Southwest Chief News & Future Operations

[frequentflyer]

Here is a rather interesting blog that I stumbled across while searching for news on the Southwest Chief. The guys makes some good points whether we fully agree with them or not. Who knows? The intercity passenger train might turn out to have a different future in America than what we think.

https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2018/08/essay-last-train-grand-canyon-how-amtrak-fails-national-parks-and-america

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

P.S. I don't know why but it seem like everytime I copy and paste a URL into this format it doesn't work. I found that when I click on the link, the forum is adding six characters that I did not put in there. If I go into my browser and delete the last six characters - it works! - FMC

I read in a Trains article along time ago, that Sante Fe was resistant to joining Amtrak and was willing to continue to operate the Chief. Fast forward to today, I am sure BNSF or any freight railroad wants no part of pax service or its liability.

 

[railiner]

.

But here is a truly radical idea: What if the Chief were to stay on the current North Line as far west as Trinidad then head south over BNSF’s former Ft. Worth & Denver line until it hits the south line where it would then turn west again. Then only the towns of Raton, Las Vegas and Lamy would be missed. Again, a “Throughway” bus could serve those towns and perhaps even stop in downtown Santa Fe. This might actually be an improvement.

I realize that the routing would be just a bit circuitous but perhaps not more so than the California Zephyr’s Denver – Ogden routing across Wyoming before it got moved to the D&RGW route. Also, stations in Trinidad and Albuquerque would need to be relocated in order to prevent a couple of awkward back-up moves but that’s no big deal. The “depot” in Trinidad is nothing but a concrete platform anyways. The depot in Albuquerque could be relocated to the main transcon in the same way that the main stop for Phoenix was moved to the outpost at Maricopa. But would BNSF buy this idea? Maybe they would if the "pot got sweetened".

I dunno. Just an idea that’s all.

Regards,

FMC

One of the problems with this suggestion, is the way BNSF splits its traffic into directional running between Pueblo and Amarillo...one way via Trinidad and the former Colorado and Southern route, the other way via La Junta on the former AT&SF route...not sure if they would allow both ways via Trinidad for Amtrak, or not.

 

[GBNorman]

I read in a Trains article along time ago, that Santa Fe was resistant to joining Amtrak and was willing to continue to operate the Chief.

Having been in the industry on A-Day, but not with Santa Fe, I had learned there was some foundation to this report.
Santa Fe was concerned that under the 1919 Chicago Union Station Company Access Agreement for tenants (same as GM&O) that they would be "stung" with a portion of the building's debt service and maintenance costs. However when Amtrak and the Roads agreed to "Section 4.4" of the May 1, 1971 Agreement, a hastily thought out provision that represented one party wanting to stop running trains and the other wanting to start running trains, Amtrak agreed to pay the roads all costs of facilities such as CUS.

That decision by Amtrak was the start of much litigation with the owners of so-called "Jointly Owned Terminals", including St. Louis, New Orleans, Washington. Cincinnati, Richmond, as well as ones of which I never had knowledge.

 

[zephyr17]

I pretty much agree with every word of that article, Amtrak's history is accurately (if somewhat colorfully) portrayed. I've often thought about turning the passenger service back to the railroads and really like that approach. One of the main flaws that I see is that railroads don't have the passenger service infrastructure (reservations systems, customer service reps, all the back office functions of a passenger carrier) so it is not simply a matter of running trains well. They'd have to take over Amtrak's and somehow share it (or divvy it up) and improve it. I think that would require capital investment in something that is very much not of their core business now.

Back in the 1969-70, when the whole idea of a federal rescue of passenger rail was being discussed, there was an alternative proposal that had pretty wide support of just that. Railroads continue to operate the passenger trains, feds provide subsidies for them. That ultimately lost ground to the National Railroad Passenger Corp approach, unfortunately.

 

[railiner]

Amtrak was created to relieve the freight railroads of their passenger train burden, and....there ain't no going back...

 

[Bob Dylan]

Amtrak was created to relieve the freight railroads of their passenger train burden, and....there ain't no going back...

This!

 

[Palmetto]

.

But here is a truly radical idea: What if the Chief were to stay on the current North Line as far west as Trinidad then head south over BNSF’s former Ft. Worth & Denver line until it hits the south line where it would then turn west again. Then only the towns of Raton, Las Vegas and Lamy would be missed. Again, a “Throughway” bus could serve those towns and perhaps even stop in downtown Santa Fe. This might actually be an improvement.

I realize that the routing would be just a bit circuitous but perhaps not more so than the California Zephyr’s Denver – Ogden routing across Wyoming before it got moved to the D&RGW route. Also, stations in Trinidad and Albuquerque would need to be relocated in order to prevent a couple of awkward back-up moves but that’s no big deal. The “depot” in Trinidad is nothing but a concrete platform anyways. The depot in Albuquerque could be relocated to the main transcon in the same way that the main stop for Phoenix was moved to the outpost at Maricopa. But would BNSF buy this idea? Maybe they would if the "pot got sweetened".

