Southwest Chief News & Future Operations

[user 1215]

Sometimes the forum makes the link shorter, but the first link worked. The second link (first one in your response) added some junk to the end of the url in the hyperlink (not seen, but when you edit the hyperlink you can see the $C2%A0 that is screwing up the link. Don't know why.

 

[jebr]

Somehow a space is getting added to the end of the links. I'd check the settings on your device or make sure that there's no additional spaces at the end after pasting a link. It doesn't seem to do that for me (Chrome browser on Windows 10.)

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Lets focus on the story not the link.

https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/37801999

About 4.5 million people rode the Chief in 2016, according to a June presentation by Richard Anderson, the passenger railroads president and chief executive officer. It costs more than $1 billion a year, yet brings in less than $600 million, he said.

The math is off, is this a attack on the entire network?

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

The Bloomberg story reference above:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/amtrak-may-put-passengers-on-buses-in-fight-over-safety-upgrade

Does have different facts from June meeting:

About 363,000 people rode the Chief in 2017, according to a June presentation by Richard Anderson, the passenger railroads president and chief executive officer. Its one of the railroads biggest money losers compared to other long-distance routes, he said.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

NARP/RPA

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/amtrak-to-congress-trains-will-run-on-january-1/

Statement from Amtraks Executive Vice President and CEO Scot Naparstek

The trains are still under threat, as there is a lack of detail of what there going to do. A bus bridge is a valid solution to some of these questions that Amtrak has. No solid answer today.

 

[Ryan]

Well, "extremely dangerous" has to do with one's perception. Personally, I think they are dangerous especially with so many big trucks.

No, it doesn't. We live in a world of facts and statistics. Do you have any statistics comparing bus safety to train safety?

Feelings don't hurt you. Go where the data takes you.

 

[bretton88]

Lets focus on the story not the link.

https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/37801999

About 4.5 million people rode the Chief in 2016, according to a June presentation by Richard Anderson, the passenger railroads president and chief executive officer. It costs more than $1 billion a year, yet brings in less than $600 million, he said.

The math is off, is this a attack on the entire network?

This sounds like numbers for the LD network as a whole.

 

[desertflyer]

I wrote Diane Feinstein and Kamala Harris around the proposed changes to Amtrak and the Southwest Chief. Feinstein got back to me today with a form letter, but at least it shows that her office has some understanding of what is going on - though it's not really the California senators that need to be convinced.

Thank you for writing to share your thoughts regarding recent and proposed changes to Amtrak service. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I understand you are concerned about Amtrak service changes under the leadership of Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson because you believe those changes will reduce ridership, deteriorate customer service, and erode the overall comfort of the passenger rail experience.

As you know, Amtrak made several changes to long-distance routes in early 2018, citing the need to cut costs. Amtrak eliminated station agents and checked luggage services at a number of stops with lighter traffic, replaced the traditional dining car with pre-made boxed meals on certain long-distance routes, announced it would no longer operate special or charter trains, and discontinued towing private rail cars along many routes. Amtrak is reportedly considering reducing the frequency of daily trains along certain long-distance routes and breaking up other routes into shorter segments while asking for more financial support from the states serviced by each route.

As a federally-owned corporation and the United States’ principal intercity passenger rail service, Amtrak has a duty to provide reliable transportation access to the public. Many of these destinations would not otherwise be profitable for a private passenger rail operator to serve. In the absence of Amtrak service, many Americans—particularly those in rural communities—would lose access to long distance ground transportation.

I am concerned that some of Amtrak’s proposed changes could negatively impact the quality of passenger rail service along routes servicing California. Amtrak proposed suspending train service for a segment of the Southwest Chief, which runs daily from Chicago to Los Angeles. Train service along the route from Dodge City, Kansas, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, would be replaced instead with motor coaches. Amtrak cited the capital costs required to upgrade the current route as a reason for the proposal. In response to this news, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators on the attached letter to Richard Anderson urging Amtrak to continue full rail service and to seek available federal grants to help pay for the costs of capital upgrades along the route.

