Southwest Chief News & Future Operations

[mjlincoln]

I fully enjoyed my SWC trip ABQ - CHI in March! I bedded down in my roomette somewhere between Lamar and La Junta.

If I had to get off at La Junta I wouldn't have gotten a roomette; and then what? get on a bus for the remainder of the night... until breakfast time in Kansas City? Miserable. And I wouldn't get a roomette for KAS - CHI. So the whole trip is bust for me with this new plan, I'd rather fly than try to sleep in a bus. yuck. m--

 

[chrsjrcj]

New Mexico Senator Heinrich responds:

Heinrich said the meeting did not go well.


“I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that I’ve ever experienced,” he said. “To learn that not only are they planning to pull back their commitment to the TIGER grant, but that they're going to abandon the route I think is just outrageous.”

 

[frequentflyer]

"“During conversations with members of the Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico congressional delegations, Amtrak indicated that we are considering various service options for the Southwest Chief in response to the significant host railroad costs facing Amtrak for continued use of the middle portion of the route between Dodge City and Albuquerque."

I would think that includes a move to the transcon route.

 

[frequentflyer]

Wasn't SWC one of the worst performing LD trains outside the SL? Why?

 

[Palmetto]

New Mexico Senator Heinrich responds:

Heinrich said the meeting did not go well.


“I think this was one of the most unproductive meetings with an agency level official that I’ve ever experienced,” he said. “To learn that not only are they planning to pull back their commitment to the TIGER grant, but that they're going to abandon the route I think is just outrageous.”

All that that means is that the meeting did not go the way he wanted it to go. Which is unfortunate.

I have not seen anything official from the BNSF that states it will not run the Southwest Chief on its Southern Transcon, but there are plenty of anecdotes that say they do not want the passenger train on the route. The single track issue in Oklahoma and over the Missouri River is not the problem. The problem is west of Waynoka, OK, because a lot of trains come onto the Panhandle Sub there from places like Tulsa, Memphis and St. Louis [and beyond], which gums up a totally double-tracked railroad all the way to L.A. There is terminal congestion at Amarillo [where they're building a FOURTH main line, BTW], Belen [where they're building a THIRD main line west to Dalies] and Clovis.

If the BNSF somehow were forced to accomodate Amtrak between Newton KS and Dalies NM, it would not be unreasonable to expect them to require double tracking between Newton and Mulvane KS where the train would join the Transcon.

 

[Steve4031]

This isn't the only route up on the block like this. I hope you ride the New River Gorge soon because it too could disappear. (And no the Broadway Limited won't come back).

Do you guys loathe Anderson and Gardner as much as I do yet? If you don't it should come soon.

 

[TinCan782]

Got to wondering...how much would the "bus bridge" (multiple buses, both directions) cost vs continuing the train through that gap?

The trains on each side of the gap would still run, perhaps without sleepers?

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I'm sure a big part of the cost savings is eliminating sleepers and dining cars.

 

[cpotisch]

I feel like if you take a long distance train and chop it up into three parts, the middle of which is a bus bridge, it is no longer a long distance train. It just becomes multiple stubs that connect the same stations. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if they do this, the route will be as good as gone.

 

[jis]

I feel like if you take a long distance train and chop it up into three parts, the middle of which is a bus bridge, it is no longer a long distance train. It just becomes multiple stubs that connect the same stations. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if they do this, the route will be as good as gone.

It'll certainly become pretty useless for anyone trying to travel from a point on one side of the bus bridge to a point on the other side. Within each segment I suppose it might still remain useful.

 

[GBNorman]

I think it is time to accept that when President Trump likely leaves office during January 2025. there will be an Amtrak, but it will hardly be "Amtrak as we know it".

Simplified Dining on LD trains will only expand. If Amtrak is successful in truncating, if not outright discontinuing, the Chief - not that it's a "basket case" so far as public acceptance, but rather because the maintenance of a good portion of its route represents "cash out the cookie jar" and not simply an assignment of costs - the "basket cases" will follow.