I dunno. Just an idea that’s all.

Regards,

FMC

One of the problems with this suggestion, is the way BNSF splits its traffic into directional running between Pueblo and Amarillo...one way via Trinidad and the former Colorado and Southern route, the other way via La Junta on the former AT&SF route...not sure if they would allow both ways via Trinidad for Amtrak, or not.

There aren't really any populous cities on either of the two subdivisions running north out of Amarillo, so no need to make a stop anywhere, and no problem doing directional running. UP does allow Amtrak to run against the stream between Jefferson City, MO and Kansas City going west, doesn't it?

 

[fredmcain]

Amtrak was created to relieve the freight railroads of their passenger train burden, and....there ain't no going back...

Yeah, I hear this a lot. “It didn’t work before, therefore…..” But I just find it hard to believe that we can’t do better than this. We are approaching 5½ BILLION dollars a year for Amtrak (taxpayer $ + ticket revenue) and what are we getting? Where the heck is all that money going? Can’t there be a better way? It almost seems like Amtrak needs more and more cash to provide less and less service.

I like to point out that the government’s attitude (and much of the public’s as well) before about the 1970s was somewhat hostile towards railroads in general and against passenger trains as well. For example, in the 1940s the feds imposed a federal excise tax on the sale of passenger tickets that was in effect for around 20 years and yet to the best of my knowledge not one thin dime of that money ever found its way back into rail passenger infrastructure or equipment.

Then the post office abandoned the passenger train at the worst possible time. It also didn’t help that big city rail facilities were on the hook for state and local property taxes but big city airports were often built and owned by the municipalities and did not have to. People back in those days loved to respond “but what about the land grants?” O.K., so what about them? That was nearly 100 years prior to that.

I am already old enough to remember that many people 50 years ago looked upon railroads much as they do so-called “Big Oil” today. I like to think this has changed. So, would it be possible to give the railroads a second stab at running passenger trains? After all, private enterprises are often more efficient than government run ones. It COULD be made to work but only with profound changes.

One approach would be to reward the railroads for carrying more passengers with some kind of rate system. The more people they carry the bigger the tax breaks – or something. They could be provided with 0% interest loans to buy new equipment. Perhaps they could get infrastructure grants for expanding passenger services into new areas (something that Amtrak deserves an “F” for).

I dunno. I believe there are some very smart transportation officials and rail advocates in this country that could come up with something. Perhaps in time they will.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

 

[RPC]

After all, private enterprises are often more efficient than government run ones.

Compare the competition (airlines) today vs. 1971 to see what "higher efficiency" may look like. Mr. Anderson took a small step in the direction of higher efficiency with "fresh & contemporary dining" - how are we reacting?

 

[chrsjrcj]

Private companies work in the interest of the shareholders...ie maximize profit.

If anything, Amtrak should be treated LESS like a private corporation, so it can work in the best interest of the people it serves...ie citizens of the US.

 

[ehbowen]

Private companies work in the interest of the shareholders...ie maximize profit.

If anything, Amtrak should be treated LESS like a private corporation, so it can work in the best interest of the people it serves...ie citizens of the US.

That's not a problem at all. Just arrange the incentives so that profit is maximized when quality of service and number of customers served is maximized.

 

[neroden]

So, the interesting thing to me is this...

...by making some rather stupid and counterproductive threats, Anderson has brought down the sort of micromanagement which saddles VIA with a specific list of extremely expensive rural routes which they have to operate in perpetuity by law.

Had he made a serious proposal to reroute via Amarillo, it might have happened. Making a threat to use buses got him locked into the Raton Pass route and its ghost town stations essentially for all time.

I don't particularly like this outcome; it's been bad for VIA.

 

[neroden]

But here is a truly radical idea: What if the Chief were to stay on the current North Line as far west as Trinidad then head south over BNSF’s former Ft. Worth & Denver line until it hits the south line where it would then turn west again. Then only the towns of Raton, Las Vegas and Lamy would be missed. Again, a “Throughway” bus could serve those towns and perhaps even stop in downtown Santa Fe. This might actually be an improvement.

In terms of online population, I like it a lot. And it's still all-BNSF.
I'm OK with the directional running too.

It's too circuitous, though.

Ideally, we'd have the Chief on the Transcon route, and we'd also have a Denver-Kansas City train and a Denver-Amarillo-Lubbock train...

 

[Thirdrail7]

Amtrak was created to relieve the freight railroads of their passenger train burden, and....there ain't no going back...

