Southwest Chief News & Future Operations

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Interesting ... thanks.

“After that moment of excitement, Amtrak announced they would not keep their commitment,” Moran said. ”... What caught my attention was Amtrak intending to renege on their commitment to contribute $3 million for a track upgrade.”

"Moran said he and other senators are trying to work with their staff and Amtrak staff on the next response. In the meantime, Moran has placed a hold on two nominations for new people on the Amtrak board."

"Moran and Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) have also placed language in an appropriations bill to require consultation with affected communities before Amtrak can make any changes to “terms of service.”"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"What potential industries? There are none, as far as I can tell. That's why the railroads don't run anything there."

That's like saying "no one rides passenger trains anymore. That's why they don't run anymore."
Duh! Don't you know that all potential industries are based in either China or Mexico? And if for some outlandish reason you did want to establish one in the United States, you would have no choice but to place it on cheap land near an Interstate or major highway on the outskirts of a large city with airline service! Actually developing a productive industrial facility with the thought of establishing synergy with railroad transport...and in a remote location to boot? Why, the nerve of some people! You'd think this was the nineteenth century!

[/sarcasm off] I wish.
 
Answer me this: Why would any potential industry want to set up shop in the middle of nowhere with no population around to draw from for a workforce, just because an underutilized railroad was bought by a hypothetical short line?

And youre right, this isnt the 19th century. It didnt really work back then, either, which is why there were tons of railroad bankruptcies, lots of fraud in the industry to hide astronomical losses, and and effectively brought on a lot of the corporate regulations that we see today (or at least, up until recently).

If industry wanted to develop along this rail line, it had a hundred or so years to do so, and it didnt. Now when a major railroad decided years ago they didnt really want/need the line any more, someone is supposed to just pop up and start shipping profitable trainloads hundreds of miles (a heck of a lot more than the four miles of this other short-line railroad), just because a short-line asked them to? This isnt Railroad Tycoon.
 
I'm talking about shortline railroad industries... they are already there. A quick google map search shows lumber yard, concrete manufacturing, gravel yard, multiple gas / propane companies, welding supply manufacturing, etc. around the tracks in Raton and Las Vegas (only towns I searched in).

Now of course a typical shortline isn't going to have PTC unless someone else pays for it... so that doesn't exactly help Amtrak out.
 
Interesting ... thanks.After that moment of excitement, Amtrak announced they would not keep their commitment, Moran said. ... What caught my attention was Amtrak intending to renege on their commitment to contribute $3 million for a track upgrade.

"Moran said he and other senators are trying to work with their staff and Amtrak staff on the next response. In the meantime, Moran has placed a hold on two nominations for new people on the Amtrak board."

"Moran and Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) have also placed language in an appropriations bill to require consultation with affected communities before Amtrak can make any changes to terms of service."
Instead of the next board members from the Heritage group and or sonbody else who hates trains, the senators should push for someone like Wick or a recently retired commuter railroad or rail transit agency CEO who KNOWS the business of customer service and passenger railroading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They also need to put someone in who continues to follow agreements between multiple stakeholders. Anderson and Garnder (I'm not sure he's played a part in it but it looks like something he would do) have withdrawn agreed upon funds to save the route. While the other stakeholders BNSF, Colorado, Kansas, And New Mexico have made made commitments to save the line.
 
I agree about the commitments. I think this is the larger issue--that something that Amtrak agreed to is now being reneged on, with the impression given (rightly or wrongly) that Amtrak's current leadership doesn't think that reneging on an agreement is a big deal. How can any state, railroad, or any other entity dealing with Amtrak currently feel that their negotiations/decisions will be done in good faith and promises kept?

I agree, too, about putting someone on the board who knows more about passenger railroading. However, I was a great fan of Wick Moorman, and still think he sounds like a terrific person, but I was disappointed that he seemed just fine with the appointment of the new CEO (and might even have had a hand in choosing him?) and praised him in the press. You don't have to be nasty about someone, but you can give a lukewarm endorsement so people realize this was not what you wanted. But his endorsement of the new CEO seemed quite enthusiastic, and I was disappointed about that.
 
I would add Wick may have been respected from corporate types, the railfan press and maybe is a genuinely nice guy in person.

However, it should be noted that the workers in the industry that I know were no fan of him and NS and freight railroads in general, and especially NS are not known to be well managed or efficient organizations.

They work because railroads are a great and efficient idea to start with, current government regulations are in their favor and they have lots of good people who work for them in the various crafts.

I do not know first hand, but my feeling is that Wick knew of Andersons plans and that is why he endorsed him. To me his silence now speaks volumes. Happy to change my mind if I hear him speak against the service cuts but I haven't seen anything from him as we have from his predecessor Boardman.
 
I agree about the commitments. I think this is the larger issue--that something that Amtrak agreed to is now being reneged on, with the impression given (rightly or wrongly) that Amtrak's current leadership doesn't think that reneging on an agreement is a big deal. How can any state, railroad, or any other entity dealing with Amtrak currently feel that their negotiations/decisions will be done in good faith and promises kept?