In addition, I cosponsored an amendment to the Senate Minibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 6147) that expresses the sense of the Senate in support of Amtrak’s long distance routes. The Senate adopted this amendment by a vote of 95-4 and passed its version of H.R. 6147 by a vote of 92-6 on August 1, 2018.

I have long supported funding for Amtrak and other critical rail transportation projects. Improving and expanding our nation’s passenger rail infrastructure is critical to providing alternative modes of transportation for millions of Americans, reducing congestion on our roads, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and curbing our dependence on oil. I have made careful note of your concerns, and I will be sure to keep them in mind should related legislation be considered by the Senate.

 

[railiner]

That's a pretty nice response considering what could have been...

 

[jis]

NARP/RPA

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/amtrak-to-congress-trains-will-run-on-january-1/

Statement from Amtraks Executive Vice President and CEO Scot Naparstek

The trains are still under threat, as there is a lack of detail of what there going to do. A bus bridge is a valid solution to some of these questions that Amtrak has. No solid answer today.

So you think “trains will continue to run” has a plausible interpretation that they will run as buses? OK. [emoji57]
I think the danger that exists and is independent of the PTC issue is that some through trains may get segmented into multiple shorter trains. But that had gotten buried in the Buses and PTC noise.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

So you think trains will continue to run has a plausible interpretation that they will run as buses? OK.

I think the danger that exists and is independent of the PTC issue is that some through trains may get segmented into multiple shorter trains. But that had gotten buried in the Buses and PTC noise.

What I think is Amtrak failed to answer the question clearly. Had the chance but chose not to. Amtrak needs to be provided Congress and the people there vision of the future.

 

[fredmcain]

So you think trains will continue to run has a plausible interpretation that they will run as buses? OK.

I think the danger that exists and is independent of the PTC issue is that some through trains may get segmented into multiple shorter trains. But that had gotten buried in the Buses and PTC noise.

What I think is Amtrak failed to answer the question clearly. Had the chance but chose not to. Amtrak needs to be provided Congress and the people there vision of the future.

Well, let's be clear here. The LD trains and ESPECIALLY the Chief are not out of the woods yet but I still regard this new development as a major "back pedaling". I mean, Anderson has repeatedly stated in no uncertain terms that he will NOT operate trains on tracks without PTC after December 31st. This announcement is clearly a retreat from that. So, is the Chief safe for now? NO. But I still feel better about this than I did yesterday.

Many thanks to all of you who have written either to your congressman or to the Amtrak board and complained.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain who has reason today to be more optimistic.

 

[fredmcain]

Well, "extremely dangerous" has to do with one's perception. Personally, I think they are dangerous especially with so many big trucks.

No, it doesn't. We live in a world of facts and statistics. Do you have any statistics comparing bus safety to train safety?

Feelings don't hurt you. Go where the data takes you.

Well, for me personally, and speaking only for myself, I no longer feel as safe as I once did traveling by Interstate highways. Period. Statistics are not going to reassure me even if they prove that my perception is unwarranted. Irrational? Maybe. But surely there are more people who feel the way I do. Would a bus bridge really be more dangerous than the train? Perhaps not but I still feel like the rail option should remain open and there are plenty others who agree with. Just look at the overwhelming response we've gotten in opposition to this truncation. I really don't feel I have anything else to say about this.

Regards,

FMC

 

[cpotisch]

Well, "extremely dangerous" has to do with one's perception. Personally, I think they are dangerous especially with so many big trucks.

No, it doesn't. We live in a world of facts and statistics. Do you have any statistics comparing bus safety to train safety?

Feelings don't hurt you. Go where the data takes you.

Well, for me personally, and speaking only for myself, I no longer feel as safe as I once did traveling by Interstate highways. Period. Statistics are not going to reassure me even if they prove that my perception is unwarranted. Irrational? Maybe. But surely there are more people who feel the way I do. Would a bus bridge really be more dangerous than the train? Perhaps not but I still feel like the rail option should remain open and there are plenty others who agree with. Just look at the overwhelming response we've gotten in opposition to this truncation. I really don't feel I have anything else to say about this.

