of New Orleans without a convoluted route, the SWC is my main train route west and sometimes east. I know I've seen this somewhere but can't recall where..can someone direct me to the proposed route if Raton is bypassed? BTW, everytime I take this route the Raton station is bustling much more than others..especially during the high Boy Scout time and campers going to Philmont.


Just curious of your opinion, but if you were dictator of New Mexico and had the money, would you rather save the current SWC route, or allow the change and instead extend Rail Runner down to El Paso, assuming only one coa was possible?


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 11, 2014)

Another article on this tour...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/07/10/4229732/amtrak-ceo-to-stop-in-new-mexico.html



> New Mexico Transportation Department spokeswoman Melissa Dosher said no official from Gov. Susana Martinez's administration plans to meet with Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman because the agency didn't learn of the tour until receiving a news release from the rail operator Thursday morning.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/07/10/4229732/amtrak-ceo-to-stop-in-new-mexico.html#storylink=cpy


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 11, 2014)

Another article...

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/martinez-may-skip-amtrak-ceo-s-whistle-stop-tour/article_59f6351f-4eab-552e-a730-956cd884fbca.html

It includes and official Amtrak statement on Albuquerque and if it will be served with a reroute...



> Direct service to Albuquerque also could be lost if the Southwest Chief is rerouted, according to Magliari. The current track configuration from Texas to New Mexico — the likely course of a reroute if one is necessary — would provide service to Belen, south of Albuquerque, but not directly into the state’s largest city.
> “There would have to be some discussion about some kind of track layout change and whether that makes sense or is affordable,” Magliari said.


This could just be Amtrak making a reroute seem worse to try and pry money out of the states hands, but it is the only official word on this that I remember reading.


----------



## neroden (Jul 11, 2014)

njulian said:


> I know I've seen this somewhere but can't recall where..can someone direct me to the proposed route if Raton is bypassed?


(previous route from California to Albuquerque)

Albuquerque (station stop),

Belen (probably NOT a stop),

Fort Sumner,

Clovis NM (likely station stop),

Hereford TX,

Canyon,

Amarillo (likely station stop),

Pampa,

Canadian TX,

Woodward OK,

Alva OK,

Kiowa KS,

Harper,

Wellington,

Mulvane,

Wichita (likely station stop),

Newton

(previous route from Newton to KC)

If you live in southeastern NM (Carlsbad, Roswell), a Clovis station might be a real improvement for you. If you live in Las Cruces, the change is probably a wash for you.


----------



## neroden (Jul 11, 2014)

printman2000 said:


> Another article...
> 
> http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/martinez-may-skip-amtrak-ceo-s-whistle-stop-tour/article_59f6351f-4eab-552e-a730-956cd884fbca.html
> 
> ...


This is ridiculousness on the part of Amtrak's spokesman. I do not like this Magliari.

NM has specifically entered a line item in its state rail plan to wye the SW Chief near ABQ in the event of a reroute -- while *nobody* has even considered building a new station siding and platform at Belen (which would be necessary to stop at Belen see below). That means the SW Chief will continue to serve ABQ.

That said, I wouldn't have an objection to a Belen transfer station, as it would make the Calfornia-Chicago trip a good hour shorter, maybe several hours if the layover time could be shortened. But it would be an expensive station, since the RailRunner platform and track cannot be used, and BNSF won't want the train sitting on the mainline -- so it would require a passenger siding and a new platform. Given the heavy usage, it would also require a new station building. Rehabilitating the wye near Albquerque will cost a fraction of that, so that's what will happen.

Also from the article:



> “We want to continue the dialogue because we’re trying to reach a conclusion,” Magliari said. “We need to know a way forward by the end of 2015, because it’s going to take us a while to get the arrangements made to reroute the train.”


Oh, come on, jackass. You gave the deadline for the existing route states to commit money as the end of 2014. Stick with that deadline, idiot. Start talking to Amarillo and Wichita and Albuquerque. I will lay bets that the money for the stations on the new route will come pouring out pretty damn fast. Stop fooling around with the clowns on the Raton route.

The article also makes it clear that Martinez is not going to commit any funding to the Raton Pass route, let alone the amount needed; her government is even ignoring the promotional train.

The $3.4 million to rehabilitate the wye at ABQ -- that, NM might be willing to spend (it would be in state government hands afterwards).


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 11, 2014)

neroden said:


> njulian said:
> 
> 
> > I know I've seen this somewhere but can't recall where..can someone direct me to the proposed route if Raton is bypassed?
> ...


Amarillo would be, at minimum, a crew change stop. Though the city has already shown support for the reroute by the purchase of the Santa Fe depot with hopes of using it again.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 11, 2014)

Scare tactics. And I'm not suprised one bit that Amtrak doesn't know how to communicate with the NM administration. And I'm not suprised that the NM Administration doesn't know how to communicate with Amtrak. It is one of the most politcally corrupt states that I have ever lived in (other stuff not related to rail - beautiful state, but I'm happy to be away from there!).

Quite frankly, I believe the reroute will happen and ABQ will get the Wye. If ABQ is dropped, you can all but count the Southwest Chief gone.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 11, 2014)

Albuquerque is a given if the SWC is to survive! Spending millions to make Belen a stop makes no sense! If NM is willing to put money into the Y and other track improvements in ABQ that's a no brainer!

Much as I like history and nostslgia. The obscene amount of money it would take to satisy BNSF to retain the Raton route and that the States won't fund and that Amtrak doesn't have, makes the Southern Transcona re-route a

Natural!

Picking up Amarillo. Witchits and Clovis as stops is a sure fire winner for Amtrak, even if the scenery sucks! (Apologies to our Panhandle friends!)

If you haven't ridden the SWC over Raton Pass . do it ASAP, it will be gone with the wind after next year!!!


----------



## neroden (Jul 11, 2014)

printman2000 said:


> Amarillo would be, at minimum, a crew change stop. Though the city has already shown support for the reroute by the purchase of the Santa Fe depot with hopes of using it again.


The fact that the City of Amarillo spent $2.6 million on the depot ("and surrounding six acres") *preemptively* and out of their own budget, makes me believe that they will spend what it takes to get a platform, even if it's fairly expensive.
Wichita has been less committed in terms of money, but the city has been actively pushing the Heartland Flyer extension and there's a local advocacy group pushing it too. And the station there is now in the hands of an explicitly passenger-rail-friendly developer. I think there's fairly good odds that they'd spring for the renovation costs out of local money (probably with an eye towards prepping the station for the Heartland Flyer too).


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2014)

Usually you can trust Amtrak to clutch defeat out of the jaws of victory and make it their own. The proceed to the usual victimhood whining. Maybe they are just warming upto that usual course on this one too. I just am afraid, very afraid , what the defeat that they might eventually cling onto might look like this time.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## airjnke (Jul 11, 2014)

This was on the local news tonight. Last time I was on the SWC I counted the number of passengers that got on or off the train between Newton & Albuquerque. Not only were there less than a dozen but it was some of the worst track I've ever been on. Seems like it would be cheaper to pass out free bus tickets & leave that section of track to the cargo trains.

http://ksn.com/2014/07/11/amtrak-tour-stops-in-kansas/


----------



## PupfosterG (Jul 11, 2014)

Pictures of Amtrak Special @ Topeka, Ks. 7/11/14. Not the best pictures, they were taken with a cell phone.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 11, 2014)

That Phase III is looking GOOD on the power. It'll look even better with a string of Viewliners behind it.


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2014)

Like

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 11, 2014)

I agree with Ryan! The pics are nice and show clearly that having an all Viewliner consist would be better both in appearance and for streamlining!


----------



## BNSFboy (Jul 12, 2014)

jphjaxfl said:


> When places like Wichita and Amarillo haven't had passenger train service in over 43 years, it is difficult to get people to ride trains, again. The market that used the San Francisco Chief until April 30, 1971 is long gone. The average person even in cities with passenger train service doesn't even know it exists or where the station is unless they are in areas with frequent train service like the NEC, or some of the other corridors in the Midwest or West. Yes, there will be die hard rail fans that will be pleased with change, but they cannot cause a train to have the required patronage.


That is not necessarily true. Due to the elimination of the Wright Amendment there are less flights in and out of Rick Husband Intr. so flights are not required to stop in Amarillo and can have direct connections from big city to big city so this will more than likely be an instance where train travel is a very important part of the transportation in Amarillo. I know that it will also depend on other cities on the route but for Amarillo it is almost ideal for trains and you can almost bet that Amarillo and Wichita will promote the Chief in their cities and possibly farther out away from the metro.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 12, 2014)

The proposed service change through Amarillo is certainly worth considering. However, it is likely that some people haven't considered the value of serving Colorado and more cities in Kansas. Actually, the greater Colorado Springs area including Pueblo has at least a population of 600,000 people which is quite sizeable and therefore a prime target market for Amtrak. Colorado is a growing state and improved rail service would benefit many and serving COS would benefit Amtrak.

Consider for example, a proposed service change for the SWC running from Kansas City to Raton, NM on the former Rock Island route. There are formidable cities on that line including westbound from KCY, Lawrence, Manhattan, Topeka, Junction City, Abilene, Salina, Russell, Hays and Goodland, KS, Burlington and Limon, CO and on into Colorado Springs. The previous connection from Limon to COS is now a bike-path for a portion of the distance so a rebuild and sharing of space with the bike path would be needed.

But there is a solution:

It appears that a number of $500 million was mentioned for the SWC restoration project in Colorado and Kansas. A question is would the rebuilding of the RI route from Limon to COS cost about $70 million? After the proposed rebuilding of that line from Limon, could not multiple Class ! carriers share the line with Amtrak into Colorado Springs, making a convenient Kansas City connection for several railroads?

With a proposed new extension to Limon, a very substantial increase in Amtrak service to new communities could be presented and grown. The former SWC cities La Junta, Dodge City, Hutchinson and more could be serviced as a bus tie-in to Amtrak services. The Heartland Flyer service could be extended to Topeka or Emporia and KCY to create a link to Texas and a link to Kansas towns without Amtrak services.

This is an idea that should be debated and considered.


----------



## BNSFboy (Jul 12, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> even if the scenery sucks! (Apologies to our Panhandle friends!)It


It just depends on your taste. However we do have our own beauty with our sunsets, golden fields of grain and wind turbine farms. Also not the whole route is as flat as most people think as most of the route between Wichita and Amarillo goes through the Canadian River water breaks and looks much like the Abo Canyon area and eastern Cajon Pass. I just want to throw that out there.


----------



## William W. (Jul 12, 2014)

Notice how the train has two locomotives, as opposed to one (it's not like a four car train should need two locomotives, right?). I'm sure that the optics wouldn't be great if a train with only one crapped out in the middle of nowhere, with the CEO onboard. Then again, the optics of the Texas Eagle breaking down all the time can't be good either...


----------



## railiner (Jul 12, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> The proposed service change through Amarillo is certainly worth considering. However, it is likely that some people haven't considered the value of serving Colorado and more cities in Kansas. Actually, the greater Colorado Springs area including Pueblo has at least a population of 600,000 people which is quite sizeable and therefore a prime target market for Amtrak. Colorado is a growing state and improved rail service would benefit many and serving COS would benefit Amtrak.
> 
> Consider for example, a proposed service change for the SWC running from Kansas City to Raton, NM on the former Rock Island route. There are formidable cities on that line including westbound from KCY, Lawrence, Manhattan, Topeka, Junction City, Abilene, Salina, Russell, Hays and Goodland, KS, Burlington and Limon, CO and on into Colorado Springs. The previous connection from Limon to COS is now a bike-path for a portion of the distance so a rebuild and sharing of space with the bike path would be needed.
> 
> ...


That is an interesting proposal. The route you described is mainly over the UP's former Kansas Pacific line, except for the short portion from Limon to Colorado Springs. The former Rock Island line from Omaha to Limon (and on to Colorado Springs, as you mentioned), is mostly gone. The former Rocky Mountain Rocket used that line to reach Colorado Springs, and Denver (half the train split away at Limon and utilized UP trackage rights).

There is another problem with your proposal....the train would have to use a portion of the freight-clogged Joint Line to go south from Colorado Springs to Pueblo. And since you mentioned serving major markets, how could they run a train that way, and miss hitting Denver, only 65 miles north? They might as well just use the UP from Limon into Denver, and then go south on the Joint Line, They would not have to worry about rebuilding the abandoned portion. Only worry about fighting to use the Joint Line. Perhaps they could use the available government support to restore the Joint Line to full double track, in that case. But the proposal would also lengthen the schedule considerably between Kansas City and Raton....

Another thing to consider, is that the Zephyr and the Chief would geographically run relatively close to one another for a good portion of their run. With a huge portion of the country unserved between the Chief and Sunset routes. The proposed reroute on the Transcon line, would more equitably cover that 'gap'.


----------



## njulian (Jul 12, 2014)

XHRTSP said:


> njulian said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the SWC. As one who lives in southern New Mexico (where the Rail Runner will never even dream of approaching), and being in a place with NO mass transit (can't drive to Alb to get on the train? Good luck.) and with the only other option being the Sunset Limited and its 3 day a week service with no way to get points east of New Orleans without a convoluted route, the SWC is my main train route west and sometimes east. I know I've seen this somewhere but can't recall where..can someone direct me to the proposed route if Raton is bypassed? BTW, everytime I take this route the Raton station is bustling much more than others..especially during the high Boy Scout time and campers going to Philmont.
> ...


Wow..I'd love to see the Rail Runner extend to cover the whole North South corridor of NM. Considering what I saw as extreme drama and slowness in getting even the small route it currently runs, that is impossible to see ever really happening. I don't think the change is awful..but the Raton pass is a great trip and would be sorry to see it go. Why can't they just substitute Belen for for Alb? Do they need to use that track that exits Alb to get to LA? Actually, getting to Belen is a bit shorter for me, so that's fine in that sense. My biggest AMTRAK gripe is the Sunset Limited and its true to its name Limited service, and the fact that they never re established a route from New Orleans to Florida. That is a huge gap in country coverage that I think needs to be addressed.


----------



## njulian (Jul 12, 2014)

neroden said:


> njulian said:
> 
> 
> > I know I've seen this somewhere but can't recall where..can someone direct me to the proposed route if Raton is bypassed?
> ...


I'm in Alamogordo, about 60 miles from Las Cruces, so Belen would be OK..


----------



## neroden (Jul 12, 2014)

In regards to other proposals, I've always supported the north-south line (El Paso-ABQ-Pueblo-Denver-Fort Collins-Cheyenne) but it has gotten no traction. It is not appropriate to try to shoehorn north-south service into an east-west route; it merely creates degraded service in both directions.


----------



## neroden (Jul 12, 2014)

At this point I suggest that anyone in Amarillo or Wichita, or who plans to travel to either city, should write to Amtrak to show the extent of the market demand. But I'm not sure who to write to (I suppose one could write direct to Boardman).


----------



## henryj (Jul 12, 2014)

BNSFboy said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> > When places like Wichita and Amarillo haven't had passenger train service in over 43 years, it is difficult to get people to ride trains, again. The market that used the San Francisco Chief until April 30, 1971 is long gone. The average person even in cities with passenger train service doesn't even know it exists or where the station is unless they are in areas with frequent train service like the NEC, or some of the other corridors in the Midwest or West. Yes, there will be die hard rail fans that will be pleased with change, but they cannot cause a train to have the required patronage.
> ...


Checking SWA, there are no longer any flights direct to Amarillo from Houston. All seem to go through Dallas and take 3hrs. It's actually faster to fly to KC than Amarillo. Getting back to the route, they should have done this re-route years ago as the population is much greater on the Transcon and if you throw in a thru-way bus to Lubbock it's 1.2 million vs 300k(w/Santa Fe). The scenery is not that much different. Raton isn't that great.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 12, 2014)

Let Amtrak fade into Sunset if that is the choice. Where real markets are for rail passenger service, private business will enter.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 12, 2014)

There's nothing stopping that from happening now.


