Another Amtrak classic route is in financial jeopardy

[deneban]

Another Amtrak classic route is in financial jeopardy, the SW Chief http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/blog/2014/04/report-western-kansas-could-lose-amtrak-s.html BNSF owns the tracks.

The US government has declined to subsidize the funds needed to save the route from being re-routed into northern Texas and no longer passing through Colorado and portions of Kansas & New Mexico. If Amtrak does not get a $40 mllion contribution PER YEAR from each party (BNSF, Kansas, New Mexico, and Colorado) the Southwest chief will take the re-route.

Amtrak states BNSF's maintenance of the route is adequate for their freight but inadequate for passengers service, and the steady deterioration of the line since private Santa Fe passenger service was halted is taking its toll now.
.
This would follow a series of classic American passenger route abandonments due to financial issues, such as the Baltimore and Ohio route to Chicago, due to loss of ridership and freight trackage owners affording freight-only quality standards.

 

[nicky9499]

The only thing it's in jeopardy in is a re-route.

 

[deneban]

The only thing it's in jeopardy in is a re-route.

No there is no jeopardy for being re-routed, its virtually a done deal

because of the "classic route" being in "financial jeopardy"

...Amtrak classic route is in financial jeopardy,...

... causing the "classic route" to be passenger-abandoned for 600 miles, over 25% of the route traveled by the ultra famous war bonnet Santa Fe Super Cheif

Heres the fox news web page article w/video: http://fxn.ws/1iDtMVa

 

[nicky9499]

I'd be more concerned if they were going to bin the service but all they're doing is moving to nicer rails for a comfier ride. Pardon me if I don't find the calamity in that.

 

[amtrak2041864]

All I want to know is, will it add to the current journey time?

 

[deneban]

I'd be more concerned if they were going to bin the service but all they're doing is moving to nicer rails for a comfier ride. Pardon me if I don't find the calamity in that.

It is a small calamity for the people getting cut, and it is a nicer ride for the time being, only if you are going that new way. Lets face it, riders don't take this train from Chicago to Los Angeles, they fly instead, and those terminals are established and convenient terminus for Amtrak. People take the SW Chief because the intermediate stops are their origin/destination. So playing with the intermediary portion of the route like this is a big deal for ridership.

In the big picture, as I cited in the OP, Amtrak is falling into a pattern of abandoning (re-routing) classic passenger routes because they cannot perform sufficient passenger-grade maintenance, so eventually they will have no where to re-route, wear down all the alternates, and have to travel freight speed or less, but losing passenger stations on the way there.

 

[nicky9499]

Amtrak is between a rock and a hard place but unfortunately there's not much your average Joe can do about it. "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change."

 

[deneban]

Amtrak is between a rock and a hard place but unfortunately there's not much your average Joe can do about it. "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change."

Don't tell me, tell your TV set. No one woke you out of bed and forced you to read this thread. Now that you know about the Super Chief route changes, you are able to continue with the serene acceptance phase.

 

[kws4000]

At some point in my life, I went to Philmont Scout Ranch in Cimarron, NM. PSR provided busses from Raton. 1 hour drive after a 20 hour train trip from Chicago. Loved it.
This reroute will put the SWC in Albuquerque, a 3 hour trip to Cimarron, plus an essentially equivelant train trip.
30,000 scouts and leaders go to PSR every year. For 4 months every summer, Cimarron balloons up to 3000ish from below 500.
For each of those days the camp is open, 75-150 scouters ride the SWC into Raton.

Will I miss the essentially direct connection? Absolutely, but the towns through Kansas, southern CO, and northern NM simply cannot cover the entire cost of maintaining that track solely for passenger service. Running south through Texas makes more sense to me, as that is where the population is.

Can I do anything about it? Nope. How many other folk here on the forums have ridden the SWC themselves? I gamble not many. But I accept this defeat in routing to preserve that which we still have.

When railroads competed like the dickens for passenger service, the ATSF got a good deal. Now, with a single national corporation handling everything, well, things have changed. It's not your grandpa's railroad anymore.

Now if NM, CO, and KS pool their cash together, they could get a regional service running over that same route between ABQ and KSC, but then again, I don't know what sort of condition the track is in, or if they would be able to help get a shortline to move freight over there. Who knows? Not me.

But until then, keep your stick on the ice...

Oh, and this has been on the table for years (2, maybe 3).

 

[nicky9499]

Don't tell me, tell your TV set. No one woke you out of bed and forced you to read this thread. Now that you know about the Super Chief route changes, you are able to continue with the serene acceptance phase.

I'm sorry, who yanked your ponytail? The quoted comment was completely neutral and matter of factly. Couple years back my government ripped out our only railway line and mothballed the art deco terminal despite protests. Ain't nothing we could do to keep it. I read this thread, I understood that the Chief was going to take a different route and went on my merry way.

