I do find this funny. All Amtrak would have to tell him is "Your state is the problem point. Why haven't you come through with the funds to fix this in the last decade?" Not like the Railrunner PTC status hasn't been known for a long time.
The two sleepers generate almost half of the revenue
We're not sure if they are going to eliminate the sleepers. An option is sleeper train LA-ABQ and CHI-LAJ. At this point there's a lot of options on the table. The only thing they know for sure is that the Lamy to ABQ section might not be available to run on, so they need to plan for that possibility.
My crystal ball is still under repair but I think things are becoming quite clear. They weren't that foggy to begin with. I've mentioned what I think the end game will be if left to the current administration.
The capital needs are not going away. As more hosts step up and demand Amtrak assume the costs of PTC, this battle will only increase. As such I'd like to quote part of this entry from the Richard Anderson replacing Wick Moorman as Amtrak CEO thread.
<snip>
The large elephant in the room is PTC and who will assume the costs. This is where you might have hit the nail on the head Tibike. There are hosts that have basically said, if you want to use this route, you'll have to foot the costs of PTC. If in fact Amtrak did foot those costs, then they need bang for their buck. Running as many trains over their territory is a wise investment. However, what if the costs of the investment doesn't translate into ridership and/or revenue? Should you make the investment merely to keep "the system" together?
Well, that is the ultimate question and that once again boils down to, finances, revenue, ridership and politics. What is more important...revenue or ridership? I'm not from the west cost Tibike, so I'm going to need your help. Using the Coast Starlight as an example, you have stated that running it as separate corridor trains may stimulate ridership since the train is not helpful to people in CA. Am I understanding you correctly? If that is the case, it would make sense that the top city pairs for this train would be long distance passengers since this train isn't reliable for corridor service. Again, this makes sense. Now, the REVENUE from the LD pairs is going to be quite higher since typically, the greater the distance, the higher the fare. So, taking a train like the CS and breaking it into various trains may increase ridership but you'd have to hope the volume makes up for the potential loss in revenue from the long distance trip and the potential increase in fees. What if it doesn't?
A classic example is the Capitol Punishment....I mean errr Limited. On its own, this is dopey train. It has poor arrival times at the main city along the route (PGH) and poor connections (relatively short in one direction and too long in the other direction.) The intermediate markets are small and poorly served. However, if you attempt to change their schedules, NS has basically promised to paralyze the train....not that it should matter since they kind of do that anyway, so what harm is there in changing the times?However, from a system perspective, this train is a major west-south conduit. It funnels a great deal of through traffic between the east coast and the mid west. Altering the train would impact the entire system. So, if a host wants to pass the PTC costs along, a cursory look would suggest you kill this train because as a stand alone route, the finances of the city pair wouldn't justify the investment . However, an in depth look would make you have the opposite point of view. That is because the through ridership is there and with that comes revenue not only for the route, but for the system.
Speaking of the system, that is where politics comes into play. I know things are different now, but there are plenty of people that don't believe in trains. Period. If you want them, pay for them! That sounds logical but there are plenty of people that will not vote for funding a scattered system. In other words, it sounds good to say you're going to invest BILLIONS in the NEC....until someone in Kentucky says "Sure, as long as you continue to stop in Mayville!' and someone in Montana says "I'll allocate for a national system, which means Malta. So if you think you're turning the Empire Builder into two trains between CHI-MSP along with one SEA-SPK train, you've have another thing coming!"[/B]
The trains are shorter now then they have ever been. However, I think that is because of slightly better utilization and assignment. That may also be because revenue (higher fares) are trumping ridership numbers (lowering fares may drive up the numbers but may not translate into revenue.). Additionally, shorter trains traveling shorter distances doesn't necessarily mean less maintenance or less head count. Quite often, it means just the opposite. Short distance intercity trains must have a calendar day inspection lust like a Long Distance train ,except a long distance train can actually continue to its final repair point if a non-running gear defect is found en route. That is not the case for commuter or short distance intercity trains. Additionally, a delayed en route LD train can continue in service to its next calendar day inspection point. That is not the case with SD/COM trains. They can continue to the next inspection point, but not with the passengers. Multiple trains may need additional crews and crew bases. Again, this MAY not be an issue. It depends on the costs, the ridership and the revenue.