----------



## mwaddell1 (Jul 12, 2014)

Well Sir, I happen to live in Raton and we are worth mentioning! We need the train here. Have you ever heard of Philmont Boy Scout Ranch? Thousands of scouts and workers arrive here by train every summer. The vistas are absolutely beautiful here, maybe you should visit sometime.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 12, 2014)

Just saw 993 on the status map.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 12, 2014)

Raton does not need Amtrak service---They might want it ,but they don't NEED it. Same with all Americans. What Raton needs is a sense and purpose of being. Yes, I was there last week and found the whole town is wringing their hands ,crying we are dying. Raton needs a change of attitude in order to live Amtrak is not the answer for that.


----------



## AmarilloByMornin' (Jul 12, 2014)

Oh good grief, the SWC is supposed to struggle along for the sake of pretty scenery, a town of under 7k people, and a ranch that operates about 3 months out of the year! Amtrak isn't a charity. If Raton and the BSA want to raise the money to support that section of the route, that's different.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 12, 2014)

Is trainaddict back as a troll under the hidden ID of the Duck????


----------



## AmarilloByMornin' (Jul 12, 2014)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Just saw 993 on the status map.


The Trinidad board is showing that 993 is having a service disruption!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 12, 2014)

AmarilloByMornin said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw 993 on the status map.
> ...


Must be from all those damn Amtrak Passenger Trains that clog up this Route!
A dose of their own medicine for the BNSF Execs riding with Joe Boardman and the

Politicians! LOL


----------



## XHRTSP (Jul 12, 2014)

mwaddell1 said:


> Well Sir, I happen to live in Raton and we are worth mentioning! We need the train here. Have you ever heard of Philmont Boy Scout Ranch? Thousands of scouts and workers arrive here by train every summer. The vistas are absolutely beautiful here, maybe you should visit sometime.


Could NM not extend RR north to that point, at least on a seasonal basis?

How much track would they have to maintain to make that happen, assuming speed and comfort aren't a huge priority?


----------



## XHRTSP (Jul 12, 2014)

the Duck said:


> Where real markets are for rail passenger service, private business will enter.


Hell yeah, I can't wait for that new private LA to Vegas service to start! I'm totally riding that train!


----------



## William W. (Jul 12, 2014)

the Duck said:


> Let Amtrak fade into Sunset if that is the choice. Where real markets are for rail passenger service, private business will enter.





the Duck said:


> Raton does not need Amtrak service---They might want it ,but they don't NEED it. Same with all Americans. What Raton needs is a sense and purpose of being. Yes, I was there last week and found the whole town is wringing their hands ,crying we are dying. Raton needs a change of attitude in order to live Amtrak is not the answer for that.


Look, unless you're also willing to give up road and airport/airline subsidies (both of these industries would collapse without federal aid), then just stop. Passenger rail is a legitimate part of the infrastructure, and should be well funded. Are there a lot of improvements that can be made? Definitely. Does Amtrak need to get better at managing its money, and using the resources that it has? Absolutely. To say though that rail travel in this country should just end is foolish. It provides a useful service, and is important if we are to claim the status as a 1st world country.

Even the most successful passenger rail systems around the world cannot exist without public funding. It just isn't a profitable business sector. Instead of trying to treat it like a for-profit business (like we do with Amtrak), it should be an independent government agency/non-profit corporation whose goals are to provide quality service, maintain reasonable finances, and be efficient in its operations. It should receive a regular subsidy every year, so that Amtrak managers can plan for the future (as is true in the business world, it is impossible to make medium or long-term decisions without some certainty of what revenue may be, and what the general climate may be).

When compared to the amounts that we spend on other sectors of the infrastructure, Amtrak's subsidy would be paltry. There is no logical reason not to support America's passenger rail system.


----------



## henryj (Jul 12, 2014)

mwaddell1 said:


> Well Sir, I happen to live in Raton and we are worth mentioning! We need the train here. Have you ever heard of Philmont Boy Scout Ranch? Thousands of scouts and workers arrive here by train every summer. The vistas are absolutely beautiful here, maybe you should visit sometime.


The SWC only serves a few select markets. Most of the Scouts arrive by car, bus or fly into Denver or Albuquerque. They don't come on the train. I have been over Raton pass many times by car and train and it's not prettier than Abo Canyon on the Transcon. The Raton pass line has 3% grades. BNSF tried to use it for their fastest container and trailer trains just to keep it open and crews trained. But it required helpers to get the trains over the pass. Just too expensive, and now they have double tracked most of the Transcon, so there is simply no need for Raton any more.


----------



## henryj (Jul 12, 2014)

William W. said:


> Let Amtrak fade into Sunset if that is the choice. Where real markets are for rail passenger service, private business will enter.
> 
> 
> the Duck said:
> ...


Yes, it's all subsidized. The diff is airlines are a private business as are bus companies, etc. None of them are Government run agencies with bloated overheads. Their subsidies are not annual grants of money as is Amtrak's. They come in the form of government support for some of the infrastructure. Airlines and bus companies still go bankrupt if they don't serve a need or run themselves efficiently. Amtrak just bumbles on as is. The private operators in Europe just run the trains. The government still provides the infrastructure. If passenger rail is to grow and prosper here we just need a different approach.


----------



## AmarilloByMornin' (Jul 12, 2014)

neroden said:


> At this point I suggest that anyone in Amarillo or Wichita, or who plans to travel to either city, should write to Amtrak to show the extent of the market demand. But I'm not sure who to write to (I suppose one could write direct to Boardman).


Taking your advice, I emailed Mr. Boardman. The good news is that he replied pretty quickly. The bad news:

_Dear AmarilloByMornin' ,_

It is my intent to keep the commitments to those along the existing Chief Route. I understand your interest. The public is way ahead of Congress on the need for connectivity.

Yes we are a private business and we need to make smart decisions and yet we must do our very best to make good on our commitment to our existing customer base at the same time. The United States decided on this long distance network over 40 years ago when it allowed the Freight Railroads to come into being. They were relieved of their money losing passenger traffic by a new company Amtrak. The United States needs to keep their commitment.

I hope at some point your dream of service will be fulfilled but if I can help it, it will not come on the back of those who will lose their service from Dodge City to Raton and beyond.

I wish you well in your quest.

Joe Boardman.

Not exactly what I was hoping for...


----------



## yarrow (Jul 12, 2014)

AmarilloByMornin' said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > At this point I suggest that anyone in Amarillo or Wichita, or who plans to travel to either city, should write to Amtrak to show the extent of the market demand. But I'm not sure who to write to (I suppose one could write direct to Boardman).
> ...


wow, i never saw a letter like that from amtrak before, let alone from boardman. it actually speaks to the issue and appears to be an answer to an idividual as opposed to the usual form letter


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 12, 2014)

I'm sure if Boardman's team wrote a letter for him, it wouldn't be poorly punctuated.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 12, 2014)

henryj said:


> None of them are Government run agencies with bloated overheads


I hereby move to bar Henry from uttering the words "bloated overhead" ever again until he actually lays out what parts of Amtrak's overhead are "bloated" and what specific cuts he would make to reduce overhead without affecting the service provided.


----------



## jebr (Jul 12, 2014)

Seconded.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 12, 2014)

I join the ayes.


----------



## crescent2 (Jul 12, 2014)

henryj said:


> Yes, it's all subsidized. The diff is airlines are a private business as are bus companies, etc. None of them are Government run agencies with bloated overheads....


Maybe it's just me, but I have a bigger problem with government subsidizing private business than I do with government subsidizing one of its own agencies.

Transportation requires infrastructure, and train transportation, like the other means of transportation, requires some subsidies. Of course it does. Amtrak's is small compared to the others.

I don't study Amtrak's financial statements, but I am confident if there was obvious widespread bloating, I'd have read the details of it here many, many times. It probably would be helpful if you would be more specific.


----------



## XHRTSP (Jul 12, 2014)

I'd be more willing to demand Amtrak run a profit on certain routes if we actually did fully support their infastructure requirements.

Down the road where I work we're spending 6 billion dollars on the O'Hare modernization program. Imagine how well we could improve the system and give Amtrak or any operator a chance if we flowed that kind of money into rail transit.


----------



## njulian (Jul 13, 2014)

mwaddell1 said:


> Well Sir, I happen to live in Raton and we are worth mentioning! We need the train here. Have you ever heard of Philmont Boy Scout Ranch? Thousands of scouts and workers arrive here by train every summer. The vistas are absolutely beautiful here, maybe you should visit sometime.


I mentiloned Philmont in a previous post. I love Raton..always stop there in our journey to see a son in Denver. And the views are stunning and worth going what feels like 5 miles an hour. But..if the states won't support what needs to be done, then change will happen. I worry more about LD train service being cancelled country wide.


----------



## njulian (Jul 13, 2014)

XHRTSP said:


> the Duck said:
> 
> 
> > Where real markets are for rail passenger service, private business will enter.
> ...


I bet that never, ever happens.


----------



## henryj (Jul 13, 2014)

RyanS said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > None of them are Government run agencies with bloated overheads
> ...


Ryan, Jebr and gml. It's been documented and written about by 'pundits' smarter than you guys and I am sure you have read the same stuff I have. So quit harassing me about it. Are you playing the three musketeers or the three stooges? lol. All government agencies are full of 'bloated overhead'.


----------



## henryj (Jul 13, 2014)

AmarilloByMornin' said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > At this point I suggest that anyone in Amarillo or Wichita, or who plans to travel to either city, should write to Amtrak to show the extent of the market demand. But I'm not sure who to write to (I suppose one could write direct to Boardman).
> ...


Write him back and ask him then what about all that existing customer base on the routes of the Lone Star, Floridian, National Limited, Broadway Limited, Pioneer, Desert Wind, *Sunset East*, etc. What a stupid reply from one of his lackies. He hopes your 'dream' will be fulfilled. What a crock. It's laughable.


----------



## AmarilloByMornin' (Jul 13, 2014)

henryj said:


> Write him back and ask him then what about all that existing customer base on the routes of the Lone Star, Floridian, National Limited, Broadway Limited, Pioneer, Desert Wind, *Sunset East*, etc. What a stupid reply from one of his lackies. He hopes your 'dream' will be fulfilled. What a crock. It's laughable.


LOL! We're on the same page, I told him how glad I was that the SL into Florida (first one that came to mind) would be restored, going by his statements. I don't think it was one of his lackeys that sent it, the line at the bottom was "sent from my iPhone" - I guess a lackey could set that up on their own iPhone though.

That line about my dreams not being fulfilled 'on the back of those who will lose their service...' - thanks for discerning and judging my motives, Joe! Apparently it's now selfish to want Amtrak access to be reasonably close.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 13, 2014)

Guest_AmarilloByMornin'_*, do you live in Amarillo?

I have been here over 9 years and would really love to have the service. We go to Lamy to catch the train now.


----------



## AmarilloByMornin' (Jul 13, 2014)

printman2000, I'm actually in Dumas. I read (I think in this very thread) that Amarillo bought the Santa Fe Depot. Do they know something Boardman doesn't?


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 13, 2014)

AmarilloByMornin' said:


> printman2000, I'm actually in Dumas. I read (I think in this very thread) that Amarillo bought the Santa Fe Depot. Do they know something Boardman doesn't?


Cool. Welcome to the forum. I hope you will register and become a member.

Yes, the city bought the depot. However, the possibility of Amtrak was just one of the reasons. And they knew it was just a possibility.


----------



## BNSFboy (Jul 13, 2014)

printman2000 said:


> AmarilloByMornin' said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000, I'm actually in Dumas. I read (I think in this very thread) that Amarillo bought the Santa Fe Depot. Do they know something Boardman doesn't?
> ...


I really hope that Amtrak gets to use the Santa Fe Depot if they come through Amarillo, I live in Stinnett and I drive 3 hours to Garden City to catch the Chief but it would really be good to only go an hour and board in Amarillo.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 13, 2014)

henryj said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


I look forward to reading your citations.


----------



## neroden (Jul 13, 2014)

AmarilloByMornin' said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > At this point I suggest that anyone in Amarillo or Wichita, or who plans to travel to either city, should write to Amtrak to show the extent of the market demand. But I'm not sure who to write to (I suppose one could write direct to Boardman).
> ...


Yeah. It's a pretty decent letter, though, compared to the usual form letters! I actually appreciate seeing it.

So thank you for writing; who knows, it may make an impact on his thoughts in the long run. Enough letters from Amarillo and he may realize what a market is sitting there waiting for him. (Maybe it's worth writing to the "general manager long distance-services", Mark Murphy, as well?)

I think, politically speaking, Boardman has to say that he'll fight to keep service to Dodge City; I just hope he knows when it's time to cut bait. And that time is, as previously announced, the end of 2014.

He does say "if I can help it". But I doubt he can help it. Back in 2012, he told the cities and states on the existing route they needed to come up with a plan to get the money by the end of 2014. That's a good long lead time. Amtrak and BNSF volunteered 2/5 of the money, and the locals still couldn't do it, with all three state legislatures rejecting any allocation of money. Meanwhile, the state government of NM threw away the entire Raton Pass track to save a measly $5 million dollars in 2013. (Contrast Devil's Lake and ND.)

In 2015, Amtrak should be talking to the locals in Wichita and Amarillo and Clovis and Albuquerque.

My worst case scenario is losing service on the existing route without getting service on the Amarillo route! If Amtrak takes this down to the wire by refusing to talk to the cities on the Transcon route, I'm worried that come 2016 we won't HAVE stations in Amarillo or Wichita.

I'm inclined to say that Amarillo and Wichita should aggressively contact Amtrak and BNSF regarding station design requirements -- even though Amtrak and BNSF don't want to talk to them -- and hire architects to make designs, because they *have* to get this started in early 2015 in order to have stations come 2016-2017.

I see that an Amarillo station is drawing support from as far as Dumas.  That says to me that people from Hutchinson will mostly be happy to drive to Wichita, and I notice that Boardman refers to those from "Dodge City to Raton and beyond", indicating that he also doesn't think of Hutchinson as losing service. If you count Hutchinson as served by a reroute, the advantages of the reroute become even *more* apparent; Hutchinson is by far the largest city on the existing route.

Assuming that people will drive from Hutchinson to Wichita; that Albuquerque will be served by the wye; that Santa Fe will be served by a a RailRunner connection; the other bypassed cities on the route really don't amount to much. The sum total metro area population of all of them is 126K. To be fair the towns on the current route do "punch above their weight". The ridership of the stops which would be fully bypassed is 46912.

But consider that Amarillo would get significantly better service hours than Flagstaff -- and Flagstaff, with a metro population of 136K, has a ridership of 40390 (though perhaps some of that is driving from Phoenix). Amarillo has a metro population of 250K. Also, Canyon, TX, just outside Amarillo, has West Texas A&M; colleges always punch above their weight and it might even be worth having a second station there.

Losing downtown Hutchinson service would be more than compensated for by gaining downtown Wichita service. Newton isn't even in the Wichita metro area; it's as far away from Wichita as Maricopa is from Phoenix. We all remember how much ridership Phoenix lost when the station moved to Maricopa. Wichita alone, with a metro area population of 623K and a city population of 385K, should generate 28K - 31K passengers even if it has ridership rates as bad as Topeka (which has very bad ridership rates and awful calling hours). Even if we make the unreasonably pessimistic assumption that all the ridership currently at Hutchinson and Newton is from Wichita or would refuse to drive to Wichita, this would still be an increase of over 8K passengers.

People will drive from Dumas to Amarillo. People will drive from Lubbock, which has a metro area population of 290K, to Amarillo. Clovis will gain yet more passengers (including those from Roswell and Carlsbad). If a station is placed in Woodward, people will drive from Dodge City to Woodward (it's the same distance as Lubbock to Amarillo.)

