Southwest Chief News & Future Operations

[Seaboard92]

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

Gateway with the national network or no Gateway.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Next up on the chopping block, the Sunset Ltd.

 

[bretton88]

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

Source?

Years of reading Trains mag and during the internet era different forums with posts from actual BNSF employees.Just one example. Read RRspatch replies to this subject

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?

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

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

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

 

[frequentflyer]

Next up on the chopping block, the Sunset Ltd.

When has it not been on the chopping block?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RPC]

Next up on the chopping block, the Sunset Ltd.

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

 

[AmtrakFlyer]

I think the Senator summed up it by his quote:

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

 

[Thirdrail7]

I think the Senator summed up it by his quote:

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

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

 

[jis]

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

 

[bretton88]

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

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

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

 

[keelhauled]

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

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

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

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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

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

 

[bretton88]

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

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

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

 

[CHvision]

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

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

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

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

Gateway with the national network or no Gateway.

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

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

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

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

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

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

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

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

SWC:

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

CZ and DW:

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

EB (and TE, was on same page):

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

Pioneer:

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

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

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

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

 

[Palmetto]

I think the Senator summed up it by his quote:

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

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

Just checked. SInce 2013

 

[tricia]

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

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

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

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

 

[railiner]

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

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

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

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[railiner]

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

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

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

 

[ciship]

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

 

[jis]

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

 

[frequentflyer]

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

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

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

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

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

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