These are all major issues, Tibike. Where trains exist, I believe in multiple services. You already have the stations. You already have the mechanical forces available. You already have the crew base and commissary profile. If more trains can utilize them, that's better. So, I'm not saying your idea for breaking up the CS may not be a good idea. However, will the states fund it? If they kill the train, does that mean other states will fund what is left? Will Oregon willingly fork over money to invest in the NEC? Our new CEO may believe so but I really don't think that is the case. We could lose it all.
We may find out soon enough. My prediction is a push to corridor type trains, financed by the states. We may not have a choice. If that fails, you'll see a nod to sustaining the system by running a perfunctory train with minimal amenities and a puny consist. The rest of the equipment will be diverted to other places in the system to feed corridor type service.Again, this may NOT be the end of the world, depending on how it is accomplished.
Is this decision final or is it possible enough pressure could cause a reconsideration or reroute instead of a bus bridge? If the bus segment is implemented, but the states at some point in the future decide to pay for the infrastructure, could the train return? I don't know whether you have the answer to those questions, but this is the first decision that may actually impact me personally, although I did see some LD cuts happening. The SWC just seems like one of the least logical routes to discontinue, especially considering the problem segment has a better reroute potential than almost any other Amtrak route. A while back, I remember a thread about which trains were most likely to be cut. The only trains I foresaw outlasting the SWC were a Florida train, a NEC-Chicago train, the CS, and possibly the CZ. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but this seems like one of the least logical routes to turn into a corridor service as it has little population from Kansas City to California, so I doubt either corridor train would last. The route's strengths lie in it's endpoints and connections. I'm sure other members here know more than I do on this topic, but it seems to me that this is either a stupid decision or there is much more to it than simply implementing a bus bridge on the SWC.My crystal ball is still under repair but I think things are becoming quite clear. They weren't that foggy to begin with. I've mentioned what I think the end game will be if left to the current administration.
I would like everyone to look at page 14 of the presentation that was enclosed in the first page of this thread. It is the one that says Unresolved Infrastructure issues. Behold the very last line:
The financial investment of the magnitude needed to retain this portion of the route is not prudent given the broader needs across the network
In other words, it isn't worth it for one train. Even if the states paid for everything else and PTC was operational, does Amrak really want to invest in 219 miles of railroad for one train when other routes could use that 3 million?
The danger here is this can be repeated along many routes across the system. Is it worth it? The presentation even includes a little bribe for future service. We're on your side and we want to run corridor trains in your state. This is consistent with a few things I've stated before:
The capital needs are not going away. As more hosts step up and demand Amtrak assume the costs of PTC, this battle will only increase. As such I'd like to quote part of this entry from the Richard Anderson replacing Wick Moorman as Amtrak CEO thread.
Well, it is summer. Here comes Amtrak 2.0!<snip>
The large elephant in the room is PTC and who will assume the costs. This is where you might have hit the nail on the head Tibike. There are hosts that have basically said, if you want to use this route, you'll have to foot the costs of PTC. If in fact Amtrak did foot those costs, then they need bang for their buck. Running as many trains over their territory is a wise investment. However, what if the costs of the investment doesn't translate into ridership and/or revenue? Should you make the investment merely to keep "the system" together?
Well, that is the ultimate question and that once again boils down to, finances, revenue, ridership and politics. What is more important...revenue or ridership? I'm not from the west cost Tibike, so I'm going to need your help. Using the Coast Starlight as an example, you have stated that running it as separate corridor trains may stimulate ridership since the train is not helpful to people in CA. Am I understanding you correctly? If that is the case, it would make sense that the top city pairs for this train would be long distance passengers since this train isn't reliable for corridor service. Again, this makes sense. Now, the REVENUE from the LD pairs is going to be quite higher since typically, the greater the distance, the higher the fare. So, taking a train like the CS and breaking it into various trains may increase ridership but you'd have to hope the volume makes up for the potential loss in revenue from the long distance trip and the potential increase in fees. What if it doesn't?