The improved ridership on the Transcon will dwarf the "Philmont" effect. (Philmont isn't even on the Raton Pass route; the Scouts have to take a bus anyway, so they can and will take the bus from Albuquerque.) Furthermore, except for Dodge City, the cities which would be bypassed are all *shrinking*. (Boy Scout membership is shrinking too.) Amtrak needs to follow the population, rather than spend hundreds of millions every year just to stay on the route with a shrinking population!

I am quite sure ridership will go up with a switch to the Transcon route, IF suitable stations are built. The Transcon route is just *better* -- ridership will *have* to go up. Given some investment, ridership could go up a *lot*.

There's just so much potential on the Transcon route -- and so little on the La Junta/Raton route. Sorry to the person living in Raton (population 6607), but since I live in a metro area with a population over 100K and we don't have connecting bus service to the nearest train station, I am far more sympathetic to the population of Amarillo than to you.

As for the people on the existing route? Get them some Thruway buses. I don't like bustitution, but it's better than nothing. Amtrak considered a bus to be good enough for the people on the Ocala route in Florida (which has much more population).

Amtrak could simply run a Thruway bus on the existing train route; it would probably even run faster than the train, since western Kansas's highways are completely uncongested. But Amtrak could probably do better than that. There's already a Greyhound route across Raton Pass, which extends from Albuquerque to Denver; better connecting schedules could be contracted. There's also already a Greyhound route from Lamar to Amarillo, and it's even timed right for connections to Chicago on a rerouted SW Chief. Dodge City, the only growing city on the route, deserves some good bus connections; probably the correct thing to do is to run one route Denver-Pueblo-Dodge City-Wichita with eastbound SW Chief connection, and another route Dodge City - Woodward - OKC with a westbound SW Chief connection.

Speaking of buses, a Thruway route from Amarillo to Lubbock to Midland/Odessa should also be a successful feeder to the Transcon route. Design it for eastbound connections. Allow people to stay overnight in Amarillo for the westbound connections (i.e. don't be stupid about the ticketing the way they are on California Thruway buses), for a little extra ridership.

My fear: Amtrak may, as "jis" says, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if they fail to do the planning for the reroute. :help: The three nightmare scenarios: no LA-Chicago train at all; a train with no stops between Newton and Albuquerque (or even farther, if Amtrak idiotically fails to rebuild the wye in ABQ); a train running slower than molasses over a 30mph Raton Pass. If Amtrak does not get the money committed for the existing route by the end of 2014 (and it won't, it's not actually possible given the legislative schedules), then Amtrak *needs* to start working on the Transcon reroute ASAP on January 1st, 2015.


----------



## neroden (Jul 13, 2014)

BNSFboy said:


> I really hope that Amtrak gets to use the Santa Fe Depot if they come through Amarillo, I live in Stinnett and I drive 3 hours to Garden City to catch the Chief but it would really be good to only go an hour and board in Amarillo.


OK, you really should write to Boardman and/or Mark Murphy. Explain that you ARE Amtrak's "existing customer base" to which Amtrak has made "commitments", and you ARE one of "those along the existing route", and your trip would be much improved by a reroute to Amarillo!
I suspect Amtrak doesn't actually understand the market they're serving here.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 13, 2014)

What is Boardman's email address that you emailed?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## AmarilloByMornin' (Jul 13, 2014)

Joseph

_dot_

Boardman

_at_

amtrak

_dot_

com


----------



## AmarilloByMornin' (Jul 13, 2014)

Thanks for the encouragement, neroden. You're absolutely right - I know some diehard Amtrak people from the university in Lubbock who would gladly make the trip even without thruway service (but I can only imagine how many more would if it did exist). There is support all over the Texas panhandle from people much farther away from Amarillo than I am. I will try writing to Mark Murphy and hope that he's a little less blind than Mr. Boardman. I suppose that's not fair - you're probably right that he has to say what he did until time runs out. Then he can say later that he tried like heck (and I can vouch for him!).


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 13, 2014)

RyanS said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


Come on now Ryan with a name like henryj (an old car) he probably thinks that citations are an bunch of old Chevys.


----------



## henryj (Jul 13, 2014)

oldtimer said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Come on now Ryan with a name like henryj (an old car) he probably thinks that citations are an bunch of old Chevys.


LOL Oldtimer. You are the only one that has noticed that. It was made by Kaiser-Fraser in the early 1950's and also sold by Alstate(Sears). It was not succesful. Kaiser-Fraser later bought Willys Jeep and that ended up as part of American motors and then Chrysler now owned by Fiat where it is today. Or something like that. Ryan will never get his 'citations'. lol.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 14, 2014)

Amtrak CEO ‘committed’ to keeping route through northern New Mexico alive



> CIMARRON— Amtrak CEO and President Joe Boardman said his organization wants to see the Southwest Chief rail route continue taking passengers through northern New Mexico beyond 2015. A portion of the train’s daily route from Chicago to Los Angeles route could be rerouted from Northern New Mexico and parts of Kansas and Colorado starting on Jan.1, 2016 if Amtrak, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railways, and the states of New Mexico, Colorado and Kansas do not come up with a way to fund the line’s deteriorating infrastructure.
> 
> “I am committed to delivering this service the way it was established,” Boardman said Saturday (July 11) during his visit to the Philmont Scout Ranch outside Cimarron, which was part of his train trip through Northern New Mexico.


----------



## neroden (Jul 14, 2014)

Keep writing Boardman in favor of the better route, through Amarillo. If he delays too long in planning it, we might lose our only direct LA-Chicago service entirely.

...well, I wrote my letter. I was actually a bit lower-key about the benefits of the Amarillo route than I usually am, because I wanted to emphasize that my priority is to retain the LA-Albuquerque-Chicago route one way or another. I focused on the importance of having a plan B if the money for the Raton Pass route does not show up at the end of the year, which it won't.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 14, 2014)

There are so many facets to this issue that are out of focus it is all most makes one sick. The line belongs to BNSF--if any one is going to raise money for its upkeep, it should be BNSF. Amtrak is just a renter of the line. As a renter, if you don't like the way your landlord is maintaining the place--you move. Amtrak has already been told at the end of contract( DEC.31, 2015) they can no longer use the route (at BNSF expense). Too soothe Amtrak , BNSF threw a carrot they thought was unattainable---Amtrak find money to bring line up to standards and maintain it, Remember BNSF owns the line and any work done on it must be to BNSF standards and becomes property of BNSF. So any and all donations to project are to BNSF. Amtrak is asking the state of New Mexico to do that which its constitution forbids. Read "New Mexico State Rail Plan" on internet page1-7. What is the best way to handle an unruly renter? Was it a good thing for BNSF to throw Amtrak a carrot or should have BNSF been blunt and said no more use after contract.. Note: The Transcon has always been considered an alternate route for the Southwest Chief. What is your feed back?


----------



## Paul CHI (Jul 14, 2014)

Many in the media and Congress consider the LD routes "tourist trains for rich old people", and the 20mph slow (but scenic) route over Raton Pass helps to perpetuate this image. If Amtrak is in the transportation business rather than the tourist train business, they should always be looking for ways to serve bigger markets rather than preserve "scenic".


----------



## gwschenk (Jul 14, 2014)

the Duck said:


> Let Amtrak fade into Sunset if that is the choice. Where real markets are for rail passenger service, private business will enter.


Anything that doesn't generate profit for Wall Street needs to die.


----------



## Eric S (Jul 14, 2014)

neroden said:


> Losing downtown Hutchinson service would be more than compensated for by gaining downtown Wichita service. Newton isn't even in the Wichita metro area; it's as far away from Wichita as Maricopa is from Phoenix. We all remember how much ridership Phoenix lost when the station moved to Maricopa. Wichita alone, with a metro area population of 623K and a city population of 385K, should generate 28K - 31K passengers even if it has ridership rates as bad as Topeka (which has very bad ridership rates and awful calling hours). Even if we make the unreasonably pessimistic assumption that all the ridership currently at Hutchinson and Newton is from Wichita or would refuse to drive to Wichita, this would still be an increase of over 8K passengers.
> 
> ...
> 
> Amtrak could simply run a Thruway bus on the existing train route; it would probably even run faster than the train, since western Kansas's highways are completely uncongested. But Amtrak could probably do better than that. There's already a Greyhound route across Raton Pass, which extends from Albuquerque to Denver; better connecting schedules could be contracted. There's also already a Greyhound route from Lamar to Amarillo, and it's even timed right for connections to Chicago on a rerouted SW Chief. Dodge City, the only growing city on the route, deserves some good bus connections; probably the correct thing to do is to run one route Denver-Pueblo-Dodge City-Wichita with eastbound SW Chief connection, and another route Dodge City - Woodward - OKC with a westbound SW Chief connection.


I'm generally in agreement. Just a couple of notes. Newton is in the Wichita MSA (Newton is in Harvey County and the Wichita MSA consists of Butler, Harvey, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties), but it is separated from the Wichita urbanized area by a fair distance of undeveloped land.

Also, there is bus service that runs Wichita-Dodge City-Garden City-Lamar-La Junta-Pueblo (plus other intermediate stops). There is also a Wichita-Newton-Hutchinson-Salina route operated by the same bus line. The schedules would need to be adjusted to better function as a Thruway service, though.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 14, 2014)

Amtrak CEO: Save the Southwest Chief



> ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) – It could be a huge blow for the metro – talks about badly needed track repairs for Amtrak could mean the money-making train could skip Albuquerque altogether.
> In an attempt to save that route, the president and CEO of Amtrak took a train ride through New Mexico on Saturday to talk to city officials about funding.
> “We really see an opportunity here to work with New Mexico,” Joe Beardman, CEO of Amtrak said.
> Boardman also says he wants to see the “Southwest Chief” stay on its current route. About 350,000 people take Amtrak’s Southwest Chief route every year.


----------



## tricia (Jul 14, 2014)

Paul CHI said:


> Many in the media and Congress consider the LD routes "tourist trains for rich old people", and the 20mph slow (but scenic) route over Raton Pass helps to perpetuate this image. If Amtrak is in the transportation business rather than the tourist train business, they should always be looking for ways to serve bigger markets rather than preserve "scenic".


Doesn't need to be either/or.

Oughta be both/and.


----------



## justinslot (Jul 14, 2014)

Just to throw a little current knowledge in this thread, that isn't super relevant but whatever: I am aboard the SWC heading east and we are now in an hour and a half delay at Raton while they go fetch another engine (or whatever) that is actually capable of getting us up the Raton Pass.

Is there a proposed route that skips this problem but still serves Albuquerque? I don't care about scenery, I care about getting from LA to points East.

EDIT: I said "still serves Albuquerque" because it seems like a popular enough stop. But me personally I all I want is Northeast to SoCal travel, preferrably not via New Orleans.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 14, 2014)

justinslot said:


> Just to throw a little current knowledge in this thread, that isn't super relevant but whatever: I am aboard the SWC heading east and we are now in an hour and a half delay at Raton while they go fetch another engine (or whatever) that is actually capable of getting us up the Raton Pass.
> 
> Is there a proposed route that skips this problem but still serves Albuquerque? I don't care about scenery, I care about getting from LA to points East.


The Transcon.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 14, 2014)

Northern NM Amtrak route needs $200 million in repairs 



> ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. —A number of New Mexico communities rely on Amtrak's Southwest Chief, but the Chief is in danger.
> 
> 
> If someone doesn't step up to pay for track repairs, the train may have to switch routes, and small New Mexico towns would be hurt most.
> ...



Caution: video clip auto-plays.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 14, 2014)

The Amtrak Southwest Chief Coalition has the beginnings of a website.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 14, 2014)

Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman visits La Junta



> "Save the Chief! is the motto," said Mayor Joe Reorda of Trinidad. That is what Amtrak President and CEO Joseph Boardman made clear to a group of stockholders gathered aboard his special train while it was on a siding at the La Junta station on Saturday morning.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 14, 2014)

My brother is currently waiting for #4(13) in La Junta. It is stopped in Raton waiting for a freight unit since another P42 has died in route. This is another good reason to reroute. At least BNSF would have locos close by when the P42 break down.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 15, 2014)

I'm becoming convinced that Boardman's position is current route or end of service.


----------



## William W. (Jul 15, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I'm becoming convinced that Boardman's position is current route or end of service.


Why do you think that they'd end service? A reroute seems like a minor step compared to killing an entire train line.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 15, 2014)

Amtrak is not going to start new long distance service without states along the way providing some support. That is the reason The Sunset Limited east of New Orleans has not returned. Rerouting the Southwest Chief through Wichita and Amarillo is starting a new long distance route. I haven't heard that Kansas and Texas have come up with any funds to support that route. I agree with GML that Amtrak will eliminate the Southwest Chief and operate the Texas Eagle/Sunset route daily from Chicago to Los Angeles with feeder train from New Orleans to San Antonio (if they get some state support from LA and TX). That will free up a whole bunch of Superliners and locomotives to support the other western long distance trains. Since no new western long distance cars or locomotives are being built, this will help alleviate some of the problems as the equipment gets older.


----------



## NW cannonball (Jul 15, 2014)

neroden said:


> I read some more in-depth analysis from surveys: when teens are asked why they're not getting licenses, it looks like it's about 1/3 "prefer not to drive", 1/3 "can't afford to drive", and 1/3 "can't be bothered, other priorities".





neroden said:


> I read some more in-depth analysis from surveys: when teens are asked why they're not getting licenses, it looks like it's about 1/3 "prefer not to drive", 1/3 "can't afford to drive", and 1/3 "can't be bothered, other priorities".


20-
Cars were a fad and a liberating experience - 100 years ago.

Now a still useful pain-in-the-neck but not something a rational person in any Major Metropolitan Area wants to own.

In the hinterland -- sure -- need one, or two.

Have available at rail and and airports and in the city for visiting friends and relations way out in the stix - good.

But to "own" a stupid money sink? Noway.

I'd rather walk, and do, and it's good for my health.

The money I've saved by not "owning" a car these last 8 years has let me visit Japan, ABQ, and lots of scattered friends all around the country.

My 20-something kids likewise -- one can drive an CVN - says -rent a ground car if have to - prefer public transit - if it has wifi or 4g.. "Greyhound is good, amtrak is better,I can buy 3 cars with thneedey money I've saved not buying the first one"

What I get from the younger generation is - "dumb-f old dad -- we can do without the stupid "needs" you tried to sell us"

They probably right.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 15, 2014)

XHRTSP said:


> the Duck said:
> 
> 
> > Where real markets are for rail passenger service, private business will enter.
> ...


 OK Smart Alec. Gonna ride All Aboard Florida or the Saratoga and North Creek?


----------



## Ryan (Jul 15, 2014)

AAF hasn't even started service, and the S&NC is basically a tourist train. A single roundtrip daily at half the speed you can drive, weekends only for 3 months then M-F for 3 months, does not make for meaningful passenger service.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 15, 2014)

My point is that AAF is WAY beyond the pipe dream of the X or Z trains. S&NC was touted as the first completely private scheduled passenger train service. You misread the schedule, though. Summer Schedule is FRI-MON - only 4 days, not 5. 

Quite frankly, long distance trains can be completely eliminated in this country, and but for a few thousand jobs, and few more thousand having to find "another way", it will be but a blip in the national scheme of things.

That being said, it's a blip that I _enjoy_ and will do just about anything to support (rather than compromise my other major beliefs to support a politician who *might* save the train).


----------



## Ryan (Jul 15, 2014)

I agree that AAF is way beyond pipe dream, and wish them nothing but the best.

I no read gud on the S&NC schedules. 

In the national scheme of things lots of things would be little blips that are also a big deal to the people that it does impact (both the lost jobs, and the lost mobility).

I'd expect the chances of losing the Chief are somewhere between 0 and 0.01%.


----------



## neroden (Jul 15, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I'm becoming convinced that Boardman's position is current route or end of service.


Well, I wrote him to tell him that would be a terrible idea. You can write him too.


----------



## neroden (Jul 15, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> Quite frankly, long distance trains can be completely eliminated in this country, and but for a few thousand jobs, and few more thousand having to find "another way", it will be but a blip in the national scheme of things.


