What is happening to the SWC route?

[the Duck]

Hey its awful quiet out there! Lets stir the pot and get something going. Quack! Quack! What are the odds reroute takes place before contract ends (Dec.31, 2015)? What are odds that reroute takes place in 2014?

 

[greatcats]

20% happens in 2014, due to major problem with present route

20% before end of 2015 for similar reasons

40% after expiration of present contract

10% remains on present route in 2016 on a temporary, extended basis

10% remains on present route on a permanent basis due to some miraculous creativity

I expanded on your answers, but lets have a little fun with this! ( With due respect to the bypassed stops, I will be more than a little peeved if the train stops coming to Flagstaff, which I prefer to think of as highly unlikely. )

 

[henryj]

I will give you a couple of more options: It's rerouted through Belen and skips stopping in Albuquerque. And/or Amtrak decides to discontinue the train rather than deal with the reroute. Of course there are many more even more remote options such as making the Eagle daily to make up for the discontinuance. A reroute over the UP overland route(old City of LA) or a branch off the CZ in SLC to LA. lol. The beat goes on.

 

[the Duck]

The question is not where reroute, But WHEN.

 

[henryj]

The question is not where reroute, But WHEN.

Well Duck, if it's that important to you then pick any date you want. I could really care less.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Henry, when you see him, I suggest you listen to his name and DUCK. That way you don't get hit by flying nonsense.

 

[amtkstn]

Something is going to be done soon because of the Chief's poor on time record this year. Today's trains lost almost three hours between Albuquerque and Newton. This is due to the slower speed track in western Kansas and the climb over Raton Pass.

 

[henryj]

If the train has to rerouted and it looks like this will happen, I give it a 50/50 chance of survival. According to Amtrak's accounting it's the second biggest loser of all the LD trains with a 69 million deficit last year or nearly $200 per passenger.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

But with the reroute that deficit will go down substantially.

 

[Ryan]

Not when you make up numbers to support your case.

 

[William W.]

Is someone making up numbers?

The SWC situation seems to highlight the friction between two of the stated goals of Amtrak: to serve rural towns without other forms of transportation, and to break-even/achieve a net gain financially. If Amtrak's focus is the former, then the route should stay as is. If the latter goal is paramount, the train should be routed through the areas where it would be able to serve more passengers, and in turn generate more revenue. Since Amtrak is under increasing pressure to show better financial results, I'd think that the smartest thing to do is reroute the train. In addition to the theoretical increase in revenue, OTP and reliability would improve. Yes, people will suffer from the loss of service, but how many more would suffer if the entire route were to be eliminated? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this case, IMO.

 

[Ryan]

Is someone making up numbers?

You're new here so you're not familiar with Henry's "analysis". He pores over Amtrak documents to try and pull out numbers, then fills in the gaps with some truthy-feeling guesstimates that lo and behold produce results that back up his pet theory of the month.

Of course when pressed on the details or the actual spreadsheets, we get as complete an explanation as we do the "bloated overhead" question (that is to say, nothing at all).

It's quite entertaining.

 

[henryj]

Is someone making up numbers?

You're new here so you're not familiar with Henry's "analysis". He pores over Amtrak documents to try and pull out numbers, then fills in the gaps with some truthy-feeling guesstimates that lo and behold produce results that back up his pet theory of the month.

Of course when pressed on the details or the actual spreadsheets, we get as complete an explanation as we do the "bloated overhead" question (that is to say, nothing at all).

It's quite entertaining.

It's really he just doesn't like me or my opinions which differ from his substantially. So he chases me around on here attacking my character, reliability and rationality. In other words he is the supreme pompous 'know it all' and a j---a--. The monitor on here lets him get away with it so I have to put up with it.

 

[the_traveler]

Please let's keep this on the topic of the SWC, not on other AU members. Thank you!