All told, it will be a new day - and Congress has placed it's bets with the record $1.9B, that new philosophy will result in providing intercity transportation in the markets that demonstrate the need for such - and not rolling pork barrels.

 

[KmH]

Many are betting the guy in the oval office will be departing in 942 days, January 20, 2021.

 

[greatcats]

Hopefully sooner than 942.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Hopefully sooner than 942.

This!!!

 

[Seaboard92]

The thing is we can save the Southwest Chief, the Empire Builder, the Cardinal, and other long distance trains. We can save them by calling our senators and telling them trains matter. We can schedule meetings on the hill. You don't have to just schedule your meeting during RPA's day on the hill. You can go anytime of the year.

I schedule a meeting with both of my states (SC, OR) representatives every time I'm in DC. And it helps personalize the issue and I can keep them informed. Go to the hill be active more then just once a year. This is an election year so there is a possibility they might not be in office this time next year. Go out on the campaign trail and talk to candidates. Figure out what their opinions are and start educating them before the heritage foundation or other groups get to them.

We can do this because it's National or Nothing.

 

[Chey]

You know, I have no idea what Anderson's end game is here. The bustitutions don't make a whole lot of sense. But I don't think he's that dumb. He might be, I just don't think so.

The continuation of the route as it's been...I love Lamy, I love all the route between the Raton Pass and Albuquerque... very beautiful, and I absolutely love Lamy - but common sense has to be more important to business than sentimentality. BNSF understood that.

There are some who serve the agenda driven by people who stand to keep making money with the status quo. Others, myself included, would greatly benefit from changes to the route - if not cheaper then maybe closer - but we haven't seen the end game. Maybe Anderson's angling for more money, or maybe he's trying to make it more practical, or maybe he's trying to kill it. We don't know.

If someone here has a crystal ball, by all means tell us what it says. I don't think things are all that clear yet.

 

[neroden]

If Anderson isn't dumb, he'll get the SWC onto the Transcon route. All the evidence so far says that Anderson *is* dumb.

 

[Seaboard92]

If Anderson isn't dumb, he'll get the SWC onto the Transcon route. All the evidence so far says that Anderson *is* dumb.

He is dumb in my opinion because despite hundreds of people telling him how to run a railroad. He listens to the one person who ran the corridor and that's the only one getting thru to him. And that one isn't a railroader so he's clueless if you ask me. Sack both Gardner and Anderson.

 

[TiBike]

Anderson wasn't hired so "hundreds of people" could tell him "how to run a railroad". He was hired to tell hundreds of railroaders how to run a passenger transportation business. Emphasis on "business". He seems to be doing a good job of it.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Anderson wasn't hired so "hundreds of people" could tell him "how to run a railroad". He was hired to tell hundreds of railroaders how to run a passenger transportation business. Emphasis on "business". He seems to be doing a good job of it.

Eh... I'm not sure it's that simple. Cutting the food and beverage losses were a clear part of his job. But cutting up the long distance trains into corridors? It seems he rode the coast Starlight once and decided that all long distance trains were outdated and only serving people who desire nostalgia.

If congress had given more money for "creating more corridors" or "restructuring LD trains" this would make sense. But they gave money specificaly to "long distance" trains.

 

[TiBike]

If congress had given more money for "creating more corridors" or "restructuring LD trains" this would make sense. But they gave money specificaly to "long distance" trains.

No, congress appropriated money for the "National Network". Redirecting resources and capacity to the parts of the network where traffic is highest, where the most people will be served, and the most revenue is generated for the least expense, is what his job is about. He seems to be going about it by focusing on fundamentals that are common to any passenger transportation business: safety, reliability and demand driven asset management.

 

[keelhauled]

He is dumb in my opinion because despite hundreds of people telling him how to run a railroad. He listens to the one person who ran the corridor and that's the only one getting thru to him. And that one isn't a railroader so he's clueless if you ask me. Sack both Gardner and Anderson.