Might look like that at first. In fact, it would be the last straw which would cause me to leave the country permanently. Am I important? No. Am I representative? Yes.
NY-Chicago and NY-Miami matter. (If NY-Chicago goes away, I'm leaving.)

....anyway, I haven't gotten a reply to my email. Boardman may be considering the stupid move of cancelling the SW Chief entirely. Frankly, the Texas Eagle route to LA is unusable due to being three-a-week; even if it were daily, it would be absurdly long at three nights rather than two.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 15, 2014)

jphjaxfl said:


> Amtrak is not going to start new long distance service without states along the way providing some support. That is the reason The Sunset Limited east of New Orleans has not returned. Rerouting the Southwest Chief through Wichita and Amarillo is starting a new long distance route. I haven't heard that Kansas and Texas have come up with any funds to support that route. I agree with GML that Amtrak will eliminate the Southwest Chief and operate the Texas Eagle/Sunset route daily from Chicago to Los Angeles with feeder train from New Orleans to San Antonio (if they get some state support from LA and TX). That will free up a whole bunch of Superliners and locomotives to support the other western long distance trains. Since no new western long distance cars or locomotives are being built, this will help alleviate some of the problems as the equipment gets older.


As a resident of Texas I just gotta tell ya' that due to the current Political Climate here and with the Republican Candidates that are sure to win ( died in the wool Conservatives to the kookiest of the wing nuts) all the State Wide offices and the State Leg and Senate, there won't be any money appropriated to support Amtrak! We'll be lucky to keep the Eagles and the Heartland Flyer! I'm not sure of LA but their Gov and Leg is of a similar bent IINM?? 
Amtrak doesn't have the money to improve/maintain the Raton Route by itself and its a lock that New Mexico and Kansas aren't going to contribute a dime to this!

BNSF isn't a charity, they'll let Amtrak transfer to the Southern Trans-con route for a satisfactorly negotiated contract ( read high!)but UP is a different kettle of fish when it comes to a Daily Eagle from CHI-LAX and a stub train SAS- NOL!

My take, ride the SWC through Raton ASAP in the next year, then get ready to say hello to Witchita, Amarillo by morning and Clovis when the SWC moves to the Southern Transcon!!! Big Joe is blowing smoke and being a Politician which goes with the job! Well be the last to know, Amtrak's Communication with its customers is terrible and the current Managements MO is to keep everything close to the vest and let Rumors run wild!


----------



## the Duck (Jul 15, 2014)

What support are you talking about? Amarillo has already agreed to station and platform How much more do you expect? The Transcon is already an agreed alternate route by both parties and Amtrak has acknowledged such by using it. Would somebody find and post the congressional bill that started Amtrak. I ask question---Could it be that Amtrak Board is in violation of congressional mandate by not reestablishing national service on the Sunset Limited? Whether it is Sunset Limited, Southwest Chief, CZ, or Empire Builder. none of these are coast to coast. They are not serving the Nation. IRS has said two years of no profits the third year of no profits you will be classified as a hobby . --should not this apply to Amtrak and its routes?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 15, 2014)

neroden said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I'm becoming convinced that Boardman's position is current route or end of service.
> ...


Nathaniel, I respect your intelligence, your drive, and your insight greatly- more than almost anyone else here I don't know personally. But you have a serious case of Quixotitis. I am far too involved with issues closer to my house to spend too much time on the Chief.

But I suggest you spend your time, if you want to save that train, building a grassroots effort on one of the two routes. Writing to Boardman is tilting at windmills. He has his orders, and he will carry them out.

We might be fairly successful Americans, my friend, but to the people in Washington, I am a Nobody, and unless you have a lot more money and political power than I estimate, so are you. He won't listen to you. Mica won't listen to you. Nobody at that level will listen to a citizen out of the very top 1%, and those people pay for the ears who listen to them.

I know Boardman- he isn't a bad guy. He is also not independently wealthy. He has a job and he wants to keep it or get promoted. Look up James Simpson for a case of what happens when a government worker tries to improve things for the people against the wishes of his boss.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 15, 2014)

the Duck said:


> Would somebody find and post the congressional bill that started Amtrak. I ask question---Could it be that Amtrak Board is in violation of congressional mandate by not reestablishing national service on the Sunset Limited?


You're perfectly welcome to Google it yourself.



> IRS has said two years of no profits the third year of no profits you will be classified as a hobby . --should not this apply to Amtrak and its routes?


No. Why should it?


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 15, 2014)

neroden said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Quite frankly, long distance trains can be completely eliminated in this country, and but for a few thousand jobs, and few more thousand having to find "another way", it will be but a blip in the national scheme of things.
> ...


I appreciate your passion, but pardon me for sounding cynical. Where would you go? Most countries don't have wide open borders like ours. As much of a Jim Hudson loving right winger TEA party wacko I am, I've had plentyto keep me disgusted over the past 6 years. But I can't find a single country where I can go and enjoy the freedoms and opportunities I enjoy here.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 15, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


You might consider Canada and Australia if you have to leave the US, most like us even if the taxes are high and basicaly are Socialist mixed with Capitalism but both are lovely countries!!!
And my friend Venture Forth isn't as T-party like as he pretends,()just like I'm not totally a Socialist) he's actually a smart guy who's right about our Country, still the best place to be hence the flood of immigrants continuing to risk all to come here!


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 15, 2014)

To the best of my knowledge, neither Canada nor Australia offer ad hoc immigration to US Citizens. Not quite as sure as Canada, but Australia requires a skill set in demand to be considered. That and a lack of anything but super high end tourist trains would make it a nice place to visit but would likely not move to. Canada may be a bit easier, but scores of them are coming over here for some reason. That being said, at least they still have a national rail system!

I've wondered about the UK, but presume after all the Europeans they have flooding their little island, they don't have much room left for American immigrants. But they DO have an avid foamer base and a strong national rail network.

Most other countries don't speak English so they are out. Even though I was born and grew up in Japan, I would not qualify for immigration. But that's one place I would not mind living. Though they DID just raise their consumption tax (ie: VAT or Sales Tax) from 5 to 8%. When I lived there, it was a whopping ZERO.

So, when all is said and done, I'll stay put. Maybe wander from state to state perhaps as employment or political leanings may justify, but I'm happy right here.



jimhudson said:


> And my friend Venture Forth isn't as T-party like as he pretends,(just like I'm not totally a Socialist)


   SHHH!


----------



## William W. (Jul 15, 2014)

The only countries I could see myself moving to are Singapore, Hong Kong, or Canada. Europe is a tax and financial mess, and I don't want to be stolen from to pay for years of bad government policies.

That being said, I don't see myself ever leaving the US. No country has provided more opportunity, and lifted more people out of poverty than America. I wouldn't want to move to another country where my taxes would double or triple, where starting a business is hard, and where everything is much more expensive. Sure, the US may not have the best rail system in the world, but I hardly think that rail should be the primary factor for wanting to move elsewhere. When you weight the pros vs. the cons, there simply isn't a better place to be in the world.


----------



## crescent2 (Jul 15, 2014)

William W. said:


> The only countries I could see myself moving to are Singapore, Hong Kong, or Canada. Europe is a tax and financial mess, and I don't want to be stolen from to pay for years of bad government policies.
> 
> That being said, I don't see myself ever leaving the US. No country has provided more opportunity, and lifted more people out of poverty than America. I wouldn't want to move to another country where my taxes would double or triple, where starting a business is hard, and where everything is much more expensive. Sure, the US may not have the best rail system in the world, but I hardly think that rail should be the primary factor for wanting to move elsewhere. When you weight the pros vs. the cons, there simply isn't a better place to be in the world.


I agree, God bless imperfect America! (I fuss about or more commonly try to avoid politicians, but I do love our nation.)

I will edit to add a little anecdote about the visit of the German educators on teacher exchange some time ago. They were truly surprised at our general standard of living, especially our average, modest (to us) homes. The teacher who stayed in my home kept commenting that I had a garden (yard). (OK, Manhattanites might do that, too! LOL) At her request, we walked around my block and she asked the occupations of every resident, some of which I didn't know of course. German workers generally get more vacation time than most American workers, and their trains certainly rock, but all in all, I think we must have it much better here.

Going OT for a moment, they were also surprised at the amount of road kill, and after a few days, one of them asked us, "Where are all the black servants?" This from teachers and a secondary school principal in the mid-1990's. *sigh* These visits (in both directions, for both teams) were eye openers in some ways. We were more alike than different, though, and we all kept in touch occasionally for many years.

I'm sure they also found it strange that they all spoke English well and not one of us could speak more than a few German words. :blush:


----------



## henryj (Jul 15, 2014)

jphjaxfl said:


> Amtrak is not going to start new long distance service without states along the way providing some support. That is the reason The Sunset Limited east of New Orleans has not returned. Rerouting the Southwest Chief through Wichita and Amarillo is starting a new long distance route. I haven't heard that Kansas and Texas have come up with any funds to support that route. I agree with GML that Amtrak will eliminate the Southwest Chief and operate the Texas Eagle/Sunset route daily from Chicago to Los Angeles with feeder train from New Orleans to San Antonio (if they get some state support from LA and TX). That will free up a whole bunch of Superliners and locomotives to support the other western long distance trains. Since no new western long distance cars or locomotives are being built, this will help alleviate some of the problems as the equipment gets older.


Railpac in California is saying the exact opposite: http://www.railpac.org/2014/07/09/sunset-limited-in-jeopardy-is-serious-business-part-1-comments-by-railpac-member-steve-roberts/ (note citation Ryan)

They think the Sunset is in the most danger and with it the Eagle as the 'tea partiers' will go after the worst performing routes. A worst case scenario would be that both happen, the Sunset and Eagle fall as well as the SWC. Think about it. Amtrak seemingly wants out of the LD business. This would eliminate three money losing trains and the Cardinal would be the fourth. It would free up lots of Superliner equipment to put on the remaining western trains, the CS which runs through three pro-passenger rail states and the CZ and EB which have spectacular scenery. In the East they could superliner the combined Capitol/Silver Star all the way to Florida and only run the Meteor up to NY. They could cut the Crescent at Atlanta and abandon the CONO(thus leaving New Orleans without any passenger rail service), leaving all those extra viewliners for the remaining trains. This should cut their LD loses in half and would leave the whole southwest part of the US without any passenger rail other than the Dallas/Fort Worth commuter operation and the Heartland Flyer. Nothing would operate west of New Orleans or Kansas City without state support. It's a 'tea party' and Eastern sophisticate dream.

There seems to be no doubt now, with the immigration fiasco and all the other scandals, that the Repubs will retake the Senate and reinforce their House majority which will strengthen the so called 'tea partiers'. None of these groups have any sympathy for Amtrak or passenger rail in general for whatever reason. (I know it makes no sense, but that is reality.....write your representative and let them know where you stand). Some see the glass half full....I see a looming disaster, at least in my part of the 'woods'.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 15, 2014)

Canada and Australia both have excellent public transportation systems in the large cities but being so large and sparesly populated ( California and Texas each have more people than either) the rural areas require roads and vehicles!

I do have to say that Income Taxes and the Goods and Services Tax (VAT in Australia) are high as are Luxury Taxes! Most Americans don't realize how lightly we are taxed compared to other developed countries!

That being said their Health Cate, Education and Senior Programs are far superior to ours where we still have Millions of Citizens without Health Care and Golden Age/ Retirement Security!

We Spend the most on everything but are falling farther behind in all measurable quality of life catagpries!

IMO and lots of experts this is due to one thing, Greed!

I was raised to believe I am my brothers keeper and that we are all in this together, not everyone for themselves, that's a Third World or Plantation Mentality! Let them eat cake is not an American Value!

Canada and Australia do have good but expensive LD Trains but also everything is more expensive than here except Education and Medical Care!

Rant over, YMMV which is your right!


----------



## Ryan (Jul 15, 2014)

henryj said:


> (note citation Ryan)


That's nice.

Now maybe you can provide a citation or three about the bloated overhead. Or you can actually lay out your own ideas, since you keep repeating it without any specific details.


----------



## William W. (Jul 15, 2014)

Do we really think that the Republicans will go all the way and eliminate many of the LD routes? They controlled Congress, and the presidency, for years. Amtrak wasn't eliminated then. I think that you guys overestimate the strength of the Tea Party. It is a minority within the Republican Party, and despite what certain quarters would have you believe, it does not control the party. Sure, there are some who are rabidly anti-Amtrak, but when the issue actually comes up for a vote, I think that many Republicans will have trouble voting for large scale service cuts. Politicians don't like to have to explain any sort of hurtful cuts to their constituents. Even Indiana, which is a firmly Republican state, still chose to fund the Hoosier State, even if it was at the last minute. The most that I could see happening is the elimination of the Sunset Limited (and that may, at the end of the day, not be an overly bad thing). Even with the Sunset Limited, I'd imagine that once a proposal for elimination is introduced by some Congressman, there would be a swell of opposition from the areas that it serves. When people get mad about an issue, their representatives ignore them at their own peril.

I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet that Amtrak's sky will not fall as soon as the Republicans take the Senate.


----------



## andersone (Jul 15, 2014)

Ryan by chance do you know the very colorful joke about the southern ladies Ethel and Eustace sitting out on their porch swing?


----------



## greatcats (Jul 15, 2014)

Several years ago while aboard an Amtrak train, one of the female onboard staff made this comment: " They've been trying to get rid of us for years and we're still here "


----------



## crescent2 (Jul 15, 2014)

If Amtrak's held on this long, I would be very surprised if entire routes and trains are eliminated, regardless of election results. Just an off the top of my head thought, no facts/figures to back this up.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 15, 2014)

When dealing with politicians, turn off the sound and watch the action. Don't forget the big Amtrak cuts were under Carter. Also, don't forget the "Glidepath to Self Sufficiency" was actully a smoke and mirros operation that consumed assets, leaving the system without extra anything. As to the anti-BNSF rants concerning the SW chief and Empire Buildier, do you really think BNSF wants to deal with a lot of congetion and train delays? Improvements in track capacity do not happen by waving a magic want. Also, Amtrak does not help themselves in this area with on-line power failures and crews going dead on the law. These last ones are issues entirely within their own control, and they should fix them before complaining about what the host railroad is doing. Proper power maintenance is far cheaper than adding track capacity.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 15, 2014)

RyanS said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > (note citation Ryan)
> ...


H.R.4745 - Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 has passed the house and incorporated the following amendments:

H.Amdt.842 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Description: Amendment prohibits use of funds for Amtrak's Sunset Limited line.

Sponsor: Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32] (Offered 06/10/2014)

Latest Action: 06/10/14 On agreeing to the Sessions amendment (A065) Agreed to by voice vote.

H.Amdt.841 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Description: Amendment prohibits the use of funds to subsidize Amtrak Food and Beverage Service.

Sponsor: Rep. Gingrey, Phil [R-GA-11] (Offered 06/10/2014)

Latest Action: 06/10/14 On agreeing to the Gingrey (GA) amendment (A064) Agreed to by voice vote.

It looks like H.Amdt.842 made it into the final text as such:

Sec. 436. None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used to support Amtrak's route with the highest loss, measured by contributions/(Loss) per Rider, as based on the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Fiscal Years 2013-2017 Five Year Plan from May 2013.

However, it does NOT look like the Food and Beverage text made it.

Now, this bill has only passed the house. The Senate has not reconciled it and so who knows what will be eventually passed.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 15, 2014)

I'm well aware of that, having posted it here in the first place.

It doesn't have anything to do with Henry's beloved "bloated overhead".


----------



## the Duck (Jul 16, 2014)

The Hudson and the Henry J were cool cars for their time but I liked the Buick best-- That grill and straight 8 engine. But now its tin can ride and that is now driving people back to mass transit.


----------



## neroden (Jul 16, 2014)

William W. said:


> When you weight the pros vs. the cons, there simply isn't a better place to be in the world.