A classic example is the Capitol Punishment....I mean errr Limited. On its own, this is dopey train. It has poor arrival times at the main city along the route (PGH) and poor connections (relatively short in one direction and too long in the other direction.) The intermediate markets are small and poorly served. However, if you attempt to change their schedules, NS has basically promised to paralyze the train....not that it should matter since they kind of do that anyway, so what harm is there in changing the times?However, from a system perspective, this train is a major west-south conduit. It funnels a great deal of through traffic between the east coast and the mid west. Altering the train would impact the entire system. So, if a host wants to pass the PTC costs along, a cursory look would suggest you kill this train because as a stand alone route, the finances of the city pair wouldn't justify the investment . However, an in depth look would make you have the opposite point of view. That is because the through ridership is there and with that comes revenue not only for the route, but for the system.
Speaking of the system, that is where politics comes into play. I know things are different now, but there are plenty of people that don't believe in trains. Period. If you want them, pay for them! That sounds logical but there are plenty of people that will not vote for funding a scattered system. In other words, it sounds good to say you're going to invest BILLIONS in the NEC....until someone in Kentucky says "Sure, as long as you continue to stop in Mayville!' and someone in Montana says "I'll allocate for a national system, which means Malta. So if you think you're turning the Empire Builder into two trains between CHI-MSP along with one SEA-SPK train, you've have another thing coming!"[/b]
The trains are shorter now then they have ever been. However, I think that is because of slightly better utilization and assignment. That may also be because revenue (higher fares) are trumping ridership numbers (lowering fares may drive up the numbers but may not translate into revenue.). Additionally, shorter trains traveling shorter distances doesn't necessarily mean less maintenance or less head count. Quite often, it means just the opposite. Short distance intercity trains must have a calendar day inspection lust like a Long Distance train ,except a long distance train can actually continue to its final repair point if a non-running gear defect is found en route. That is not the case for commuter or short distance intercity trains. Additionally, a delayed en route LD train can continue in service to its next calendar day inspection point. That is not the case with SD/COM trains. They can continue to the next inspection point, but not with the passengers. Multiple trains may need additional crews and crew bases. Again, this MAY not be an issue. It depends on the costs, the ridership and the revenue.
These are all major issues, Tibike. Where trains exist, I believe in multiple services. You already have the stations. You already have the mechanical forces available. You already have the crew base and commissary profile. If more trains can utilize them, that's better. So, I'm not saying your idea for breaking up the CS may not be a good idea. However, will the states fund it? If they kill the train, does that mean other states will fund what is left? Will Oregon willingly fork over money to invest in the NEC? Our new CEO may believe so but I really don't think that is the case. We could lose it all.
We may find out soon enough. My prediction is a push to corridor type trains, financed by the states. We may not have a choice. If that fails, you'll see a nod to sustaining the system by running a perfunctory train with minimal amenities and a puny consist. The rest of the equipment will be diverted to other places in the system to feed corridor type service.Again, this may NOT be the end of the world, depending on how it is accomplished.
I think I understand your question, boss. I'm just curious: What makes a train more dangerous in the snow than in the sun? The incidents like 501 and the train (514?) that launched itself through the split derail and almost launched itself into the drink occurred in broad daylight.
These are just proposals. Nothing is firm yet. There is plenty of time for negotiation, politics, ploys and other shenanigans. That being said, I still have high hopes we are dealing with an evil genius. I've mentioned it before. Sometimes, you have to give people what they want and let them see how it plays out. In this case, the 'people" are "Congress,' and instead of sidestepping the issues, he's diving right into it...and people are taking notice:
People are writing ( I hope) which means Congress will start paying attention. They already are. A senator already proposed adding staffing requirements to the funding. Who knows what the next person will add/ It may say you WILL operate the SW Chief.....
I like your quote from Railroad.net that sums up the situation simply.
Source?
Years of reading Trains mag and during the internet era different forums with posts from actual BNSF employees.