<snip/>
I think this is an important point. If Amtrak had, for instance, honored their existing private car trips and charters while implementing the new rules for all future contracts they might have engendered less ill will. And in the case of the SWC, $3 million may be a small price to pay to convince three Congressional delegations that Amtrak is doing its best to find a solution.

More generally, I think Anderson needs to realize that getting a 10 year commitment for ANYTHING Amtrak related is a pipe dream. Amtrak has always been a scavenger (funding wise).

EDIT: spelling!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree, too, about putting someone on the board who knows more about passenger railroading. However, I was a great fan of Wick Moorman, and still think he sounds like a terrific person, but I was disappointed that he seemed just fine with the appointment of the new CEO (and might even have had a hand in choosing him?) and praised him in the press. You don't have to be nasty about someone, but you can give a lukewarm endorsement so people realize this was not what you wanted. But his endorsement of the new CEO seemed quite enthusiastic, and I was disappointed about that.
Perhaps because he was so happy to get out of the job?
default_wink.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darn--I can't log into Trains, and I really wanted to see the photo of Boardman with some pet mice.
default_tongue.png
(Sorry, jis, I just had to get that in before you caught the typo!
default_mosking.gif
)

Seriously, though, title sounds like BNSF is going to help? That would be wonderful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As the person who actually has talked to Mr. Moorman multiple times I can say that he is a great person. And talk in the PV industry says that he is very dissatisfied with the Anderson/Gardner regime. And I would honestly believe that.

The big issue with honoring commitments like this will be expanding state supported services. Especially if Amtrak makes an agreement for day two new round trips at ten million. Operates them for a few months then comes back and says. "You know that ten million we signed an agreement on awhile back well that wasn't enough. We need twenty million to maintain the service." By pulling out of the SWC deal Anderson has effectively eliminated any credibility Amtrak has in negotiations. Especially with states, and politicians. It was a bad gamble on his part.
 
I didn't realize Amtrak had much credibility left to squander away. Maybe that's why they don't care either way?

We heard this same song and dance about credibility and what not after the long running saga of the Turboliners, where Boardman was first on one side of the fence and then on the other side of it. That was fascinating.
 
I agree about the commitments. I think this is the larger issue--that something that Amtrak agreed to is now being reneged on, with the impression given (rightly or wrongly) that Amtrak's current leadership doesn't think that reneging on an agreement is a big deal. How can any state, railroad, or any other entity dealing with Amtrak currently feel that their negotiations/decisions will be done in good faith and promises kept?

This is indeed a problem and it also leads to things like this:

"Moran said he and other senators are trying to work with their staff and Amtrak staff on the next response. In the meantime, Moran has placed a hold on two nominations for new people on the Amtrak board."

"Moran and Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) have also placed language in an appropriations bill to require consultation with affected communities before Amtrak can make any changes to “terms of service.”"
Now, you have stipulations attached to your funding. It is still cool to see bipartisan support. If only Pennsylvania and Ohio showed this much support, we may still have............
default_ph34r.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't forget West Virginia is adding all sorts of stipulations as well to the Amtrak reauthorization and any bill with Amtrak involved. All of us at New River have worked far too hard to accomplish that.

Honestly what all of us rail advocates should be promoting is codifying protections for the National Network. Make it law that trains must run on certain routes as part of the law. Now of course there are occasions where that can be worked around. But that is for someone far more intelligent than me to work on.
 
Don't forget West Virginia is adding all sorts of stipulations as well to the Amtrak reauthorization and any bill with Amtrak involved. All of us at New River have worked far too hard to accomplish that.

Honestly what all of us rail advocates should be promoting is codifying protections for the National Network. Make it law that trains must run on certain routes as part of the law.
The original Railpax Act did specify end points between which trains must run, without specifying routing. Something like that is necessary, though I suspect the reason that it has not happened yet is because it may not pass in Congress, at least not until enough member's oxen are gored.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly what all of us rail advocates should be promoting is codifying protections for the National Network. Make it law that trains must run on certain routes as part of the law.
Why? I used to lean towards this position, but have gotten steadily less wedded to it over the past few years. Long distance trains as they exist now, and have existed for the past several decades, seem to me to be fundamentally flawed as a matter of public policy in most areas. What is the justification for long distance trains? Is it to provide basic transportation? If so, how do you justify the difference in service levels? What gives Grand Junction, CO the right to a train and not Green River, WY? Even within a route, the once daily schedules make trains largely irrelevant for about a third of stops--sometimes more in terms of population. An ostensibly national system has broad gaps.