Absolute and utter nonsense. I'm sure there are some people for whom the US is the best place. For me? England.
(1) Universal single-payer health care would cut my expenses by roughly $10000 per year and probably improve my health as well.

(2) Decent rail service, both local and intercity, would vastly improve my ability to travel and enjoy vacations. If we lose NY-Chicago rail service, I can't comfortably travel anywhere outside the northeast of the US any more; it would be the last straw. By contrast, I could travel from England as far as Turkey, Portugal, or Vladivostok.

(3) My taxes would, frankly, not go up by much compared to the savings from universal single-payer health care. My taxes are pretty high now. (I live in New York State.)

(4) I buy most of my entertainment and half my family's clothing from England *anyway*, for various reasons, so I'd save a lot on shipping and have better selection.

The main issue is finding someplace in England with a manageable cost of housing.

Anyway, I'm where I am for family reasons, but if I couldn't get out of here occasionally by train, I would say to hell with it and move somewhere better.


----------



## neroden (Jul 16, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Also, Amtrak does not help themselves in this area with on-line power failures and crews going dead on the law. These last ones are issues entirely within their own control,


No, they certainly aren't. You know better than this. Power failures, yes, Amtrak's responsibility. Crews go "dead on the law" because of other delays, which are often caused by the host freight railroads.


----------



## neroden (Jul 16, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> But I suggest you spend your time, if you want to save that train, building a grassroots effort on one of the two routes. Writing to Boardman is tilting at windmills. He has his orders, and he will carry them out.


That's never been true at Amtrak. They've never had clear orders, they've always had muddled and contradictory instructions from multiple squabbling Congressmen.
And what do you think asking people to write to Boardman is doing, if not building a grassroots effort?


----------



## neroden (Jul 16, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Nathaniel, I respect your intelligence, your drive, and your insight greatly- more than almost anyone else here I don't know personally. But you have a serious case of Quixotitis.


Always did. 



> I am far too involved with issues closer to my house to spend too much time on the Chief.


Bluntly, I like being able to get to San Diego & LA. And I don't fly (except in emergencies).



> We might be fairly successful Americans, my friend, but to the people in Washington, I am a Nobody, and unless you have a lot more money and political power than I estimate, so are you. He won't listen to you. Mica won't listen to you. Nobody at that level will listen to a citizen out of the very top 1%,


Top 0.1%. Top 1% isn't rich enough. Just so you know. Not always true of Representatives (they will listen to much smaller donors than you might think), but definitely true of Senators in major states.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 16, 2014)

William W. said:


> Do we really think that the Republicans will go all the way and eliminate many of the LD routes? They controlled Congress, and the presidency, for years. Amtrak wasn't eliminated then.


Yes, but things have changed. At the time the Dems weren't especially pro Amtrak either. look for example at the damage the Carter administration caused. Amtrak politics were more bipartisan with those who thought they gained some benefit defending Amtrak, and those who thought they didn't attacking it. By standing behind Amtrak so definitely, the Dems have made Amtrak their baby and thus a target for Rep attacks.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 16, 2014)

neroden said:


> William W. said:
> 
> 
> > The main issue is finding someplace in England with a manageable cost of housing.


There are plenty of places in England where housing is manageable. Some very pretty places too. Just that those aren't places with many jobs.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 16, 2014)

cirdan said:


> William W. said:
> 
> 
> > Do we really think that the Republicans will go all the way and eliminate many of the LD routes? They controlled Congress, and the presidency, for years. Amtrak wasn't eliminated then.
> ...


Boy have they ever. Can you imagine a Republican candidate for office saying "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."?

What about the EPA? Started by a Republican President, now all of the cool kids in the Republican Party want to defund it (when Rick Perry can remember what it's called, that is).



> By standing behind Amtrak so definitely, the Dems have made Amtrak their baby and thus a target for Rep attacks.


Sadly, this. Even when the idea originated with a Republican, as soon as Obama and the Democrats support it, it's "all hands on deck" to try and kill it (most amusingly so when Romney spent his whole campaign railing against the healthcare plan that he rolled out as Governor).

Today's Republican Party bears very little resemblance to that of years past, so the "They didn't do it before, so don't worry, they won't do it if given the chance" argument doesn't really hold any water.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 16, 2014)

If you were a congressional person on Transportation committee in state of New Mexico; concerning "Southwest Chief" What would you do and why?


----------



## henryj (Jul 16, 2014)

I would not give them a dime. Why? Because our tax payers already support Amtrak and we get little or nothing back. Same goes for most of the western states. The big money all goes to the NEC. So...........if the worst happens and these western LD trains disappear, then the rest of Amtrak won't be far behind simply because any support it now has will just vanish. The NEC and the East coast will be on their own. And good luck with that.



the Duck said:


> If you were a congressional person on Transportation committee in state of New Mexico; concerning "Southwest Chief" What would you do and why?


----------



## henryj (Jul 16, 2014)

William W. said:


> The only countries I could see myself moving to are Singapore, Hong Kong, or Canada. Europe is a tax and financial mess, and I don't want to be stolen from to pay for years of bad government policies.
> 
> That being said, I don't see myself ever leaving the US. No country has provided more opportunity, and lifted more people out of poverty than America. I wouldn't want to move to another country where my taxes would double or triple, where starting a business is hard, and where everything is much more expensive. Sure, the US may not have the best rail system in the world, but I hardly think that rail should be the primary factor for wanting to move elsewhere. When you weight the pros vs. the cons, there simply isn't a better place to be in the world.


All this talk about leaving the country is just bogus. However, if Amtrak decides to take away the few trains we have left out here, then none of us have any reason to stay on this board or to support Amtrak any further. Any trains that are left are state supported and can be run by any good operator. Amtrak isn't needed and it becomes just an NEC operation..........which makes money, so no government support needed. Right? haha.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 16, 2014)

I know you're talking toungue and cheek, but the states should support intercity trains that are completely within its boundaries. If a train transverses across a couple states, particularly in the NE where states are the size of picnic tables, share the costs. Likewise with commuter/transit. The city should support it, and neighboring cities should be a part of a coop to support commuters that cross city boundaries (but within a particular megapolis).

So, I support the 750 mile rule that Amtrak has adopted. If ridership permits, then the taxpayers of the communites and regions that demand the service will support their rail.

NEC could fall into that category. In fact, I would just about argue that Amtrak shouldn't be part of the NEC at all, and that the states between Virginia and Boston pay for, maintain, and reap the benefits from it.

Amtrak should provide the connectivity between large swaths of land that are unprofitable for private enterprise to maintain - the LA - Chicago, Chicago - NYC/BOS, Miami - NYC. Its the connecting of the microsystems (ok, they are huge, but compared to the landmass of the US) that adds to the success of those microsystems.

So, ideally, Amtrak would be just the overnight trains, and they would be completely subsidized by the government. But I, along with probably most other taxpayers, believe that is pure waste.

I've mentioned recently that even the most successful systems in the world (ie: JR, IR) are subsidized - if not by the government, by their own diversification internally.

When I worked at Walt Disney World, there was an effort for every business unit to turn a profit. Every hotel had to pay for itself. Food and beverage had to pay for itself. Merchandizing had to pay for itself. Sounds pretty good. But the Jungle Cruise or Space Mountain doesn't make money. The custodians aren't tipped. So what's been the result? Merchandizing, Food and Beverage, and the Hotels have made huge profits, and weren't really allowed to "subsidize" park attractions. So park revenue had to be increased. Today it costs nearly $100 for each person to enter a theme park in Orlando.

Disney gets away with it because there is demand. Amtrak doesn't have the demand to command the high ticket prices it needs to sustain the long distance services. They can't stand alone, and they can't be eliminated or they will damage the rest of the system. Can you imaging if Disney got rid of the rides because they didn't make money?


----------



## neroden (Jul 16, 2014)

the Duck said:


> If you were a congressional person on Transportation committee in state of New Mexico; concerning "Southwest Chief" What would you do and why?


Well, I would have advocated buying the Raton Pass route for future safeguarding of a Denver-Albuqeurque route. Once it was state-owned, we could think seriously about whether it was appropriate to upgrade it now, or when, or what.

Oh wait, they did that, and the current governor backed out on the deal. :-(


----------



## Braniff747SP (Jul 16, 2014)

Paulus said:


> > Should we be limited to just one mode of transportation, or should we have the freedom to choose how we move about the country?
> 
> 
> Freedom to choose how we move about the country does not entail the rest of the country massively subsidizing your travel.


The rest of the country _does _subsidize all other sorts of travel.

The Interstate Highway System is a subsidy for the motor vehicle and trucking industry. EAS (and the rest of the federally funded system) are subsidies for the airlines. Amtrak is merely subsidized in a more direct manner--in one that, at the end of the day, is considerably more cost-effective versus programs like the EAS.



Paulus said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


While this is true--look to Renfe and Adif, for example in Spain--the market there is incredibly different to that in the United States and can't really be compared.


----------



## A.J. (Jul 16, 2014)

After reading about half the posts in this great topic, I have a pretty simple question: are the track problems the reason for the SWC being so late recently? I have a trip on it planned for mid-August and I'm a little concerned about meeting up with my partner in Gallup. Thanks for any help!


----------



## Paul CHI (Jul 16, 2014)

Does the Raton ROW remain the property of BNSF even if it falls into disuse and the rails are removed? I see a lot of states have "rails to trails" but my understanding is that the railroads have the right to recapture those?


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2014)

A.J. said:


> After reading about half the posts in this great topic, I have a pretty simple question: are the track problems the reason for the SWC being so late recently? I have a trip on it planned for mid-August and I'm a little concerned about meeting up with my partner in Gallup. Thanks for any help!


I am pretty sure most of the big delays have been from equipment problems. There are MANY slow orders on the mentioned track that are not helping the situation, but not the main reason they are late. Some trains are arriving right on time.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 16, 2014)

neroden said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > But I suggest you spend your time, if you want to save that train, building a grassroots effort on one of the two routes. Writing to Boardman is tilting at windmills. He has his orders, and he will carry them out.
> ...


Boardman doesn't have the power to respond; Congress does. The only way to get congress to respond is huge numbers. Something like MLKs march on Washington would do the trick quite nicely.


----------



## BPGallagher (Jul 16, 2014)

That reply is from Joe, as I was there when he wrote it. You mention other routes, but those were prior to this administration. Furthermore, how do you fund expansion when they are unwilling to properly fund the present national network? The issue today is funding what exists so nothing more is lost.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 16, 2014)

That's about 11 million different shades of awesome.

Thanks for sharing that, and that's super awesome of Mr. Boardman to take the time for a personal reply.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2014)

I also emailed Mr Boardman concerning the reroute and also the poor performance of the current locomotives. It was clearly a direct response from him from his iPhone.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## the Duck (Jul 16, 2014)

to clear up some misunderstanding about the rejected purchase of the Raton line please digest these facts and ask yourself what you would do in such a circumstance. All that I' m about to say is found on the internet--I found it you can find it. When Martinez took over as Governor--she tried to complete the deal .BNSF would not cooperate-- New Mexico wanted to get on the rail property to examine it so they would know what they were buying oil spills, etc.. BNSF would not allow New Mexico on the property, this went on for a while and the Governor got fed Up. and said no more, According to New Mexico State real estate Law in a deal gone bad purchasing party has a right to ask and receive their earnest money back. It was BNSF that killed the deal.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 16, 2014)

Duck - I didn't find any of that in news sources. All I could find was that a) BNSF failed to close on the deal and b) that allowed Martinez to cancel the purchase as she didn't believe that the ROI would be imminent. Yes - BNSF killed the deal, but I think if Martinez wanted it, she could have bought it. Communities along the line were also concerned about the sale to the state, as the state is exempt from property taxes, which would hurt the communities along the route.

But this is just one peg - 190 miles or so out of 600+ that will be cut.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 16, 2014)

Wow, Amtrak Executives posting on AU and responding personally to members, not using a PR flack!

Outstanding!


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2014)

BPGallagher said:


> That reply is from Joe, as I was there when he wrote it. You mention other routes, but those were prior to this administration. Furthermore, how do you fund expansion when they are unwilling to properly fund the present national network? The issue today is funding what exists so nothing more is lost.


Mr Gallagher, if you have read this thread, it seems to most people (if not all) that the reroute makes a lot more sense for Amtrak. I understand not wanting to abandon the people on the current route, but Amtrak has not made an argument why it makes financial sense (for Amtrak) to stay on the current route.

If the reroute is cheaper and has the potential for higher ridership, how does that not help Amtrak?


----------



## the Duck (Jul 16, 2014)

Venture Forth: I"l help get you started by suggesting you start by Googling "New Mexico Rail purchase" and work your way to State documents by New Mexico. You won't find the information in major news paper or station. If I have to hold your hand and point it out to you----I charge for that.


----------



## Bedford (Jul 16, 2014)

Printman2000 asks Mr. Gallagher a key question. "If the reroute is cheaper and has the potential for higher ridership how does that not help Amtrak?" I would be very surprised if Brian or Mr. Boardman would dispute this if the two premises contained therein we in fact true. Printman2000 says "it seems to most people (if not all) that the reroute makes a lot more sense for Amtrak.". Who are "most people"? Are any of them decision-makers at Amtrak or BNSF? Do any of them hold the purse strings in Texas, New Mexico, Kansas or Colorado? How much money did "most people" spend on Amtrak last year? If the reroute is really cheaper and really has the potential for higher ridership how dumb do you think Mr. Boardman and Gallagher are?


----------



## jis (Jul 16, 2014)

I was wondering too who these most people are. Six most prolific posters on AU do not constitute most people by a long shot. So sorry, a little more supporting evidence both on the most people bit and also the cheaper bit is necessary. Do we really know what exactly is the deal that has been offered by BNSF? If so, how did we come to know of it and what are the actual numbers?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2014)

My point is that Amtrak has never shared any information about a possible reroute. All we can do is speculate and most people on this forum feel it is the better option. Until Amtrak tells us how a reroute would be worse or cost more and provide less ridership, most of us will not believe it to be true.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2014)

It seems most posts on this forum lean towards the reroute being more viable. I guess I could try and make a tally, but it feels that way by what I have read.

Maybe it is not most. But it sure seems that way by what I remember reading.

I guess I should also add that I am referring to people who have put in their opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Bedford (Jul 16, 2014)

I believe you are correct, sir and you are helping to get to the bottom of this.


----------



## jis (Jul 16, 2014)

Yes. At most half a dozen most prolific posters have been going on and on about it. But that does not necessarily mean a hill of beans in the real world unfortunately.  AFAICT none of them have produced any credible evidence that they know what the finances of the deal involved are. There has just been a lot of speculation and wishful thinking flying around. Just IMHO of course.

It sure would be nice to get some more grounded info. But then again, I am not sure that those in the know are able to share such without running afoul of their fiduciary responsibilities at this point in time.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 16, 2014)

I guess what I should have said was it seems to me the reroute would cost less and have more potential ridership. That is based on just my personal logic of the situation, nothing firm.

So Mr Gallagher, would that true or not? Or has it even been figured out?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Bedford (Jul 16, 2014)

printman2000 gets my vote as an honest and honorable person.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 16, 2014)

the Duck said:


> Venture Forth: I"l help get you started by suggesting you start by Googling "New Mexico Rail purchase" and work your way to State documents by New Mexico. You won't find the information in major news paper or station. If I have to hold your hand and point it out to you----I charge for that.


Or you can quit being an ass and just post the link if you're actually interested in having an honest conversation.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 16, 2014)

Is Guest _The Duck_ our old friend trainaddict the troll??


----------



## neroden (Jul 17, 2014)

jis said:


> Yes. At most half a dozen most prolific posters have been going on and on about it. But that does not necessarily mean a hill of beans in the real world unfortunately.  AFAICT none of them have produced any credible evidence that they know what the finances of the deal involved are.


