Southwest Chief News & Future Operations

[user 14106]

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

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

2) Coast Starlight would probably remain.

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

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

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

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

 

[TiBike]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bretton88]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TiBike]

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

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

1. Change the law.

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

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

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

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

 

[cpotisch]

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

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

 

[bmjhagen9426]

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

 

[Seaboard92]

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

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

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

 

[AmtrakBlue]

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

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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

 

[JayPea]

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

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

It most certainly does stop in Spokane.

 

[jis]

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

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

 

[Chey]

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

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

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

 

[bmjhagen9426]

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

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

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

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

 

[TiBike]

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

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

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

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

 

[PRR 60]

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

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

It most certainly does stop in Spokane.

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

 

[bmjhagen9426]

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

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

It most certainly does stop in Spokane.

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

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

 

[Seaboard92]

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

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

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

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bretton88]

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

 

[railiner]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Seaboard92]

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

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

 

[TiBike]

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

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

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

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

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

So you're saying that transferring 3 or 4 times to get from LA to Southern Oregon is good mobility? I don't think so. The other option is having a bus run that, but Greyhound doesn't stop everywhere, either.

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

 

[cpotisch]

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

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

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

 

[cpotisch]

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

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