I'm far to young to remember that, but I can easily think of a few good reasons that the Desert Wind could be preferred over the Southwest Chief. Las Vegas was a much bigger loss than Albuquerque. Denver and Salt Lake City would also provide more traffic than Kansas City to/from the west, while if I remember correctly Kansas City had direct corridor service to Chicago via St. Louis at the time. Because the route ran fewer miles as a stand-alone train, it would likely also be cheaper to operate. However, it took about 8 hours longer than the Southwest Chief. It is a similar situation to the Florida trains, with the SM being a popular express train serving no major cities between Washington and Jacksonville, while bypassing Florida's second largest metro area. The SS is more lightly used and takes longer, but it serves Raleigh and Tampa. I would support preserving it over the SM, as many SM passengers would switch to the SS if it were the only option, as most popular city pairs are still served, even if it is a little slower. Meanwhile, many of the popular city pairs on the SS are not served by the SM, so those passengers would be lost if the SS was lost.
I clicked over to that board but had to scroll a lot farther down to see the answer to this. The quotes provided here favor the reroute but further down the page it discusses BNSF's reasons for its opposition. Still coming from rank-and-file, but they sound like valid considerations.
RRspatch can make a great case for why his former coworkers don't want Amtrak on this or that segment of the transcontinental line, but dispatchers don't write access contracts or dictate corporate obligations and legal remedies. Right now Amtrak is on BNSF track and if BNSF refuses to maintain that track they'll have to provide some other reasonable accommodation prior to the current line becoming impassible. That could be today or next week or several years from now, but the obligation does not cease to exist unless BNSF takes Amtrak to court to force the issue or Anderson sabotages Amtrak's side of the contract.
Not true, actually. The problem stretch is on NMRX territory, not BNSF. So BNSF has no obligation to provide an alternative in this case. This is different than when BNSF proposed to downgrade the raton route.
I think I see what you're getting at. So for now the BNSF portion remains intact (at reduced speed), and the PTC can be waived due to limited PAX traffic and lack of HZMT, but on the NMRX portion all of the available waivers will be used up on local traffic leaving nothing for Amtrak. Even if Amtrak lobbied for moving to the transcontinental route they would still be forced to give up ABQ without NMRX. Do I have this right?
That's true, but the SWC is more dominated by Long-Distance passengers than most other trains. The only major corridor served during the day is Chicago-Kansas City, with Albuquerque being overnight to Los Angeles, Riverside/San Bernardino, Kansas City, and Chicago. This can be seen in the ridership statistics, which show that the primary destinations for Albuquerque passengers are Los Angeles and Chicago, with only 2 of the top 8 destinations being under 800 miles. On comparable routes such as the CZ, shorter distance travel is more popular. For example, some of the most popular destinations from Denver include Grand Junction, Glenwood Springs, Lincoln, and Omaha. This is because the CZ has many cities that are destinations and not just towns that happen to be on the railroad route. Stations with at least 15,000 annual passengers exclusively served by the CZ include Osceola, Omaha, Lincoln, Denver, Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, Salt Lake City, and Reno, for a total of eight . On the SWC, there is only Newton, Raton, Albuquerque, Gallup, and Flagstaff that generate 15,000+ passengers and that are on this route alone. If the criteria becomes 40,000+, 4 CZ stations and 2 SWC make the list. The busiest of these stops on the SWC is Albuquerque, which has barely over half of Denver's passengers and is comparable to Reno. Meanwhile, the EB travels through even more rural territory than the SWC, but in that case the lack of highway access drastically increases train ridership. Of course the smaller markets can add up, but that is true of any route. When considering the distance it travels and the relatively lightly populated areas it travels though, it easy to see how the route is undervalued until the endpoints are considered as well as the connection possibilities. I would be happy to see evidence otherwise, but it seems to me that if this plan is implemented both trains will fail to last more than a couple of years.
And what does that do for Amtrak's future? I doubt there's anyone internally that will want to rock the boat or drastically change things, even if it seems to be for the better. Any external candidates would likely be spooked away if they see someone was forced out, especially if they were following the direction of the board and what the law requires.