BNSF can try to hold Amtrak hostage for whatever it likes, obviously.
If this were a friendly business deal, it would be obvious that the reroute was better; the technical evidence is clear. But we know that Class I railroads behave badly when it comes to Amtrak. :shrug: What else can we have but speculation?


----------



## neroden (Jul 17, 2014)

the Duck said:


> to clear up some misunderstanding about the rejected purchase of the Raton line please digest these facts and ask yourself what you would do in such a circumstance. All that I' m about to say is found on the internet--I found it you can find it. When Martinez took over as Governor--she tried to complete the deal .BNSF would not cooperate-- New Mexico wanted to get on the rail property to examine it so they would know what they were buying oil spills, etc.. BNSF would not allow New Mexico on the property, this went on for a while and the Governor got fed Up. and said no more, According to New Mexico State real estate Law in a deal gone bad purchasing party has a right to ask and receive their earnest money back. It was BNSF that killed the deal.


None of this is true. Martinez did make up some **** excuses.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 17, 2014)

the Duck said:


> If I have to hold your hand and point it out to you----I charge for that.


Ewwww.

:wacko:


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 17, 2014)

RyanS said:


> the Duck said:
> 
> 
> > Venture Forth: I"l help get you started by suggesting you start by Googling "New Mexico Rail purchase" and work your way to State documents by New Mexico. You won't find the information in major news paper or station. If I have to hold your hand and point it out to you----I charge for that.
> ...


Indeed. Sorry, Duck, but I don't have the time nor the inclination to sort through 5,090,000 results of that search term, the first 10 of which result in a partnership with Hinkle Family Fun center, how to purchase NM Railrunner tickets, and two links to Wikipedia on the Gadsen purchase.

If you have something worthwhile, quote it, cite it, post it, link it.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 17, 2014)

See dude! I'm an equal opportunity [citation needed]. Don't take it so personally when I ask you to back up your claims, maybe?


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 17, 2014)

printman2000 said:


> I guess what I should have said was it seems to me the reroute would cost less and have more potential ridership. That is based on just my personal logic of the situation, nothing firm.
> 
> So Mr Gallagher, would that true or not? Or has it even been figured out?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


The point of Boardman's reply is NOT that a route though Amarillo is a good idea, but rather he doesn't want to do it on the backs of losing those between ABQ - Raton - Dodge City. 52,000 passengers embarked or disembarked at stops that would be eliminated. ABQ had 72,000 in 2013.

Let's look at the advantages of keeping the existing route:

1) All those Boy Scouts that go to Raton are, as of this year, paying full adult fare!

2) Raton has about the same passenger count as Lamy (for Santa Fe)

3) It would be about the closest thing to a dedicated passenger route, with no freight (thus schedule) interference

4) Prettier than the Transcon

The disadvantages to the Transcon include:

1) High freight traffic. Even if passenger train speeds are 20 MPH over freight, you can't leap frog if both mains are congested.

2) Could Amarillo make up the 52,000 passenger deficit? 300,000 people???

No matter how it goes, I agree with Mr. Gallagher - Amtrak is just trying to keep the status quo. New routes (or even reroutes) will be difficult. We can always hope. Heck, many of us thought that the FEC deal would have panned out by now.

I totally get it if Amtrak is concerned that if they try to pursue the transcon, they could lose the route outright.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 17, 2014)

No matter what you say, it's just opinion unless you back it up with cited facts.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 17, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> The point of Boardman's reply is NOT that a route though Amarillo is a good idea, but rather he doesn't want to do it on the backs of losing those between ABQ - Raton - Dodge City. 52,000 passengers embarked or disembarked at stops that would be eliminated. ABQ had 72,000 in 2013.
> 
> Let's look at the advantages of keeping the existing route:
> 
> ...


Your response has really made me think about this. I guess I am looking at the options wrong. I was thinking about the costs of running on either line and thinking the transcon would be cheaper (all the infrastructure costs vs. the new route development costs). However, that is not what Amtrak is doing. They are wanting the states to pay for the bulk of the infrastructure and if that happens, the current route would be better *for Amtrak*. If Amtrak had to pay for all the infrastructure costs, then I guess my question above would be more legitimate.

I do have one issue with one thing you said. You asked if Amarillo would make up for the ENTIRE route that lost service. I doubt it would. But I suspect the ENTIRE reroute would make up for the stations lost, eventually. Not right away, but I believe it will eventually exceed the current numbers.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 17, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> No matter what you say, it's just opinion unless you back it up with cited facts.


Duh.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 17, 2014)

printman2000 said:


> I do have one issue with one thing you said. You asked if Amarillo would make up for the ENTIRE route that lost service. I doubt it would. But I suspect the ENTIRE reroute would make up for the stations lost, eventually. Not right away, but I believe it will eventually exceed the current numbers.


I think I can find common ground here. I don't know where I came up with 300,000.... :blush:

Amarillo is certainly larger than any of the existing stops along the route of the SWC. There seem to be way fewer "small" towns along that route, hence my suggestion that Amarillo would have to take all the slack.

Texas should consider connecting Amarillo to Lubbock and then to Fort Worth via Wichita Falls. Haa haaa hheeee heeee hee ehehheh :help: :help:   :giggle:


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 17, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > I do have one issue with one thing you said. You asked if Amarillo would make up for the ENTIRE route that lost service. I doubt it would. But I suspect the ENTIRE reroute would make up for the stations lost, eventually. Not right away, but I believe it will eventually exceed the current numbers.
> ...


Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.


----------



## railbuck (Jul 17, 2014)

printman2000 said:


> Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.


I'd consider Wichita basically a replacement for Hutchinson. There may be the opportunity to pick up a few passengers who aren't currently willing to drive to HUT (or NEW for that matter) but for the most part it will probably be the same people riding the train, just boarding at a different stop.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 17, 2014)

railbuck said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.
> ...


Maybe. I bet with a move, though, a lot more people will know about Amtrak and become riders. It is still a 30 minute drive to the closest station of Newton (not Hutchinson).


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 17, 2014)

printman2000 said:


> railbuck said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


I dunno... Hate to sound pessimestic, but a good chunk of Savannaians don't know about Amtrak.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 17, 2014)

With the current Political situation in Texas I don't think the State would put a Nickel into New Rail Service!

Lubbock's Population is a little over 300,000 and it's the Home of a Major University with 30,000+ students, Texas Tech! It is a liitle over a 100 Miles South of Amarillo via I-27, "the Freeway to Nowhere!", so an Thruway Bus would probably work fine to connect with the SWC!! Other than Southwest Airlines and a Regional Bus Line, (Kerrville used to serve this Route) driving is the only way to get to/from Lubbock!

Amarillo, combined with the Populations of Witchita, Lubbock and Clovis Has the potential for a Big Increase in Ridership for the SWC compared to the small, fading towns in Western Kansas,Eastern Colorado and New Mexico!

As for the boy Scouts, they could still ride the SWC to ABQ and bus to the Ranch just like they do now on the current Raton Route!

Edit; I used the City of Lubbock's Home Page for the stats, (which evidently is optimistic!) Thanks for the update!


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 17, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> Lubbock's Population is a little over 300,000 and it's the Home of a Major University, Texas Tech! It is aliitle over a 100 Miles South of Amarillo via I-27, "the Freeway to Nowhere!" So an Thruway Bus would probably work to connect with the SWC!! Other than Southwest Airlines and a Regional Bus Line, driving is the only way to get to/from Lubbock!


Actually, Lubbock is only around 240,000 and they also have United and American Eagle flights.


----------



## sechs (Jul 20, 2014)

railbuck said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.
> ...


Wichita is really just a replacement for Newton, which wouldn't lose service.

Folks need to stop relying on Wichita to add any meaningful passenger load. These folks already drive to Newton. It's not that much more convenient to catch the train in old town.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 20, 2014)

sechs said:


> railbuck said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


Eh? Nearly thirty miles is a significant distance and most importantly Wichita is a heck of a lot more convenient to use public transportation for.


----------



## sechs (Jul 20, 2014)

Paulus said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > railbuck said:
> ...


I promise you, it's not a significant distance in Kansas, and public transit there is inconvenient, by itself. One certainly isn't going to find a bus at three o'clock-ish in the morning.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 20, 2014)

I imagine if Wichita got service, there would be a lot of publicity with it and a lot more people would know about it. I am willing to bet a lot of people there have no idea Amtrak is anywhere near them.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## neroden (Jul 20, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > railbuck said:
> ...


Wichita Union Station is in a much better location than Savannah Amshack -- and it's also a much flashier station. There's been a lot of talk in the newspapers about it, first about potentially bringing service there on the Heartland Flyer, and second about developer Gary Oborny redeveloping it. I think people would notice if it got service.


----------



## neroden (Jul 20, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> The point of Boardman's reply is NOT that a route though Amarillo is a good idea, but rather he doesn't want to do it on the backs of losing those between ABQ - Raton - Dodge City.


Well, sure. But the way I look at it, the most important thing is to keep the LAX-ABQ-KCY-CHI service.
If the towns on the existing route cannot come up with the money to keep it viable, then Amtrak should talk to the towns on the alternate route, because they probably *will* come up with the money to keep *that* route viable. So far Amtrak has actually refused to talk to Amarillo, Wichita, and Clovis.



> I totally get it if Amtrak is concerned that if they try to pursue the transcon, they could lose the route outright.


I don't get it. Because if Amtrak doesn't try to pursue the Transcon next year, they will lose the route outright. If I were ridiculously optimistic, I'd suggest that governors of NM and KS might be replaced in November with massive supporters of the Raton route who will pay for it, but even Colorado won't commit money, so it seems unlikely.


----------



## neroden (Jul 21, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> 2) Could Amarillo make up the 52,000 passenger deficit? 300,000 people???


Lamy passengers (for Santa Fe) would simply switch to Albuquerque (for Santa Fe), just as the loss of Hutchinson would be balanced by the gain from Wichita. The passenger count would be roughly the same on the Transcon very quickly, assuming Wichita, Amarillo, and Clovis got service.
It could go up if additional stations got service or if better Thruway Bus connections were scheduled to serve the bypassed areas.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 21, 2014)

neroden said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


Savannah's station is hardly an Amshack. It's not the nicest, but for it's utilitarian 60's architecture, it's kept in good repair. Other than the rails in the station which are about as bad as Washington Union Station, the canopy could use a case of paint.

It's the location in Savannah that makes it unappealing. And it's certainly well less than 30 miles from the center of town.


----------



## jis (Jul 21, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> Savannah's station is hardly an Amshack. It's not the nicest, but for it's utilitarian 60's architecture, it's kept in good repair. Other than the rails in the station which are about as bad as Washington Union Station, the canopy could use a case of paint.
> 
> It's the location in Savannah that makes it unappealing. And it's certainly well less than 30 miles from the center of town.


I agree. Savannah is not a station that I would describe as an Amshack. Denver Union Station it isn't, but neither is it Salt Lake City, which is more appropriately described as an Amshack. It is actually very well kept and quite nice for the traffic it carries, including acting as an O/D point for a long distance day train.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 21, 2014)

In the past the passenger Train was the center of activity for a lot of towns and cities. Not so today. The passenger train today is just another "bump in the road". That is what must be overcome.


----------



## amtkstn (Jul 21, 2014)

That is because people are always in a hurry to travel,. When we get true high speed rail in this county more will travel by train.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 22, 2014)

I have always said a passenger train is no good unless it travels at least as fast as an automobile (in West Highway speeds are 75/80 mph) , So with stops and all other considerations you would say a passenger train needs to travel more 100 mph to be successful?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 22, 2014)

I would say your assumption is ludicrous.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 22, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I would say your assumption is ludicrous.


Especially considering the long distance trains generally have high load factors.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 22, 2014)

We'll just let GML and Z17 live out in the west and walk everywhere they go then we'll see what they think. quack! quack!


----------



## henryj (Jul 22, 2014)

the Duck said:


> We'll just let GML and Z17 live out in the west and walk everywhere they go then we'll see what they think. quack! quack!


GML, Z17, Ryan and the other 'eastern sophisticates' have no idea what they are talking about. They live in an environment where you can walk, bicycle or take public transit to wherever you want to go. They also don't understand the cost structure of the LD trains. The longer it takes for the train to make it from end to end the higher the labor costs.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 22, 2014)

the Duck said:


> We'll just let GML and Z17 live out in the west and walk everywhere they go then we'll see what they think. quack! quack!


Who said anything about walking? You compared it to cars.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 22, 2014)

henryj said:


> the Duck said:
> 
> 
> > We'll just let GML and Z17 live out in the west and walk everywhere they go then we'll see what they think. quack! quack!
> ...


There's no way I can "walk, bicycle or take public transit to wherever you want to go", but thanks for playing.

I also understand the cost structures just fine.

If you're going to drag me into a conversation, you can at least not be wrong about every single point you make while doing it.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 22, 2014)

the Duck said:


> I have always said a passenger train is no good unless it travels at least as fast as an automobile (in West Highway speeds are 75/80 mph) , So with stops and all other considerations you would say a passenger train needs to travel more 100 mph to be successful?


 Now that I am a part of the discussion apparently, top speed doesn't have anything to do with it. For trips over 8 hours or so (more than a person can drive in a day), a train can have a slower top speed but still get me to my destination more quickly since it can move while I'm eating, sleeping and relaxing. Apparently out west things are more spread out (really?!?!?), so this advantage is more important.

Even if the overall travel time is slower, I'd rather sit and relax for 10 hours than drive for 8.



SarahZ said:


> the Duck said:
> 
> 
> > We'll just let GML and Z17 live out in the west and walk everywhere they go then we'll see what they think. quack! quack!
> ...


The goalposts must have gotten on a train and been moved without our knowledge.


----------



## William W. (Jul 22, 2014)

At least he didn't mention bloated overhead.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 22, 2014)

William W. said:


> At least he didn't mention bloated overhead.


Shhhh... That's like saying, "Beetlejuice."


----------



## jis (Jul 22, 2014)

I am trying very hard to stay out of this fray. :lol: I will just get some popcorn and soda and settle down for the show.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 22, 2014)

jis said:


> I am trying very hard to stay out of this fray. :lol: I will just get some popcorn and soda and settle down for the show.


Here, Jis. You need this .gif.


----------



## jebr (Jul 22, 2014)

the Duck said:


> I have always said a passenger train is no good unless it travels at least as fast as an automobile (in West Highway speeds are 75/80 mph) , So with stops and all other considerations you would say a passenger train needs to travel more 100 mph to be successful?


Define "successful."


----------



## Ryan (Jul 22, 2014)

Excellent question. I was using "worthwhile to subsidize" as a poor substitute.



SarahZ said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I am trying very hard to stay out of this fray. :lol: I will just get some popcorn and soda and settle down for the show.
> ...


Everyone else:


----------



## JayPea (Jul 22, 2014)

Sarah's Michael Jackson meme fits me perfectly too. I will be riding the SWC for its full length from Chicago to Los Angeles in less than two weeks and I'm sure I will be thinking of ducks and bloated overhead for the entire journey. :lol:


----------



## Ryan (Jul 22, 2014)

henryj said:


> 'eastern sophisticates'





Someone needs a geography lesson, too.


----------



## jis (Jul 22, 2014)

Not to mention....








RyanS said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > 'eastern sophisticates'
> ...


Don't confuse him. He thinks he knows what he is talking about


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 22, 2014)

jis said:


> Not to mention....


You win the internet.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 22, 2014)

jis said:


> I am trying very hard to stay out of this fray. :lol: I will just get some popcorn and soda and settle down for the show.


Pepsi or Coke?


----------



## jis (Jul 22, 2014)

Following in Alan's footsteps it shall be Sierra Mist


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 22, 2014)

Jeeze, I knew his name was Duck and all, but he really is a quack.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 22, 2014)

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it must be a quack!

Do I get Bonus Points for knowing that zephyr17 and JayPea are from Washington State hence are Western Eastern Sophisticates? ☺


----------



## jis (Jul 22, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it must be a quack!
> 
> Do I get Bonus Points for knowing that zephyr17 and JayPea are from Eastern Washington hence are Western Eastern Sophisticates? ☺


Here you go....