Unless you have the power to change that fact I don't see how my post could have offended you.

 

[deneban]

I'm sorry, who yanked your ponytail? The quoted comment was completely neutral and matter of factly. Couple years back my government ripped out our only railway line and mothballed the art deco terminal despite protests. Ain't nothing we could do to keep it. I read this thread, I understood that the Chief was going to take a different route and went on my merry way.

Unless you have the power to change that fact I don't see how my post could have offended you.

Ah now I see the underlying item, the thread may have struck a nerve from something that happened in you locale that made you sad. But since the train still exists in this case, it is a minor event in light of your experience where the railway was completed eliminated.

However, I was not offended at all by the cited post. I just found it odd but now you've explained your feelings, I understand. Here is an explanation of my last response (were I was not aware of the above):

Tell your TV...: was in response to "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change." Your TV is the prime provider of news you can't affect, this mere thread is by no means a contender for that, and therefore falls far behind in causing a disruption of serenity (for acceptance of such news).

No one woke you out of bed...: was also in response to "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change." Reading the thread is voluntary so the disruption of the serenity, which you request be granted, was not brought on by a forced process (exemplified by woken from sleep).

...serene acceptance phase: If you didn't know this threads news, no acceptance of the news would be required/invoked. Now that you do know, there is nothing preventing a serene acceptance, so there is no need for a grant of serenity, you are free to have it.


Oh and lest I forget - "went on your merry way" is a trivialization of your action. Before that, you trashed the thread on the 2nd post with an ugly graphic that was deliberately over-sized to be rude/offensive.

 

[deneban]

All I want to know is, will it add to the current journey time?

No the flying time from terminal to terminal is unaffected by the re-route. What I am saying is virtually no one takes the train for its full route, they fly instead. Therefore the rail time terminal to terminal is not pertinent.

 

[nicky9499]

no one takes the train for its full route

Tourists perhaps? But in that case trip time isn't an issue either.

I see we've come to a bit of scuffle and apologize for stirring up a mess in your thread. I will admit I didn't quite understand where you were going with the TV thing initially because I spend approx 0% of my time watching it. Also the serenity thing is part of a quote;

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

​

 

[opus722]

Hold on. Looking at the re-route maps it looks like Amtrak will stop servicing tiny towns, most of which don't even have 10,000 people in them with declining boarding figures in the three to four figure range, between Hutchinson and Albuquerque while restoring train service to Wichita (pop. 385,577) and Amarillo (pop. 190,695). As an added bonus those two cities would also restoring their classic ATSF stations for the new service. Doesn't sound like too bad of a deal actually.

 

[gfisher]

At some point in my life, I went to Philmont Scout Ranch in Cimarron, NM. PSR provided busses from Raton. 1 hour drive after a 20 hour train trip from Chicago. Loved it.

Did that too. Also loved it. I would be sorry to see this route go.

 

[JCitron]

I've been through the region severe storm chasing and it really is a beautiful area. I too would be sorry to see that route go.

I hate to say it, but this is typical of Amtrak. They have awfully convoluted routes to some of the more populated places. Last year I entertained the thought of going from Boston to Oklahoma City. The trip would have taken 4-days one way and there was no guarantee I would have gotten there on time. The trip was via Chicago to Texas then back to OKC!

John

 

[jacksonbarno]

The American passenger train is all but dead. Amtrak provides (in my opinion) subpar service on most routes (the Acela being the exception), the trains are almost always late, and 90% of their "classic" routes have been rerouted. The traveling public wants to fly instead of taking the train. A flight from Boston to Chicago takes about three hours give or take, while the Lake Shore Limited is overnight and then some. The reason Amtrak is losing so much money is because they aren't trying to outdo the airlines by means of comfort, reliability, and the like. If the Lake Shore Limited was on time, had the equivalent to a decent lounge car, decent meals, and the sleeping accommodations were nice, then I would guess that most people would take the train instead of flying, where the airline crams as many seats as possible into planes, they provide awful food, and they are very susceptible to being stranded during snowstorms or due to maintenance problems. Another thing is that Amtrak wrings every dollar possible out of every ticket. Maybe if they charged less, more people would ride, therefore increasing profits.

Honestly, I think if Amtrak was a private company, it would be more viable and would not be in so much trouble like it is now.

 

[kws4000]

The American passenger train is all but dead. Amtrak provides (in my opinion) subpar service on most routes (the Acela being the exception), the trains are almost always late, and 90% of their "classic" routes have been rerouted. The traveling public wants to fly instead of taking the train. A flight from Boston to Chicago takes about three hours give or take, while the Lake Shore Limited is overnight and then some. The reason Amtrak is losing so much money is because they aren't trying to outdo the airlines by means of comfort, reliability, and the like. If the Lake Shore Limited was on time, had the equivalent to a decent lounge car, decent meals, and the sleeping accommodations were nice, then I would guess that most people would take the train instead of flying, where the airline crams as many seats as possible into planes, they provide awful food, and they are very susceptible to being stranded during snowstorms or due to maintenance problems. Another thing is that Amtrak wrings every dollar possible out of every ticket. Maybe if they charged less, more people would ride, therefore increasing profits.