Yeah, I hear this a lot. “It didn’t work before, therefore…..” But I just find it hard to believe that we can’t do better than this. We are approaching 5½ BILLION dollars a year for Amtrak (taxpayer $ + ticket revenue) and what are we getting? Where the heck is all that money going? Can’t there be a better way? It almost seems like Amtrak needs more and more cash to provide less and less service.

I like to point out that the government’s attitude (and much of the public’s as well) before about the 1970s was somewhat hostile towards railroads in general and against passenger trains as well. For example, in the 1940s the feds imposed a federal excise tax on the sale of passenger tickets that was in effect for around 20 years and yet to the best of my knowledge not one thin dime of that money ever found its way back into rail passenger infrastructure or equipment.

Amtrak (and a great deal of other agencies) will continue to need more and more as the infrastructure across the United States continues to age. It is balance due time. The years of kicking the can down the road has bitten everyone. it can no longer get kicked down the road since the can is so raggedy and filled with holes, it is no longer has the proper shape to get kicked down the road.

What does that mean for private investors? What private investor in their right minds would want to take over an industry that has trillion dollar infrastructure and capital needs, is strangled with regulations and unfunded mandates and it a liability nightmare?

That is how the freights see passenger rail. Their trains hop the rail, break down, fall apart on a daily basis and you don't hear/read much about it. The same is not true with passenger service. Additionally, some of the freight carriers proved they aren't interested in providing passengers service by PULLING OUT OF EXISTING operations. CSX refused to operate the MARC trains they inherited, did not bid on the VRE service on their territory. NS also declined to bid on the commuter services, which had their costs guaranteed.

If operators don't want passenger service on a state level with their costs all but guaranteed, what makes you think they'd want to take on Amtrak's woes, particularly if they have to answer to the ground rules of Congress? I can't imagine them dipping their toes into a multi-state, long distance service especially if it is subsidized by the feds. If you take their money, it comes with a price that I'd venture to say, the hosts don't want (which is something I think Richard Anderson is learning.)

 

[bretton88]

I guess I'm a little disappointed with the fact that we're probably only coming out of this situation with the status quo. There where points in the discussions where I felt like so much more could have come out of this. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy we do preserve service, but there was so much more potential on the table.

 

[jis]

This memo is now verified to be from Amtrak. This what Amtrak had to say today (8/14/18) regarding the Southwest Chief:

MEMO:

We know many of you have concerns about the status of the Southwest Chief. Here’s an update:

We are considering changes to the route and operation of the Southwest Chief. No decision has been made yet on our long-term operation of the entire Southwest Chief route, but a portion of the route faces unique challenges because of extensive operational and capital investment costs required to continue the present service. We are considering all options on how to make this route work, given the changing needs of our passengers, our limited resources and the expectations of Congress to deliver this service safely and efficiently. What we want you and our stakeholders to know is that the status quo is not an option – we or others either have to invest more or make changes.

We are looking specifically at changes to the Southwest Chief because it requires a lot of capital investment to keep it running “as is.” The Southwest Chief currently loses more than $50M every year, and we will need to invest more than $100M in the next 3-5 years to bring the route to a State of Good Repair and to fully implement Positive Train Control, plus additional operating expenses that will likely add to the train’s annual losses. We are responsible for all maintenance and capital costs for a 219-mile stretch of the route between Colorado and New Mexico. Also, Positive Train Control is not installed on a 348-mile stretch between Dodge City, Kan., and Albuquerque. No other Amtrak route has this combination of operational losses with capital investment needs. And this is an issue for us because we have a clear mandate from Congress, which is stated in the FAST Act, to deliver our services in a cost-effective manner, and we are falling short of this mandate with the Southwest Chief. We have many capital needs at Amtrak, and we have limited resources. We have to balance the needs of the Southwest Chief with the needs of the rest of our National Network, including all of our other Long Distance trains.

We know that many of our customers and stakeholders value this route – and we are evaluating all options. We are continuing to have conversations with members of the Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico congressional delegations and state and local leaders about the various options and funding needs. In addition, we will have senior executives onboard the Southwest Chief next week to talk with our stakeholders along the route.

We will provide updates as new information becomes available. In the meantime, we ask that everyone continue to provide excellent service and hospitality to our Southwest Chief customers and continue to operate safely and with the high degree of professionalism that defines our employees.

My Observation: It still appears to imply that a track segment that carries one train each way per day requires PTC

If this is really going to be pushed by Amtrak then bid farewell to San Jose - San Louis Obispo segment of Coast Starlight and California Zephyr on the Moffatt Route.

 

[acelafan]

Is the RPA (and others) adequately calling out this lie? Amtrak spreading these falsehoods is not good, obviously. It's clear they don't want to fight very hard (if at all) to make the current or even an alternate routing work.

