What is happening to the SWC route?

[printman2000]

The point of Boardman's reply is NOT that a route though Amarillo is a good idea, but rather he doesn't want to do it on the backs of losing those between ABQ - Raton - Dodge City. 52,000 passengers embarked or disembarked at stops that would be eliminated. ABQ had 72,000 in 2013.

Let's look at the advantages of keeping the existing route:

1) All those Boy Scouts that go to Raton are, as of this year, paying full adult fare!

2) Raton has about the same passenger count as Lamy (for Santa Fe)

3) It would be about the closest thing to a dedicated passenger route, with no freight (thus schedule) interference

4) Prettier than the Transcon

The disadvantages to the Transcon include:

1) High freight traffic. Even if passenger train speeds are 20 MPH over freight, you can't leap frog if both mains are congested.

2) Could Amarillo make up the 52,000 passenger deficit? 300,000 people???

No matter how it goes, I agree with Mr. Gallagher - Amtrak is just trying to keep the status quo. New routes (or even reroutes) will be difficult. We can always hope. Heck, many of us thought that the FEC deal would have panned out by now.

I totally get it if Amtrak is concerned that if they try to pursue the transcon, they could lose the route outright.

Your response has really made me think about this. I guess I am looking at the options wrong. I was thinking about the costs of running on either line and thinking the transcon would be cheaper (all the infrastructure costs vs. the new route development costs). However, that is not what Amtrak is doing. They are wanting the states to pay for the bulk of the infrastructure and if that happens, the current route would be better for Amtrak. If Amtrak had to pay for all the infrastructure costs, then I guess my question above would be more legitimate.

I do have one issue with one thing you said. You asked if Amarillo would make up for the ENTIRE route that lost service. I doubt it would. But I suspect the ENTIRE reroute would make up for the stations lost, eventually. Not right away, but I believe it will eventually exceed the current numbers.

 

[user 1215]

No matter what you say, it's just opinion unless you back it up with cited facts.

Duh.

 

[user 1215]

I do have one issue with one thing you said. You asked if Amarillo would make up for the ENTIRE route that lost service. I doubt it would. But I suspect the ENTIRE reroute would make up for the stations lost, eventually. Not right away, but I believe it will eventually exceed the current numbers.

I think I can find common ground here. I don't know where I came up with 300,000.... :blush:

Amarillo is certainly larger than any of the existing stops along the route of the SWC. There seem to be way fewer "small" towns along that route, hence my suggestion that Amarillo would have to take all the slack.

Texas should consider connecting Amarillo to Lubbock and then to Fort Worth via Wichita Falls. Haa haaa hheeee heeee hee ehehheh :help: :help: :giggle:

 

[printman2000]

I do have one issue with one thing you said. You asked if Amarillo would make up for the ENTIRE route that lost service. I doubt it would. But I suspect the ENTIRE reroute would make up for the stations lost, eventually. Not right away, but I believe it will eventually exceed the current numbers.

I think I can find common ground here. I don't know where I came up with 300,000.... :blush:

Amarillo is certainly larger than any of the existing stops along the route of the SWC. There seem to be way fewer "small" towns along that route, hence my suggestion that Amarillo would have to take all the slack.

Texas should consider connecting Amarillo to Lubbock and then to Fort Worth via Wichita Falls. Haa haaa hheeee heeee hee ehehheh :help: :help: :giggle:

Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.

 

[railbuck]

Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.

I'd consider Wichita basically a replacement for Hutchinson. There may be the opportunity to pick up a few passengers who aren't currently willing to drive to HUT (or NEW for that matter) but for the most part it will probably be the same people riding the train, just boarding at a different stop.

 

[printman2000]

Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.

I'd consider Wichita basically a replacement for Hutchinson. There may be the opportunity to pick up a few passengers who aren't currently willing to drive to HUT (or NEW for that matter) but for the most part it will probably be the same people riding the train, just boarding at a different stop.

Maybe. I bet with a move, though, a lot more people will know about Amtrak and become riders. It is still a 30 minute drive to the closest station of Newton (not Hutchinson).

 

[user 1215]

Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.

I'd consider Wichita basically a replacement for Hutchinson. There may be the opportunity to pick up a few passengers who aren't currently willing to drive to HUT (or NEW for that matter) but for the most part it will probably be the same people riding the train, just boarding at a different stop.