Regards,

FMC

Seriously? You're admitting that what you're saying has no factual basis and is "maybe" irrational, yet you still claim that it's a sound argument? And the fact that there has been overwhelming opposing to this truncation doesn't tell you anything about how many people are afraid of taking a bus over a train.

 

[ehbowen]

Well, "extremely dangerous" has to do with one's perception. Personally, I think they are dangerous especially with so many big trucks.

No, it doesn't. We live in a world of facts and statistics. Do you have any statistics comparing bus safety to train safety?

Feelings don't hurt you. Go where the data takes you.

Well, for me personally, and speaking only for myself, I no longer feel as safe as I once did traveling by Interstate highways. Period. Statistics are not going to reassure me even if they prove that my perception is unwarranted. Irrational? Maybe. But surely there are more people who feel the way I do. Would a bus bridge really be more dangerous than the train? Perhaps not but I still feel like the rail option should remain open and there are plenty others who agree with. Just look at the overwhelming response we've gotten in opposition to this truncation. I really don't feel I have anything else to say about this.

Regards,

FMC

Seriously? You're admitting that what you're saying has no factual basis and is "maybe" irrational, yet you still claim that it's a sound argument? And the fact that there has been overwhelming opposing to this truncation doesn't tell you anything about how many people are afraid of taking a bus over a train.

This bridge carried 140,000 vehicles a day and lasted 40 years...before it collapsed due to a design flaw. So you're telling us that, statistically, it was safe?

 

[jebr]

This bridge carried 140,000 vehicles a day and lasted 40 years...before it collapsed due to a design flaw. So you're telling us that, statistically, it was safe?

I honestly have no clue what point you're trying to make. The bridge was deemed structurally deficient, but thanks to a GOP governor who made his lieutenant governor the head of MnDOT (and thus, to try and keep taxes low and score political points, wouldn't properly advocate for needed infrastructure repairs,) the funding for a replacement bridge was kicked far enough down the road that the bridge collapsed from that failure instead of being properly repaired/replaced.

We could throw around incidents of deadly failures for all sorts of modes of transportation. Is walking unsafe, because of this? Is taking the train unsafe because of derailments? Anecdotes and individual incidents can scare us, but can also lead us to make decisions that are less safe because we weigh the few flashy incidents instead of looking at the total span and actual risk for each mode of transport.

 

[ehbowen]

This bridge carried 140,000 vehicles a day and lasted 40 years...before it collapsed due to a design flaw. So you're telling us that, statistically, it was safe?

I honestly have no clue what point you're trying to make. The bridge was deemed structurally deficient, but thanks to a GOP governor who made his lieutenant governor the head of MnDOT (and thus, to try and keep taxes low and score political points, wouldn't properly advocate for needed infrastructure repairs,) the funding for a replacement bridge was kicked far enough down the road that the bridge collapsed from that failure instead of being properly repaired/replaced.

We could throw around incidents of deadly failures for all sorts of modes of transportation. Is walking unsafe, because of this? Is taking the train unsafe because of derailments? Anecdotes and individual incidents can scare us, but can also lead us to make decisions that are less safe because we weigh the few flashy incidents instead of looking at the total span and actual risk for each mode of transport.

I agree with you, but especially in questions of "safety" (which is often, frankly, a matter of blind luck) you need to be sure you are comparing apples to apples. There are just too many variables involved to say, "Trains are safer than buses" or, "Buses are safer than trains." All it takes is one bad break to make the "statistics" meaningless for everyone who actually is involved.

Now if we are comparing apples to apples, we can see some valid trends. Freeways are safer than surface streets. Rail safety is improved with block signals, CTC, and (presumably) PTC. Air travel is a lot safer if pilots wait out or divert around thunderstorms rather than try to penetrate them. But while Ryan is correct that facts are facts and statistics are real, you also need to consider that a lot of pertinent facts may not be in evidence. Such as a design flaw in a major bridge which (originally) wasn't scheduled to be corrected until 2020....

 

[jebr]

I agree with you, but especially in questions of "safety" (which is often, frankly, a matter of blind luck) you need to be sure you are comparing apples to apples. There are just too many variables involved to say, "Trains are safer than buses" or, "Buses are safer than trains." All it takes is one bad break to make the "statistics" meaningless for everyone who actually is involved.