 

[jis]

Is the RPA (and others) adequately calling out this lie? Amtrak spreading these falsehoods is not good, obviously. It's clear they don't want to fight very hard (if at all) to make the current or even an alternate routing work.

It is a bit more subtle than a direct false statement. It is an implication from the statement that the segment does not have PTC. There should be zero cost impact of that fact since it does not need PTC. Statement in that context of costs implies that it does. And yes. RPA is raising this issue repeatedly with Amtrak, but when you need all kinds of nonsense to pile cost onto a train since you want to destroy it one way or the other, such niceties as inconvenient truths and facts sometimes take a back seat.

In general, I believe any statement about "Costs" from Amtrak is highly suspect because so far they have been unable or unwilling to explain to anyone how they go about allocating costs in order to come up with those make believe numbers, whatever they need to fit the bill for the conversation of the day.

That is even if we completely ignore the PTC related stuff.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Thanks jis!

Ever since this first arose,and when New Mexico's weasel Governor ( they seem to elect alot!)backed out of the track deal with BNSF, the Sensible Alternate being pushed has been BNSFs Southern Main thru Clovis,Amarillo, Witchita,etc.

I think this makes perfect sense, Lies,half truths and $100 Million Dollars for Two Trains a day makes Zero sense.

I applaud Colorado's efforts on keeping,getting better rail service for SE Colorado,( where's Kansas,Texas and New Mexico??) and think this was one of Joe Boardmans better ideas while he was CEO.

( remember the Special he ran through this area)

But as Cuba Gooding said in "Jerry McGuire": "..Show me the Money!.."

 

[bretton88]

The 100 million is assuredly a fake number. That is a number Amtrak is throwing out because it gets attention and sticks (35 million doesn't quite have that same ring, lol). Remember the Trump 10 billion net worth boast? We all remembered that number even when the facts showed the real number was much different. The 100 million is similar, a number that raises the profile and attention of the issue and the Amtrak will get somewhere close to the real number it needs. Scott Adams wrote a great blog on how this works and how it's great negotiating. Remember, Amtrak is now run by a guy who's from the private sector.

 

[west point]

JIS. Have you had any luck getting your congress persons to realize that Amtrak has taken efforts to hide what their real costs are ? I have had no luck here trying to get ours to realize there is no transparency to Amtrak's figures especially since Amtrak reduced it monthly reports to fluff.

 

[jis]

JIS. Have you had any luck getting your congress persons to realize that Amtrak has taken efforts to hide what their real costs are ? I have had no luck here trying to get ours to realize there is no transparency to Amtrak's figures especially since Amtrak reduced it monthly reports to fluff.

If you knew who my Congressperson is you would not be asking that question

(Hint: Look up Florida 8th) One of my Senator already understands this. I have no clue what the other one thinks since he does not seem to think that he should deal with any of the people that he represents.

 

[keelhauled]

The 100 million is assuredly a fake number. That is a number Amtrak is throwing out because it gets attention and sticks (35 million doesn't quite have that same ring, lol). Remember the Trump 10 billion net worth boast? We all remembered that number even when the facts showed the real number was much different. The 100 million is similar, a number that raises the profile and attention of the issue and the Amtrak will get somewhere close to the real number it needs. Scott Adams wrote a great blog on how this works and how it's great negotiating. Remember, Amtrak is now run by a guy who's from the private sector.

As long as Amtrak is (in theory) accountable to taxpayer, I think they have an obligation to be honest with the American government and public. "But Trump did it" is not IMO a good justification for anything. It may well be the case that the costs of maintaining the Chief over Raton outweigh the benefits, but no one is going to be able to say for sure without access to the facts. I would hope that whatever stakeholders Amtrak officials meet with would press the company for an itemized list of expenses so there is a level playing field among everyone w/r/t the data in this conundrum.

 

[fredmcain]

First of all, my main question on this so-called "update" from Amtrak is, when exactly was it generated? Was this prior to the action that was recently taken in the Senate or after the fact? That would make a big difference 'cause if it was prior, it is also dated and Amtrak's intentions may have changed. But if it came out after the Senate undertook its actions then Anderson has obviously chosen to dig in for a fight. I believe in the end he will almost certainly lose because he is turning too many people including some of his most valuable supporters against him.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

 

[Thirdrail7]

First of all, my main question on this so-called "update" from Amtrak is, when exactly was it generated? Was this prior to the action that was recently taken in the Senate or after the fact? That would make a big difference 'cause if it was prior, it is also dated and Amtrak's intentions may have changed. But if it came out after the Senate undertook its actions then Anderson has obviously chosen to dig in for a fight. I believe in the end he will almost certainly lose because he is turning too many people including some of his most valuable supporters against him.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

The update was yet another leaked, internal document that came out this week. Prepare for battle because you obviously read it yourself: " the status quo is not an option."