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 22, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it must be a quack!
> 
> Do I get Bonus Points for knowing that zephyr17 and JayPea are from Eastern Washington hence are Western Eastern Sophisticates? ☺


Well, I am from Western Washington, I guess JayPea is our only Western Eastern Sophisticates.

Maybe we should revive that old thread where all Superliners were always westbound.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 22, 2014)

zephyr17 said:


> Maybe we should revive that old thread where all Superliners were always westbound.


Noooooooo!


----------



## JayPea (Jul 23, 2014)

zephyr17 said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it must be a quack!
> ...


There's also Yarrow and EB-OBS in this neck of the woods. However, only in this thread will I ever be described as a sophisticate. I am anything but.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 23, 2014)

I'm several thousand miles to the East of New York. Does that make me a far eastern sophisticate? What's the champagne and foie gras equivalent of popcorn guy?


----------



## henryj (Jul 23, 2014)

RyanS said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > the Duck said:
> ...


'citation'


----------



## neroden (Jul 23, 2014)

I may be Eastern, and I may be sophisticated, but I live in a place where I have to drive EVERYWHERE, henryj. I'd still prefer a train station which was closer to me and didn't require driving down unlighted rural highways for long distances, and I'm sure the good people of Wichita feel the same way.


----------



## Paulus (Jul 23, 2014)

zephyr17 said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I would say your assumption is ludicrous.
> ...


Because they have tiny consists. The California Zephyr runs with 325 seats; by comparison the Surfliner runs with ~500 and they are planning on adding another car for close to 600 seats because they don't have enough capacity on the peak runs as it is.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 24, 2014)

Hey its awful quiet out there! Lets stir the pot and get something going. Quack! Quack! What are the odds reroute takes place before contract ends (Dec.31, 2015)? What are odds that reroute takes place in 2014?


----------



## greatcats (Jul 24, 2014)

20% happens in 2014, due to major problem with present route

20% before end of 2015 for similar reasons

40% after expiration of present contract

10% remains on present route in 2016 on a temporary, extended basis

10% remains on present route on a permanent basis due to some miraculous creativity

I expanded on your answers, but lets have a little fun with this! ( With due respect to the bypassed stops, I will be more than a little peeved if the train stops coming to Flagstaff, which I prefer to think of as highly unlikely. )


----------



## henryj (Jul 25, 2014)

I will give you a couple of more options: It's rerouted through Belen and skips stopping in Albuquerque. And/or Amtrak decides to discontinue the train rather than deal with the reroute. Of course there are many more even more remote options such as making the Eagle daily to make up for the discontinuance. A reroute over the UP overland route(old City of LA) or a branch off the CZ in SLC to LA. lol. The beat goes on.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 25, 2014)

The question is not where reroute, But WHEN.


----------



## henryj (Jul 26, 2014)

the Duck said:


> The question is not where reroute, But WHEN.


Well Duck, if it's that important to you then pick any date you want. I could really care less.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 26, 2014)

Henry, when you see him, I suggest you listen to his name and DUCK. That way you don't get hit by flying nonsense.


----------



## amtkstn (Jul 26, 2014)

Something is going to be done soon because of the Chief's poor on time record this year. Today's trains lost almost three hours between Albuquerque and Newton. This is due to the slower speed track in western Kansas and the climb over Raton Pass.


----------



## henryj (Jul 26, 2014)

If the train has to rerouted and it looks like this will happen, I give it a 50/50 chance of survival. According to Amtrak's accounting it's the second biggest loser of all the LD trains with a 69 million deficit last year or nearly $200 per passenger.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 26, 2014)

But with the reroute that deficit will go down substantially.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 26, 2014)

Not when you make up numbers to support your case.


----------



## William W. (Jul 27, 2014)

Is someone making up numbers?

The SWC situation seems to highlight the friction between two of the stated goals of Amtrak: to serve rural towns without other forms of transportation, and to break-even/achieve a net gain financially. If Amtrak's focus is the former, then the route should stay as is. If the latter goal is paramount, the train should be routed through the areas where it would be able to serve more passengers, and in turn generate more revenue. Since Amtrak is under increasing pressure to show better financial results, I'd think that the smartest thing to do is reroute the train. In addition to the theoretical increase in revenue, OTP and reliability would improve. Yes, people will suffer from the loss of service, but how many more would suffer if the entire route were to be eliminated? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this case, IMO.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 27, 2014)

William W. said:


> Is someone making up numbers?


You're new here so you're not familiar with Henry's "analysis". He pores over Amtrak documents to try and pull out numbers, then fills in the gaps with some truthy-feeling guesstimates that lo and behold produce results that back up his pet theory of the month.

Of course when pressed on the details or the actual spreadsheets, we get as complete an explanation as we do the "bloated overhead" question (that is to say, nothing at all).

It's quite entertaining.


----------



## henryj (Jul 27, 2014)

RyanS said:


> William W. said:
> 
> 
> > Is someone making up numbers?
> ...


It's really he just doesn't like me or my opinions which differ from his substantially. So he chases me around on here attacking my character, reliability and rationality. In other words he is the supreme pompous 'know it all' and a j---a--. The monitor on here lets him get away with it so I have to put up with it.


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 27, 2014)

Please let's keep this on the topic of the SWC, not on other AU members. Thank you!


----------



## railiner (Jul 27, 2014)

William W. said:


> The SWC situation seems to highlight the friction between two of the stated goals of Amtrak: to serve rural towns without other forms of transportation, and to break-even/achieve a net gain financially. If Amtrak's focus is the former, then the route should stay as is. If the latter goal is paramount, the train should be routed through the areas where it would be able to serve more passengers, and in turn generate more revenue. Since Amtrak is under increasing pressure to show better financial results, I'd think that the smartest thing to do is reroute the train. In addition to the theoretical increase in revenue, OTP and reliability would improve. Yes, people will suffer from the loss of service, but how many more would suffer if the entire route were to be eliminated? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this case, IMO.


I think that is a fair sumnation of the whole issue.

It can possibly be applied to re-routing some other Amtrak trains as well...


----------



## neroden (Jul 27, 2014)

William W. said:


> Is someone making up numbers?
> 
> The SWC situation seems to highlight the friction between two of the stated goals of Amtrak: to serve rural towns without other forms of transportation, and to break-even/achieve a net gain financially.


I think this is a false dichotomy. But then, I live in a rural town with unpleasant airline service, no train service at all, and larger population than the towns on the SWC line...
I think Amtrak's goal should be to serve the largest number of passengers...


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 27, 2014)

"In addition to the theoretical increase in revenue, 

OTP and reliability would improve."

"Could improve," is better wording. It's conditional.

Clearly the host railroad does NOT want the _Chief _

on its main line, and is willing to pay $10 million a year

toward upkeep on the current route to show their sincerity.

So let's start with some respect for the interests of

the freight line, since Amtrak must deal with them

across the country.

And let's consider consequences if the host railroad

feels that Amtrak shoved the reroute down its throat.

That could make for bad attitude, which could affect

reliability and on-time performance.

So I'm happy watching Boardman be diplomatic. Amtrak

has offered to match BSNF contribution to repair and

maintenance of the route. And Boardman is trying to

hustle the ​states that benefit from the current route 

into also matching the BSNF's millions.

Maybe simply making the effort will head off future

​bad attitude about the reroute. If not, don't count on

good reliability or better OTP.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 27, 2014)

... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.


----------



## neroden (Jul 27, 2014)

I am fine with Boardman diplomatically attempting to chase up the money for the current route for the next few months. I really want him to have plan B ready to go, though, *because he's going to need to use it*.


----------



## sechs (Jul 27, 2014)

neroden said:


> I may be Eastern, and I may be sophisticated, but I live in a place where I have to drive EVERYWHERE, henryj. I'd still prefer a train station which was closer to me and didn't require driving down unlighted rural highways for long distances, and I'm sure the good people of Wichita feel the same way.


I wouldn't call I-135 an "unlighted, rural highway."

And, frankly, the good people of Wichita don't care, either way.


----------



## sechs (Jul 27, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> ... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.


Actually, BNSF would be fine if the Southwest Chief just evaporated. They're a freight company, and Amtrak takes up space on their railroad.

BNSF could drop maintenance on the La Junta Subdivision, and tell Amtrak to eat crap and die. However, they're being a good corporate citizen by offering the reroute.


----------



## William W. (Jul 27, 2014)

sechs said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > ... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.
> ...


I'd imagine that they'd run into federal government opposition if they tried to do something like that. I don't think that the railroads are allowed to just revoke Amtrak's use of their rails.


----------



## sechs (Jul 27, 2014)

William W. said:


> I'd imagine that they'd run into federal government opposition if they tried to do something like that. I don't think that the railroads are allowed to just revoke Amtrak's use of their rails.


They wouldn't be. They'd just be continually downgrading the tracks until the trains would be running at a crawl.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 27, 2014)

That'd be tough to do, given that they've got a contract (through the end of 2015, it seems).



sechs said:


> I wouldn't call I-135 an "unlighted, rural highway."


I would:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 27, 2014)

sechs said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > ... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.
> ...


Go emote up a tree. And take the bill of goods you are trying to sell with you.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 27, 2014)

According to materials(corporate news of both BNSF and Amtrak back when Amtrak was first offered the Transcon the portion between Newton and Albq. via Amarillo was agreed to be an alternate route for Amtrak. In the time since that agreement Amtrak has used the alternate route several times. So the reroute could happen very quickly if need be.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 27, 2014)

I don't know that anyone is denying that - the million dollar question (literally) is "Will it be needed? If so, when?"


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 28, 2014)

Now that we're on page 18, let's restate the positions.

Amtrak wants to stay on the current routing. With established patronage and essentially having the rails to itself, it's the best routing for Amtrak.

However, BNSF owns those rails and doesn't want to maintain them any more because the Transcon has finished double tracking and they don't need that line any more.

BNSF has offered the Transcon to Amtrak so they can allow the current route to fester into a state of disrepair - good enough for the occasional local freight, but no where good enough for passenger ops.

However, BNSF doesn't want Amtrak to join the Transcon for free. Amtrak must pay millions to upgrade the signalling for PTC. Otherwise, Amtrak must pay millions to maintain the track on the existing route.

Amtrak being rerouted on the Transcon could mean a significant schedule hit as it may have difficulty leapfrogging around 60-70 MPH freights on that busy line.

Any shift to the existing schedule could make the wye South of Albuquerque difficult as its current schedule keeps it between the rush hours of the Railrunner express and any delay would put it into the thick of the evening runs, where Railrunner gets priority over Amtrak.


----------



## tricia (Jul 28, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> Now that we're on page 18, let's restate the positions.
> 
> Amtrak wants to stay on the current routing. With established patronage and essentially having the rails to itself, it's the best routing for Amtrak.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the recap! Especially helpful for those of us who don't catch up with this thread every day.


----------



## Eric S (Jul 28, 2014)

Doesn't BNSF have to install PTC on the Transcon whether or not Amtrak runs on that section?


----------



## amtkstn (Jul 28, 2014)

PTC has to be installed on the transcon due to the Haz materials on the trains.


----------



## neroden (Jul 28, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> Now that we're on page 18, let's restate the positions.
> 
> Amtrak wants to stay on the current routing. With established patronage and essentially having the rails to itself, it's the best routing for Amtrak.
> 
> ...


So far, this is agreed.



> However, BNSF doesn't want Amtrak to join the Transcon for free. Amtrak must pay millions to upgrade the signalling for PTC.


Citation needed. I believe this is *untrue*. Due to the high freight traffic and the existence of Poison-by-Inhalation traffic on the Transcon, I am pretty sure BNSF is obliged to upgrade the Transcon for PTC at BNSF's sole expense according to federal law. Before December 31, 2015, in fact.  Any attempt by BNSF to charge Amtrak for that would be unfounded, baseless, without precedent, and would probably get them a fine. I don't believe that BNSF is that stupid and I believe they are not asking for any such thing.
If BNSF is asking for money for Amtrak to move, it is asking for money for something else: station sidings, connecting track for connecting to RailRunner, the wye at Albuquerque, etc.



> Otherwise, Amtrak must pay millions to maintain the track on the existing route.


Correct.



> Amtrak being rerouted on the Transcon could mean a significant schedule hit as it may have difficulty leapfrogging around 60-70 MPH freights on that busy line.


That's not true either. First of all, Amtrak does pretty well when run at 70 mph (which is much faster than the current Raton Pass speeds). Second, BNSF does very well at leapfrogging Amtrak around its freights on the Empire Builder and California Zephyr routes and the rest of the Southwest Chief route, and would presumably do just as well on this route.



> Any shift to the existing schedule could make the wye South of Albuquerque difficult as its current schedule keeps it between the rush hours of the Railrunner express and any delay would put it into the thick of the evening runs, where Railrunner gets priority over Amtrak.


No significant change in schedule would be necessary. The reroute would be so much faster than the existing route that essentially the same schedule could apply; the Transcon route was running passenger trains faster than the existing route in the 1950s with a large number of station stops and worse track conditions. Furthermore, there simply aren't that many RailRunner trains running and so any traffic conflicts there would be minor; this isn't Metro-North.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 28, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> However, BNSF doesn't want Amtrak to join the Transcon for free. Amtrak must pay millions to upgrade the signalling for PTC.


I am not sure that this has ever been established. I think there have been many assumptions that this is/will be true, but I do not recall any real info that says BNSF will require extra money for the reroute.

Sent from my iPad using Amtrak Forum


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 28, 2014)

That's fine. I gladly accept correction. My understanding was that PTC was required only on routes that shared freight and passengers. Therefore, if passengers were sharing with freight on the transcon, PTC would be necessary. But that was just my misunderstanding.

If that is truly the case, I can't understand why BNSF is asking for as much money to join the Transcon _if it benefits them_.

As for conflict with the Railrunner, it can be a challenge. At least when I lived there, the Northbound tracks from track 2 merged with track 1 north of town by way of a spring loaded switch. In other words, southbound trains could ONLY arrive on Track 1. It's mostly single track outside of the ABQ yard limits. If Amtrak misses it's slot, you can have up to two Amtraks (3 & 4) trying to get into the station and making a WYE turn plus a Railrunner stuck in the tango. On the otherhand, Amtrak can now ALWAYS arrive on Track two. But without a subway to get to platform 2, it's a mess today anyhow.

Again, it's been about 8 years since I lived there, so trackage could have improved.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 28, 2014)

VentureForth said:


> That's fine. I gladly accept correction. My understanding was that PTC was required only on routes that shared freight and passengers. Therefore, if passengers were sharing with freight on the transcon, PTC would be necessary. But that was just my misunderstanding.
> 
> If that is truly the case, I can't understand why BNSF is asking for as much money to join the Transcon _if it benefits them_.


Again, I cannot recall there ever being anything official as to BNSF asking for any additional money for the reroute. Only speculation.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis (Jul 28, 2014)

Here is what it says on the FRA website regarding PTC:



> With limited exceptions and exclusions as described within Subpart I potentially available, PTC is required to be installed and implemented on Class I railroad main lines (i.e., lines with over 5 million gross tons annually) over which any poisonous- or toxic-by-inhalation (PIH/TIH) hazardous materials are transported; and, on any railroad’s main lines over which regularly scheduled passenger intercity or commuter operations are conducted. It is currently estimated this will equate to approximately 70,000 miles of track and will involve approximately 20,000 locomotives.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 28, 2014)

If they aren't asking for any money for Amtrak to join the Transcon, I can't believe that Boardman would be balking. I understand and appreciate his desire to prevent the loss of existing service to existing markets, but to essentially be assured future services on a state of the art trackage for free doesn't snap him into submission, I don't know what else he's balking at.


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 28, 2014)

Well, for Amtrak, it is a lot simpler for the to stay. They don't have to do additional work associated with a reroute. Also, they would have all that trackage without any freight interference. So I understand why they desire to stay.