Now if we are comparing apples to apples, we can see some valid trends. Freeways are safer than surface streets. Rail safety is improved with block signals, CTC, and (presumably) PTC. Air travel is a lot safer if pilots wait out or divert around thunderstorms rather than try to penetrate them. But while Ryan is correct that facts are facts and statistics are real, you also need to consider that a lot of pertinent facts may not be in evidence. Such as a design flaw in a major bridge which (originally) wasn't scheduled to be corrected until 2020....

Simply because there's a lot of variables in what makes something safe doesn't mean that you can't state that x is safer than y, at least if there's some generally accepted idea of what's "safer." Having a catastrophic incident generally doesn't change the overall calculus significantly unless those catastrophic events keep happening. For example, it's very likely that the 8 killed on board Amtrak 188 when it crashed in 2015 would have lived had they driven themselves instead of taking the train. That doesn't mean that driving yourself suddenly becomes safer than taking the train, or that it's now disputable whether the train or driving yourself is safer. What it means is that, despite choosing the safer mode of transport, no mode of transport is 100% safe and sometimes fatal incidents will happen no matter which mode you choose.

We can look at current data and make determinations on what is safer. We don't know what the future holds, but that doesn't mean we have to hold off judgement on what's been shown to be safer so far because of some potential future unknown. I have no qualms saying that driving a private automobile is significantly more dangerous than taking a bus, plane, or train; the evidence is so strong that even with the few accidents on other modes it's still much safer to do...pretty much anything except drive yourself or be a passenger in a private automobile when trying to go somewhere.

 

[neroden]

The Bloomberg story reference above:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/amtrak-may-put-passengers-on-buses-in-fight-over-safety-upgrade

Does have different facts from June meeting:

About 363,000 people rode the Chief in 2017, according to a June presentation by Richard Anderson, the passenger railroads president and chief executive officer. Its one of the railroads biggest money losers compared to other long-distance routes, he said.

Someone is lying to Mr. Anderson, and I think it's whoever's preparing the "allocated" numbers.
I suppose there's some leeway or vagueness in the words "one of" in the claim that that the SWC "one of Amtrak's biggest money-losers". But it's not really -- it's doing much better than the biggest money-losers.

If you use credible estimates for avoidable costs, the biggest money-losers are the Sunset Limited (~12 million), the Texas Eagle (~6 million), and the California Zephyr (~6 million), followed by the Capitol Limited (~5 million) and only then the Southwest Chief (~4 million).

If you use Amtrak's phony, dishonest, faked-up allocated costs numbers, the Empire Builder looks worst, the California Zephyr looks second-worst and the Southwest Chief looks third-worst, but those numbers are fake.

This is why it's critically important for someone to get through Mr. Anderson's head that those numbers are fraudulent.

There are people inside Amtrak who know the real situation; they wrote the Performance Improvement Plans.

 

[neroden]

The burden of proof is on those claiming the bus option is safer, since they're the ones proposing a change in the name of safety. It's very hard to disprove since the necessary statistics aren't available, but that's immaterial since Anderson never proved it in the first place.

Here's what I found. Based on what I could find on the National Transportation Database, buses appear to have less fatalities per passenger mile than intercity trains do. It's plausible that Anderson sees something similar, and truly believes without PTC that trains will be more dangerous than they could be, and doesn't want to carry that liability/risk.

There's also plenty of people that are claiming that buses are more dangerous than trains. That also requires the burden of proof to be on the person making the "more dangerous" accusation, and so far I haven't seen any hard data, at least on the US side, to definitively prove that trains are significantly safer than buses. (Which, by the way, if we're going to take safety as the primary goal, then let's force everyone to fly. That's safer than both, based on what data seems to be available.)

For me, I'd rather focus on getting people out of their own vehicles and onto safer, more sustainable forms of transport. Buses serve as a vital link in many of those areas, and I fear the rhetoric around buses being more dangerous than trains will lead people to a (very false) conclusion that since there's no train on a particular route, they might as well just drive themselves since buses are (in their mind, fed by rhetoric that buses are more dangerous than trains) just as dangerous as driving. It may also lead to legislators not willing to fund those bus links in areas where we do need them, and where we can use them to either serve local needs that a train can't easily serve, or work as a feeder system into train routes.