I used to compare it to something like the Coast Guard--despite the fact that there are no coasts in Kansas, say, Kansas taxpayers still fund it as having a safe marine industry is important to the national economy and flow of goods. Even if Kansans have some degrees of separation to the Coast Guard directly, they still benefit by having access to goods imported through the nation's ports. But there is no evidence that long distance trains have any kind of an impact to the national economy in that way. If long distance trains are, as Senator Heinrich says, "vital to the economic well-being of our communities," you would expect to see that reflected statistically. But if you look at the regions of the nation that are growing the fastest, there is no correlation to train service.

If you look at the fastest growing cities in the US, they in fact track mostly opposite to the amount of rail service. Six of the 15 fastest growing cities have no rail service at all in their MSAs. Two more have 3x weekly service. Only three cities (two MSAs) have more than one train a day--and they are 2x daily. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Amtrak in promoting economic growth.

Speaking in terms of publicly funded basic transportation, the only train that fulfills that role over any significant distance is the Empire Builder, where there is no Interstate access for almost the entire route across North Dakota and Montana. Otherwise, with the exception of relatively short segments on the CZ in western CO and eastern UT and the SWC around southern CO, western KS, and most of MO, the routes roughly parallel Interstate highways.

So where do trains make sense? The research has kinda already been done. Rail's advantages of high capacity in a narrow footprint when compared to highway right of ways, but low speed when compared to air travel, lends itself well to journeys of several hundred miles with strong O&D anchors at each end, especially where population growth has constrained highway expansion and increased demand for air travel. Holistically, you would want to promote personal vehicle travel (make 'em self driving if you want it to sound sexier) in outlying areas to a rail corridor that services large cities with frequent service, thus reducing traffic in urban cores and freeing up airspace for long-haul flights that in many cases is being used for short-distance connecting service.

I don't mean to say that long distance trains are incompatible, because much of the east would benefit from a system like that. Northeast to Chicago and southern corridors make perfect sense as long distance trains that can turn over passenger space multiple times across individual markets, eg New York to Richmond, Richmond to Raleigh, Raleigh to Atlanta, to use a hypothetical new train on tracks that already see passenger service.

But the flyover states! you say. The money is all going to those rich people on the NEC! Where is the equality? But the general flow of money in the government is from the coast inwards. There is already huge subsidization of the heartland in the form of highways, agricultural subsidies, health care, etc. These are all paid for by the strength of the megaregions in which mass transit is a major factor in their economic output. As a national policy, to maximize the impact of transportation funding, it should be directed at projects that will serve high passenger numbers in areas where existing infrastructure is constrained.

There is zero reason for the Sunset Limited to exist. At 3x/weekly, it is of no functional use in passenger movement between large cities (one of which it completely misses) and it is paralleled by I-10 the entire distance. You want basic transportation in West Texas? Stick a bus there. Run it daily and it will be more useful than the SL has ever been. Houston, Austin, and DFW are some of the fastest growing regions in the country. Start trying to connect them, fling money at Texas Central if it helps get the project of the ground faster. I have not quite reached Philly Amtrak Fan levels of antipathy towards certain routes, but I'm close.

In an attempt to drag this back to the Southwest Chief, the idea of splitting the route as it has been presented is about the only thing that could make the situation worse. You don't improve equipment utilization, you will almost certainly see ridership drop, and you don't improve transportation options for a single person. If you want to kill the train, do it right, kill the entire thing west of KC, rebuild the rolling stock to a whole pile of coaches, and run as many trains CHI-KC as you possibly can. It's a perfect market, large cities at both ends, maybe a hair longer than the textbook corridor, but there's no direct interstate, so a train would be far and away the most timely form of ground transportation.

Unfortunately, as it stands now, that's legally impossible. The whole transportation system is fundamentally flawed, and at odds with what I would consider good policy in many cases, but I don't think for a second that the answer is to stick our collective head in the ground and run trains the same way we did the better part of a century ago. It's just not good public policy, both in terms of the use of taxpayer dollars and in terms of how to efficiently move people.
 
Here is the reason why the Southwest Chief is not the only train Anderson and Gardner have their eyes on. The pair of them have eyes for every train including the ones all of us use more often than the Southwest Chief.

However the Chief will set a bad precedent if we allow it to be bus bridged and discontinued. By allowing the Chief to succumb to that fate we are ourselves opening the door to truncating the Cardinal, the Empire Builder, Sunset Limited, Capitol Limited. And that is a dangerous precedent to set.

We are also setting the precedent that deals with Amtrak are not valued or honored. If you don't want to support the Chief that's on you. But when it's your train in the cross hairs don't be surprised when no one comes to your aid.

Me personally I've never ridden the Chief but it doesn't mean I'm not going to fight for it. I recognize one that by Truncating the Chief like that Anderson and Gardner could then harm my Silver Star because of the precedent. Or they could do serious irreparable damage to my two Portland Long Distance Trains.

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.

We've lost hundreds of trains in our country and the Chief could be the stepping stone to losing them all.
 
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...
default_tongue.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
default_tongue.png
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.
 
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...
default_tongue.png
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 last one can't really be blamed on Amtrak...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top