I also cannot say there will be no costs that BNSF will ask for. Just none that I know of that have been public.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## jis (Jul 28, 2014)

And at least the guy who buggered up the Sunset negotiations reportedly does not work for Amtrak anymore, fortunately.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 28, 2014)

As far as BNSF is concerned it would be better for Amtrak to stay on the current route. But only if someone else pays to maintain it. Then they have the route to use when they want at better speeds, don't have to deal with Amtrak on the transcontinental, and don't have to pay very much.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 28, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> As far as BNSF is concerned it would be better for Amtrak to stay on the current route. But only if someone else pays to maintain it. Then they have the route to use when they want at better speeds, don't have to deal with Amtrak on the transcontinental, and don't have to pay very much.


The question is not whether it is or isn't better for Amtrak to stay on its present route, but whether or not BNSF thinks it is. We really have no way of knowing the reality of this. The question is whether or not BNSF has made that conclusion from their studies, and their studies will include a lot of information that are simply not publically available, and much of which would probably be incomprehensible to most people, anyway.

My own opinion is that if they truly want to keep the SWC on its current route, then there needs to be the decision to get out there and relay the thing completely with new or truly good relay CWR and reinstate the ATC/ATS whatever they had and replace the essentially musuem quality signal system.

There is a precedent to shifting the train. The City of New Orleans between Memphis and Jacdson MS being it. The train was on the traditional passenger route through Grenada and Winona MS and did a fairly good business at these and other stops. However, the route had a severe arrears in maintenance, needing a near complete rail relay among other things. The traditional freight route was given signals and a 79 mph speed limit and the CNO shifted. The Grenada route had the signal system turned off and has deteriorated since. It may have by now been partly sold or abandoned. In this casse there was only one town of any significance on the replacement route, Yazoo City. What is being discussed for the Southwest Chief is the same sort of thing, exactly, only on a larger scale.


----------



## William W. (Jul 28, 2014)

I just wanted something clarified: Does BNSF want to completely abandon the current route that the SWC uses, or just downgrade it heavily?


----------



## henryj (Jul 28, 2014)

William W. said:


> I just wanted something clarified: Does BNSF want to completely abandon the current route that the SWC uses, or just downgrade it heavily?


The route between Newton and Pueblo is used for freight trains to Colorado. The route between Pueblo and Las Animas is used for coal trains going to Texas through Amarillo. The track between La Junta and Trinidad is probably going to be abandoned. The track between Trinidad and Lamy would most likely be 'banked' like UP's Tennessee Pass line, for possible future use. I don't see a problem using the Transcon as it's already used between Albuquerque and Los Angeles and KC and Newton(or something like that). BNSF has tried to get Amtrak to move the train for years. Now they are forcing the issue by just not maintaining it any more. Amtrak is being very stubborn about this move for reasons that escape me. It should have been done years ago. I don't see that it's going to cost Amtrak much to move as they already use the Transcon in emergencies including the wye south of Albuquerque. Each city that wants the train to stop there will have to furnish station facilities and Albuquerque will probably find the money to beef up the wye. The transcon should be smoother and faster than Raton.

BNSF tried several ways to utilize the Raton line in the past by routing it's fastest intermodal trains on the route, etc. But the 3% ruling grade is just too steep and requires helpers. Now that the transcon is pretty much double tracked and the big Abo Canyon bottle neck is fixed, they just don't need the Raton route for anything. In an emergency they route trains via the UP, joining up with the Transcon at Vaughn, NM. And there or other routings they can use also.


----------



## the Duck (Jul 28, 2014)

In the early years of this conflab ( about time of BN/SF merger there was on the internet several articles dealing with this subject) BNSF or (SF) had a statement telling their plan and it has not publicly changed, Their plan was 1. move Amtrak to the Transcon 2. abandon rail between La Junta and Trinidad. 3.Sell off portion between Lamy and Trinidad Since Amtrak would not move (contract) they chose to let line go bad because Amtrak had already agreed Trans con as alternate route.


----------



## railiner (Jul 29, 2014)

The mention, alternate of using the UP route, that crosses the Transcon at Vaughn caught my interest. That was the route of the joint Rock Island-Southern Pacific "Golden State" and other trains...I wonder how that line would do as a substitute? I don't think it serves any larger cities, but I guess it's in pretty fair shape as a freight line.....


----------



## ehbowen (Jul 29, 2014)

George Harris said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > As far as BNSF is concerned it would be better for Amtrak to stay on the current route. But only if someone else pays to maintain it. Then they have the route to use when they want at better speeds, don't have to deal with Amtrak on the transcontinental, and don't have to pay very much.
> ...


I'm looking at this from the perspective of an enthusiast and neophyte, not an industry insider. But I've heard that for years BNSF has had a standing offer open to reroute the SWC, if only Amtrak would assume the costs of required passenger infrastructure such as stations and platforms. (Or push them off onto the locals.) Amtrak preferred the present route, and BNSF did not object because a) it kept the line open as an alternate; b) kept the SWC out of the way of freights in what used to be single track or directional running territory, and c) the infrastructure was adequate without requiring major maintenance.

Obviously c) no longer applies. B) is less of a consideration due to increased capacity on the line, which is now almost fully double-tracked. However, it appears that BNSF management has crunched the numbers on a) and determined that it is worth $10 million a year to them to keep Raton Pass open as a viable alternate route as long as other parties pick up the rest of the tab. Should that happen Raton can stay open for the foreseeable future. Otherwise, either the SWC gets rerouted through Amarillo or else it goes to join the _Texas Chief/Lone Star_ in that great railyard in the sky....


----------



## neroden (Jul 29, 2014)

George Harris said:


> There is a precedent to shifting the train. The City of New Orleans between Memphis and Jacdson MS being it. The train was on the traditional passenger route through Grenada and Winona MS and did a fairly good business at these and other stops. However, the route had a severe arrears in maintenance, needing a near complete rail relay among other things. The traditional freight route was given signals and a 79 mph speed limit and the CNO shifted. The Grenada route had the signal system turned off and has deteriorated since. It may have by now been partly sold or abandoned.


It's been sold (I think, maybe leased) to a shortline.
http://affiliatedrailroads.com/affiliated-railroads/grenada-railway-llc

At least none of the track was lifted.



> In this casse there was only one town of any significance on the replacement route, Yazoo City.


Well, also Greenwood. But the population is definitely larger on the Grenada route than on the Yazoo route. (The Yazoo route has Yazoo and Greenwood; the Grenada route has Grenada, Winona, Canton, Batesville, and some smaller towns.) Both routes have really low population, though.



> What is being discussed for the Southwest Chief is the same sort of thing, exactly, only on a larger scale.


Yes. Except that for the SWC, the population is larger on the Transcon route than on the Raton route, so it's a shift *to* population rather than a shift *away from* population. Which I tend to think makes a difference commercially.
I suppose the remaining areas of single-tracking on the Transcon could pose some problems.

1. There's still a section near the flyover at Vaughn NM, but that's quite short.

2. There's a section in Oklahoma from northeast of Avard OK to roughly the state line with Kansas

3. There's a short section west of Wellington KS

4. There's the "directional running" section from Mulvane to Newton, where the westbounds might have trouble because BNSF runs mostly eastbounds

5. There's the single-tracking on RailRunner from Belen to Albuquerque. But there are a lot of sidings there.

I don't know what BNSF's plans are but I would expect them to have plans to double-track from Avard OK to Mulvane KS


----------



## the Duck (Jul 31, 2014)

The beginning question to this topic was "do we know if the reroute is going to take place and if so when? All of the evidence points to a reroute, but Amtrak will announce its answer near the end of this year. The funding scheme fell flat when found New Mexico constitution forbade state giving any monies to private railroads. BNSF double track projects are in process, Appears the only thing to stop the reroute would be for BNSF to fund their own upgrades. So it is now a wait on Amtrak.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 1, 2014)

neroden said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > What is being discussed for the Southwest Chief is the same sort of thing, exactly, only on a larger scale.
> ...


While that might benefit Amtrak ridership numbers, I agree with George that the 'reroute ball' is in BNSF's court, and Amtrak looks to be a bystander in this decision. I don't think BNSF gives a hoot about Amtrak's ridership numbers, unless they borrow a page from UP's old 'operating manual' and try to make service so late and unreliable that ridership numbers go so low that the SWC becomes 'low hanging fruit' and easily knocked off.

Afterall, BNSF ALWAYS has done a good job of ensuring Amtrak has reasonable OTP. :lol:


----------



## sechs (Aug 2, 2014)

RyanS said:


> That'd be tough to do, given that they've got a contract (through the end of 2015, it seems).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know of what that's a picture.

After passing the interchange with I-235/K-254, I-135 runs through Park City and the outer reaches of Valley Center, and, then, past the remnants of the Hartman Arena and Kansas Colliseum complex, before running about thirteen miles to Newton.


----------



## sechs (Aug 2, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Go emote up a tree. And take the bill of goods you are trying to sell with you.


At some point, a moderator is going to decide that you're trolling here. I hope it's soon.


----------



## sechs (Aug 2, 2014)

henryj said:


> William W. said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted something clarified: Does BNSF want to completely abandon the current route that the SWC uses, or just downgrade it heavily?
> ...


Please refer to this division map: http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/maps/div_ks.pdf

Newton to Las Animas Junction (the La Junta Subdivision) will be maintained for occasional use. They pick up a lot of agricultural products on this line, but that's just a small part of the year and not time-sensitive. So slow moving trains aren't a problem.

Las Animas Junction to La Junta is part of the Boise City Subdivision. That's your coal route to/from Texas.

Except for the section between La Junta and Trinidad (which connects the two parallel routes between Amarillo and Pueblo), there's basically nothing on the Raton Subdivision. It, along with the remnants of the Glorieta Subdivision have been completely suplanted by the Southern Transcon. It's basically just a rarely used alternate route.


----------



## sechs (Aug 2, 2014)

railiner said:


> The mention, alternate of using the UP route, that crosses the Transcon at Vaughn caught my interest. That was the route of the joint Rock Island-Southern Pacific "Golden State" and other trains...I wonder how that line would do as a substitute? I don't think it serves any larger cities, but I guess it's in pretty fair shape as a freight line.....


That assumes that UP wants anything to do with this... which it definitely does not.

As the line appears to miss any major city along the way, the Southern Transcon actually seems like a better choice


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 2, 2014)

Ridiculous. You want to call BNSF a good corporate citizen for living up to the agreement it made in order to divest itself of passenger operations?

Being good requires going above the requirements of your moral obligations.


----------



## William W. (Aug 2, 2014)

My general impression is that the freight companies are out to destroy Amtrak, whether it be passively or actively. At the very least, they dislike it and want to see it go. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that their actions seem to support my opinion. The constant dispatching malfeasance, demands for additional payments, and the general hostility all add up to death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## the Duck (Aug 2, 2014)

All the talk about passenger trains having their on track might make sense after all .But there are some points to remember and one of those is how much ridership is it going to take to pay for the rails and ties? Does crossing 4 times a day or 8 times a day sound about right for every mile of track for 50 years with enough passengers to make a distance economical? What about new technology ie second generation superconducting Maglev?


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 2, 2014)

the Duck said:


> What about new technology ie second generation superconducting Maglev?


I think this is getting rather just a wee bit ahead of things... ...The technology needs to be applied in a more populated area first!


----------



## Ryan (Aug 2, 2014)

sechs said:


> RyanS said:
> 
> 
> > That'd be tough to do, given that they've got a contract (through the end of 2015, it seems).
> ...


It's a picture of I-135 between Wichita and Newton. I don't see any streetlights, do you? Nor do I see any signs of civilization.


----------



## William W. (Aug 2, 2014)

the Duck said:


> All the talk about passenger trains having their on track might make sense after all .But there are some points to remember and one of those is how much ridership is it going to take to pay for the rails and ties? Does crossing 4 times a day or 8 times a day sound about right for every mile of track for 50 years with enough passengers to make a distance economical? What about new technology ie second generation superconducting Maglev?


As I've stated previously, I think that it is a waste of money and resources to make long-distance trains high-speed (meaning 150+ MPH). It would be better to get them up to higher-speed status (110 MPH), and make them more reliable. The better application of true high-speed rail would be corridor and medium-distance inter-city services.


----------



## the Duck (Aug 2, 2014)

I use to think Maglev was too expensive and for large population only. Until. Until I read a book titled "The Fight For Maglev" by James Powell and Gordon Danby, who are inventors of both 1st and 2nd generation SuperConducting Maglev. Their claim is the infrastructure can be built for about the same dollars as for steel track. Good read.


----------



## neroden (Aug 2, 2014)

William W. said:


> My general impression is that the freight companies are out to destroy Amtrak, whether it be passively or actively. At the very least, they dislike it and want to see it go. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that their actions seem to support my opinion. The constant dispatching malfeasance, demands for additional payments, and the general hostility all add up to death by a thousand cuts.


This has, unfortunately, been true since 1970; as far as I can tell, nobody disputes that; there was severe, fairly open hostility from most of the Class Is to Amtrak, and frankly all passenger service, from the beginning. However, there is actually some evidence that they are slowly becoming less hostile.

When Matt Rose became BNSF CEO, he famously asked why they weren't maintaining their tracks to passenger standards, or running Amtrak on time. Then he told BNSF operations that the cost (to BNSF) of running Amtrak responsibly was far less than the public relations value of doing so. The important thing to remember is that *this was a change* from the openly hostile attitude of the previous CEO.

Certain aged railroad CEOs, including one born in 1944, still seem to have the passenger-hostile attitude of the 1970s. The attitude seems to slowly be going away, though; perhaps as the people in the executive offices get younger.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 2, 2014)

the Duck said:


> I use to think Maglev was too expensive and for large population only. Until. Until I read a book titled "The Fight For Maglev" by James Powell and Gordon Danby, who are inventors of both 1st and 2nd generation SuperConducting Maglev. Their claim is the infrastructure can be built for about the same dollars as for steel track. Good read.


Even if the cost of implementation was identical the problem with Maglev would seem to be the cost of powering and maintaining it after it was built. Not to mention that improvements in conventional passenger rail technology have kept steel wheels on steel rails more than fast enough to remain perfectly viable. It is my position that when it comes to passenger rail development in a market with perpetually shrinking budgets keeping costs low is every bit as relevant as keeping speeds up. In my view Maglev has yet to prove it can outpace conventional rail enough to make the added operating cost and complexity worthwhile.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 3, 2014)

Devil's Advocate said:


> ...It is my position that when it comes to passenger rail development in a market with perpetually shrinking budgets keeping costs low is every bit as relevant as keeping speeds up. In my view Maglev has yet to prove it can outpace conventional rail enough to make the added operating cost and complexity worthwhile.


These points go to the DA!


----------



## cirdan (Aug 4, 2014)

the Duck said:


> I use to think Maglev was too expensive and for large population only. Until. Until I read a book titled "The Fight For Maglev" by James Powell and Gordon Danby, who are inventors of both 1st and 2nd generation SuperConducting Maglev. Their claim is the infrastructure can be built for about the same dollars as for steel track. Good read.


I haven't read that book, but I read a report on the German Transrapid project and this report cruelly debunked the claims being advanced by the Transrapid's manufacturers. One salient point looked at the comparison of per passenger energy consumption, a point where the Transrapid manufacturers had consistently claimed to have the lower figure. The report went into the math behind that and found out the Transrapid manufacturers were assuming an airline coach-class style seating density and comparing that with an ICE train with its far more generous seating, restaurant car, business areas etc. It then took an ICE and hypothetically fitted airline seats in airline density to all the cars and it actually came out more efficient than the Transrapid.


----------



## sechs (Aug 14, 2014)

RyanS said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> > RyanS said:
> ...


I'm sure that I could find a picture of Helena, Montana. You wouldn't assume that the whole state of Montana is a single, giant, thriving metropolis, now would you?


----------