I've been in buses which have collided with other vehicles; the standards for bus drivers in this country are *negligible*. In Europe, we *know* buses are less safe than trains, and in the US, the statistical collection is non-comparable, so I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that buses are in fact somewhat less safe than trains. That said, I think it does depend substantially on the bus companies; some have higher standards for drivers than others.

In addition, I'm certain it depends on the roads and the tracks; there are some roads I'd be comfortable on a bus, and then there's the Lincoln Tunnel approach where I've been in buses which sideswiped other vehicles in hit-and-runs.

Switching from train to bus to train is definitely less safe than staying on a train all the way through, because it's documented that there are higher chances of injury during the boarding/deboarding process on both trains and buses than while onboard.

That said, the fact that most people would say "to hell with this" to a train-bus-train trip, and would drive instead, which is *demonstrably much less safe*, is probably the strongest argument against such a stupid bus bridge idea.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Thats exactly right. Elderly going down steps, out into the elements, plus any time waiting out in the elements (it wont be a 2 min walk train to bus), repeating in other side. All this in the middle of the night makes it unfeasible. Im sure an actuary could tell you how many people will trip, break ankles and etc. Thats not even considering truly handicap who wont be able to travel at all.

I wouldnt let an elderly family member do it thats for sure.

 

[me_little_me]

Safety, shafety. I'll drive or fly before I take a long distance bus trip. Two hours on one of those things is more than my limit.

 

[jis]

New about the Southwest Chief from the Congressional hearing today (10/3/18) [courtesy of Jim Matthews of RPA]:

Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) led off the inquiry, posing tough questions to Amtrak’s Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Scott Naparstek.

“Will Amtrak commit, publicly, to stop pursuing the proposal of replacing the train with buses for the Southwest Chief for fiscal year 2019,” asked Senator Udall.

“We are well aware of the Senate’s position as well as the directive that is in the Senate’s version of the 2019 appropriations act,” Naparstek responded. “We plan on running the Southwest Chief, as is, through fiscal year 2019 and we await the Congress’ dealing with the Southwest Chief issue during conference as well as in the final spending bill.”

So Southwest Chief is safe through FY2019 pending direction from the Congress.

My suspicion is that Amtrak will fail to kill the national network, but they will possibly succeed in getting some additional directed funding from Congress, most likely not much additional money net net though. The most likely scenario is that the existing pot with minor increases will be divvied up by Congress for Amtrak, removing some flexibility that Amtrak has at the moment. Unintended consequences. Hope we can actually manage to get significant additional funding, but seems more and more difficult with the fiscal mess in Washington.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Good info jis,thanks for sharing!

Following Congress in operation is like herding Wildcats while Blinfolded!

 

[CAMISSY55]

Watching a replay of Wednesdays Senate Commerce Committee hearing on PTC and am impressed with Senators Udalls (NM), Morans (KS), and Gardners (CO) firm pressure on Amtraks VP Naparstek for answers regarding maintaining the SWC in its current configuration and the hold up in the release of the $3 million Tiger grant funds.

What is amazing to me as a relative novice on these matters, is how seemingly unprepared, evasive, and almost irritated Amtrak VP Naparstek is. The FRA administrator, Batory, seems so much more informed and clear spoken. Unlike Naparstek, Batorys affect reflects a deep understanding and love of what he does. The only interactions in which VP Naparstek perked up and seemed engaged was with Senator Baldwin about her bill about violence prevention on the rails (didnt catch the exact name) and new Lactation Stations and also when asked about if additional funding would help resolve some of the critical issues facing Amtrak.

Having never watched a Congressional committee hearing envolving Amtrak, Im curious if Naparsteks performance is typical of Amtrak representatives testimony?

p.s. Totally off subject, but does anyone know why apostrophes are not appearing as typed? I am posting using an iPhone X, iOS 12. (FYIW, I just got this phone and am new to iPhone/Apple.)