Maybe. I bet with a move, though, a lot more people will know about Amtrak and become riders. It is still a 30 minute drive to the closest station of Newton (not Hutchinson).

I dunno... Hate to sound pessimestic, but a good chunk of Savannaians don't know about Amtrak.

 

[Bob Dylan]

With the current Political situation in Texas I don't think the State would put a Nickel into New Rail Service!

Lubbock's Population is a little over 300,000 and it's the Home of a Major University with 30,000+ students, Texas Tech! It is a liitle over a 100 Miles South of Amarillo via I-27, "the Freeway to Nowhere!", so an Thruway Bus would probably work fine to connect with the SWC!! Other than Southwest Airlines and a Regional Bus Line, (Kerrville used to serve this Route) driving is the only way to get to/from Lubbock!

Amarillo, combined with the Populations of Witchita, Lubbock and Clovis Has the potential for a Big Increase in Ridership for the SWC compared to the small, fading towns in Western Kansas,Eastern Colorado and New Mexico!

As for the boy Scouts, they could still ride the SWC to ABQ and bus to the Ranch just like they do now on the current Raton Route!

Edit; I used the City of Lubbock's Home Page for the stats, (which evidently is optimistic!) Thanks for the update!

 

[printman2000]

Lubbock's Population is a little over 300,000 and it's the Home of a Major University, Texas Tech! It is aliitle over a 100 Miles South of Amarillo via I-27, "the Freeway to Nowhere!" So an Thruway Bus would probably work to connect with the SWC!! Other than Southwest Airlines and a Regional Bus Line, driving is the only way to get to/from Lubbock!

Actually, Lubbock is only around 240,000 and they also have United and American Eagle flights.

 

[sechs]

Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.

I'd consider Wichita basically a replacement for Hutchinson. There may be the opportunity to pick up a few passengers who aren't currently willing to drive to HUT (or NEW for that matter) but for the most part it will probably be the same people riding the train, just boarding at a different stop.

Wichita is really just a replacement for Newton, which wouldn't lose service.

Folks need to stop relying on Wichita to add any meaningful passenger load. These folks already drive to Newton. It's not that much more convenient to catch the train in old town.

 

[Paulus]

Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.

I'd consider Wichita basically a replacement for Hutchinson. There may be the opportunity to pick up a few passengers who aren't currently willing to drive to HUT (or NEW for that matter) but for the most part it will probably be the same people riding the train, just boarding at a different stop.

Wichita is really just a replacement for Newton, which wouldn't lose service.
Folks need to stop relying on Wichita to add any meaningful passenger load. These folks already drive to Newton. It's not that much more convenient to catch the train in old town.

Eh? Nearly thirty miles is a significant distance and most importantly Wichita is a heck of a lot more convenient to use public transportation for.

 

[sechs]

Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.

I'd consider Wichita basically a replacement for Hutchinson. There may be the opportunity to pick up a few passengers who aren't currently willing to drive to HUT (or NEW for that matter) but for the most part it will probably be the same people riding the train, just boarding at a different stop.

Wichita is really just a replacement for Newton, which wouldn't lose service.
Folks need to stop relying on Wichita to add any meaningful passenger load. These folks already drive to Newton. It's not that much more convenient to catch the train in old town.

Eh? Nearly thirty miles is a significant distance and most importantly Wichita is a heck of a lot more convenient to use public transportation for.

I promise you, it's not a significant distance in Kansas, and public transit there is inconvenient, by itself. One certainly isn't going to find a bus at three o'clock-ish in the morning.

 

[printman2000]

I imagine if Wichita got service, there would be a lot of publicity with it and a lot more people would know about it. I am willing to bet a lot of people there have no idea Amtrak is anywhere near them.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[neroden]

Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.

I'd consider Wichita basically a replacement for Hutchinson. There may be the opportunity to pick up a few passengers who aren't currently willing to drive to HUT (or NEW for that matter) but for the most part it will probably be the same people riding the train, just boarding at a different stop.

Maybe. I bet with a move, though, a lot more people will know about Amtrak and become riders. It is still a 30 minute drive to the closest station of Newton (not Hutchinson).

I dunno... Hate to sound pessimestic, but a good chunk of Savannaians don't know about Amtrak.

Wichita Union Station is in a much better location than Savannah Amshack -- and it's also a much flashier station. There's been a lot of talk in the newspapers about it, first about potentially bringing service there on the Heartland Flyer, and second about developer Gary Oborny redeveloping it. I think people would notice if it got service.