 

[railiner]

The SWC situation seems to highlight the friction between two of the stated goals of Amtrak: to serve rural towns without other forms of transportation, and to break-even/achieve a net gain financially. If Amtrak's focus is the former, then the route should stay as is. If the latter goal is paramount, the train should be routed through the areas where it would be able to serve more passengers, and in turn generate more revenue. Since Amtrak is under increasing pressure to show better financial results, I'd think that the smartest thing to do is reroute the train. In addition to the theoretical increase in revenue, OTP and reliability would improve. Yes, people will suffer from the loss of service, but how many more would suffer if the entire route were to be eliminated? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in this case, IMO.

I think that is a fair sumnation of the whole issue.

It can possibly be applied to re-routing some other Amtrak trains as well...

 

[neroden]

Is someone making up numbers?

The SWC situation seems to highlight the friction between two of the stated goals of Amtrak: to serve rural towns without other forms of transportation, and to break-even/achieve a net gain financially.

I think this is a false dichotomy. But then, I live in a rural town with unpleasant airline service, no train service at all, and larger population than the towns on the SWC line...
I think Amtrak's goal should be to serve the largest number of passengers...

 

[WoodyinNYC]

"In addition to the theoretical increase in revenue,

OTP and reliability would improve."

"Could improve," is better wording. It's conditional.

Clearly the host railroad does NOT want the Chief

on its main line, and is willing to pay $10 million a year

toward upkeep on the current route to show their sincerity.

So let's start with some respect for the interests of

the freight line, since Amtrak must deal with them

across the country.

And let's consider consequences if the host railroad

feels that Amtrak shoved the reroute down its throat.

That could make for bad attitude, which could affect

reliability and on-time performance.

So I'm happy watching Boardman be diplomatic. Amtrak

has offered to match BSNF contribution to repair and

maintenance of the route. And Boardman is trying to

hustle the ​states that benefit from the current route

into also matching the BSNF's millions.

Maybe simply making the effort will head off future

​bad attitude about the reroute. If not, don't count on

good reliability or better OTP.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.

 

[neroden]

I am fine with Boardman diplomatically attempting to chase up the money for the current route for the next few months. I really want him to have plan B ready to go, though, *because he's going to need to use it*.

 

[sechs]

I may be Eastern, and I may be sophisticated, but I live in a place where I have to drive EVERYWHERE, henryj. I'd still prefer a train station which was closer to me and didn't require driving down unlighted rural highways for long distances, and I'm sure the good people of Wichita feel the same way.

I wouldn't call I-135 an "unlighted, rural highway."

And, frankly, the good people of Wichita don't care, either way.

 

[sechs]

... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.

Actually, BNSF would be fine if the Southwest Chief just evaporated. They're a freight company, and Amtrak takes up space on their railroad.

BNSF could drop maintenance on the La Junta Subdivision, and tell Amtrak to eat crap and die. However, they're being a good corporate citizen by offering the reroute.

 

[William W.]

... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.

Actually, BNSF would be fine if the Southwest Chief just evaporated. They're a freight company, and Amtrak takes up space on their railroad.

BNSF could drop maintenance on the La Junta Subdivision, and tell Amtrak to eat crap and die. However, they're being a good corporate citizen by offering the reroute.

I'd imagine that they'd run into federal government opposition if they tried to do something like that. I don't think that the railroads are allowed to just revoke Amtrak's use of their rails.

 

[sechs]

I'd imagine that they'd run into federal government opposition if they tried to do something like that. I don't think that the railroads are allowed to just revoke Amtrak's use of their rails.

They wouldn't be. They'd just be continually downgrading the tracks until the trains would be running at a crawl.

 

[Ryan]

That'd be tough to do, given that they've got a contract (through the end of 2015, it seems).

I wouldn't call I-135 an "unlighted, rural highway."

I would:

 

[Green Maned Lion]

... Four the past 4 years BNSF has been trying to shove this reroute down Amtraks throat. I dunno what you are smoking but it's potent.

Actually, BNSF would be fine if the Southwest Chief just evaporated. They're a freight company, and Amtrak takes up space on their railroad.
BNSF could drop maintenance on the La Junta Subdivision, and tell Amtrak to eat crap and die. However, they're being a good corporate citizen by offering the reroute.

Go emote up a tree. And take the bill of goods you are trying to sell with you.