Were the "railroaders" the ones in charge of the infamous Chicago shops during the height of their inability to manage weather and equipment? Were they the ones who botched the negotiations for a daily Sunset Limited? Did they make the call to axe the Three Rivers and the eastern half of the SL? Under whose watch did the Silver Star and then the LSL lose diners? Is it perhaps possible that being a railroader does not implicitly make one qualified to operate a passenger transportation service?

 

[railiner]

If congress had given more money for "creating more corridors" or "restructuring LD trains" this would make sense. But they gave money specificaly to "long distance" trains.

No, congress appropriated money for the "National Network". Redirecting resources and capacity to the parts of the network where traffic is highest, where the most people will be served, and the most revenue is generated for the least expense, is what his job is about. He seems to be going about it by focusing on fundamentals that are common to any passenger transportation business: safety, reliability and demand driven asset management.

I guess it gets down to what Amtrak's directed "mission" is....if "redirecting resources" is supporting that mission, or going counter to it.

In case of the latter, then perhaps Amtrak's mission needs to be redefined?

 

[Thirdrail7]

Anderson wasn't hired so "hundreds of people" could tell him "how to run a railroad".

Actually, he was. You see, he works for the public and their representatives. That amounts to hundreds of people (namely, Congress) telling him how to run a railroad....which is why most railroaders shy away from the position.

He was hired to tell hundreds of railroaders how to run a passenger transportation business. Emphasis on "business". He seems to be doing a good job of it.

I'm always interested in hearing why people think he is doing a good job or a bad job. What have you seen that makes you say he is doing a good job? Is ridership up or down? Is revenue up or down? Is safety up or down? Has any equipment been released for service? Any new routes added? How are costs doing? Has OTP improved? How is our Congressional credibility?

While I know the answers to most of these questions, I STILL think it is entirely too early to say if Mr. Anderson is doing a good or bad job.

If congress had given more money for "creating more corridors" or "restructuring LD trains" this would make sense. But they gave money specificaly to "long distance" trains.

No, congress appropriated money for the "National Network". Redirecting resources and capacity to the parts of the network where traffic is highest, where the most people will be served, and the most revenue is generated for the least expense, is what his job is about. He seems to be going about it by focusing on fundamentals that are common to any passenger transportation business: safety, reliability and demand driven asset management.

However, Congress also enacted PRIIA and updated it in 2015. Nothing in PRIIA indicates that Amtrak one part of the network should be sacrificed for another part. That is why it deals with future high speed service, existing high speed service/NEC, state supported services as well as LD service. Indeed, it even offers to fund LD service on behalf of an outside operator. ( Shouldn't we have heard something about that by now?)

If what you described "is what the job is all about," very few people outside the Chicago hub, state supported/commuter service and the NEC would have operations....and the NEC is questionable since the states along the route would need to finance the route themselves...and with its 40+BILLION dollar backlog in repairs, it is the most expensive piece of territory.

Good luck finding the funding.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Were the "railroaders" the ones in charge of the infamous Chicago shops during the height of their inability to manage weather and equipment?

No.

Were they the ones who botched the negotiations for a daily Sunset Limited?

I'm not sure of that story but I would ask was it a railroader or someone who worked for the railroad? There is a difference.

Did they make the call to axe the Three Rivers and the eastern half of the SL?

Not really and no. The call to axe the Three Rivers made sense since the entire basis for operating the train ceased to exist once the hosts slapped restrictions on the mail cars and caused massive delays to the trains. Once the mail was dropped (along with a lot of funding), it was a no brainer. The train that didn't exist without the mail was cancelled one the mail was cut.

I don't know who eats the eastern SL, but since we haven't really had a "railroader" in charge in quite some time (Mr. Moorman's cameo notwithstanding,) I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it wasn't a railroader.

Under whose watch did the Silver Star and then the LSL lose diners?

That was the Boardman regime. I would also like to remind people that the boxed meal idea also was studied and being prepped by his regime. I wouldn't be so quick to pin this on Mr. Anderson. However, NEITHER of these men are railroaders.

Is it perhaps possible that being a railroader does not implicitly make one qualified to operate a passenger transportation service?

Indeed. One only needs to look at Mr. Warrington's tenure to see that a railroader at the helm doesn't guarantee success.