 

[neroden]

The point of Boardman's reply is NOT that a route though Amarillo is a good idea, but rather he doesn't want to do it on the backs of losing those between ABQ - Raton - Dodge City.

Well, sure. But the way I look at it, the most important thing is to keep the LAX-ABQ-KCY-CHI service.
If the towns on the existing route cannot come up with the money to keep it viable, then Amtrak should talk to the towns on the alternate route, because they probably *will* come up with the money to keep *that* route viable. So far Amtrak has actually refused to talk to Amarillo, Wichita, and Clovis.

I totally get it if Amtrak is concerned that if they try to pursue the transcon, they could lose the route outright.

I don't get it. Because if Amtrak doesn't try to pursue the Transcon next year, they will lose the route outright. If I were ridiculously optimistic, I'd suggest that governors of NM and KS might be replaced in November with massive supporters of the Raton route who will pay for it, but even Colorado won't commit money, so it seems unlikely.

 

[neroden]

2) Could Amarillo make up the 52,000 passenger deficit? 300,000 people???

Lamy passengers (for Santa Fe) would simply switch to Albuquerque (for Santa Fe), just as the loss of Hutchinson would be balanced by the gain from Wichita. The passenger count would be roughly the same on the Transcon very quickly, assuming Wichita, Amarillo, and Clovis got service.
It could go up if additional stations got service or if better Thruway Bus connections were scheduled to serve the bypassed areas.

 

[user 1215]

Well, you would also probably be adding Clovis, NM, and also Witchita, KS.

I'd consider Wichita basically a replacement for Hutchinson. There may be the opportunity to pick up a few passengers who aren't currently willing to drive to HUT (or NEW for that matter) but for the most part it will probably be the same people riding the train, just boarding at a different stop.

Maybe. I bet with a move, though, a lot more people will know about Amtrak and become riders. It is still a 30 minute drive to the closest station of Newton (not Hutchinson).

I dunno... Hate to sound pessimestic, but a good chunk of Savannaians don't know about Amtrak.

Wichita Union Station is in a much better location than Savannah Amshack -- and it's also a much flashier station. There's been a lot of talk in the newspapers about it, first about potentially bringing service there on the Heartland Flyer, and second about developer Gary Oborny redeveloping it. I think people would notice if it got service.

Savannah's station is hardly an Amshack. It's not the nicest, but for it's utilitarian 60's architecture, it's kept in good repair. Other than the rails in the station which are about as bad as Washington Union Station, the canopy could use a case of paint.

It's the location in Savannah that makes it unappealing. And it's certainly well less than 30 miles from the center of town.

 

[jis]

Savannah's station is hardly an Amshack. It's not the nicest, but for it's utilitarian 60's architecture, it's kept in good repair. Other than the rails in the station which are about as bad as Washington Union Station, the canopy could use a case of paint.

It's the location in Savannah that makes it unappealing. And it's certainly well less than 30 miles from the center of town.

I agree. Savannah is not a station that I would describe as an Amshack. Denver Union Station it isn't, but neither is it Salt Lake City, which is more appropriately described as an Amshack. It is actually very well kept and quite nice for the traffic it carries, including acting as an O/D point for a long distance day train.

 

[the Duck]

In the past the passenger Train was the center of activity for a lot of towns and cities. Not so today. The passenger train today is just another "bump in the road". That is what must be overcome.

 

[amtkstn]

That is because people are always in a hurry to travel,. When we get true high speed rail in this county more will travel by train.

 

[the Duck]

I have always said a passenger train is no good unless it travels at least as fast as an automobile (in West Highway speeds are 75/80 mph) , So with stops and all other considerations you would say a passenger train needs to travel more 100 mph to be successful?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I would say your assumption is ludicrous.

 

[zephyr17]

I would say your assumption is ludicrous.

Especially considering the long distance trains generally have high load factors.

 

[the Duck]

We'll just let GML and Z17 live out in the west and walk everywhere they go then we'll see what they think. quack! quack!

 

[henryj]

We'll just let GML and Z17 live out in the west and walk everywhere they go then we'll see what they think. quack! quack!

GML, Z17, Ryan and the other 'eastern sophisticates' have no idea what they are talking about. They live in an environment where you can walk, bicycle or take public transit to wherever you want to go. They also don't understand the cost structure of the LD trains. The longer it takes for the train to make it from end to end the higher the labor costs.