Honestly, I think if Amtrak was a private company, it would be more viable and would not be in so much trouble like it is now.

Honestly, you sound like you are stuck in the 1970s, man. Here me out:

Amtrak does not own their track, but uses trackage rights from freight railroads (Wolverine/Blue Water & Acela routes excepted). Those freight lines get paid bonuses if Amtrak is on time, but get nothing if not. So there is incentive. But can you really afford to make time for a quick physics worksheet on linear Newtonian mechanics when you have a 15-page English paper and presentation to do? Priorities.

If you want to get from Boston to Chicago in a hurry, by all means, take the plane. But what about all the intermediate stops? The folks who are scared of flying? The Amish/Mennonites?

Equipment woes are a recurring issue, new Viewliners are on order and Beech Grove is still working hard on getting broken stuff moving again. The P42DC are also old and need replacing, Siemans has been given the go-ahead for Cummins-powerd loks for IDOT's regional services.

Why does it matter if a "classic" route has been reworked? 80% of all passengers wouldn't care that much, because that's not where they are going.

In terms of comfort, I guarantee that Amtrak wins hands-down over any airline or bus company. Will never fly or take the bus again as long as I can bear it.

I don't think food is really major factor in ridership, but it is a nice perk.

Ridership is on the up and up. Michigan routes have posted double-digit percent increases for 10 of the past 11 years. Ever here of something called "economy of scale"? At some point, ticket revenue will exceed the fixed costs per train, and it will eventually be profitable. But remember the infrastructure: At Amtrak's Jackson MI facility, they have 80+ road vehicles to inspect the track maintain signals. Every weekday, that garage is empty.

Is Amtrak in trouble? They need cash urgently for capital expenditure, plus a compartively small amount for operating/running subsidies ( http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...dget-something-has-to-change”.html?channel=41 , about 1.62 billion total for 2015) . But consider what is thrown at the highways as they continue to fall into disrepair and highly damaging trucks fail to pay their full way. Further, remember that a large number of airports are funded directly by taxpayer dollars. So the only trouble I see for Amtrak is inadequate capacity for demand, and political lockup. So it may sound like at some point that I'm swinging either way on the political scheme, but the railroad is the one that gets my vote.

 

[deneban]

I see we've come to a bit of scuffle and apologize for stirring up a mess in your thread. I will admit I didn't quite understand where you were going with the TV thing initially because I spend approx 0% of my time watching it. Also the serenity thing is part of a quote;

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

​

Apology accepted. When you deleted the word God, the quote is addressing me and the thread.

 

[jacksonbarno]

Honestly, you sound like you are stuck in the 1970s, man. Here me out:

Amtrak does not own their track, but uses trackage rights from freight railroads (Wolverine/Blue Water & Acela routes excepted). Those freight lines get paid bonuses if Amtrak is on time, but get nothing if not. So there is incentive. But can you really afford to make time for a quick physics worksheet on linear Newtonian mechanics when you have a 15-page English paper and presentation to do? Priorities.

If you want to get from Boston to Chicago in a hurry, by all means, take the plane. But what about all the intermediate stops? The folks who are scared of flying? The Amish/Mennonites?

Equipment woes are a recurring issue, new Viewliners are on order and Beech Grove is still working hard on getting broken stuff moving again. The P42DC are also old and need replacing, Siemans has been given the go-ahead for Cummins-powerd loks for IDOT's regional services.

Why does it matter if a "classic" route has been reworked? 80% of all passengers wouldn't care that much, because that's not where they are going.

In terms of comfort, I guarantee that Amtrak wins hands-down over any airline or bus company. Will never fly or take the bus again as long as I can bear it.

I don't think food is really major factor in ridership, but it is a nice perk.

Ridership is on the up and up. Michigan routes have posted double-digit percent increases for 10 of the past 11 years. Ever here of something called "economy of scale"? At some point, ticket revenue will exceed the fixed costs per train, and it will eventually be profitable. But remember the infrastructure: At Amtrak's Jackson MI facility, they have 80+ road vehicles to inspect the track maintain signals. Every weekday, that garage is empty.

Is Amtrak in trouble? They need cash urgently for capital expenditure, plus a compartively small amount for operating/running subsidies ( http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/amtrak-fy-2015-budget-something-has-to-change”.html?channel=41 , about 1.62 billion total for 2015) . But consider what is thrown at the highways as they continue to fall into disrepair and highly damaging trucks fail to pay their full way. Further, remember that a large number of airports are funded directly by taxpayer dollars. So the only trouble I see for Amtrak is inadequate capacity for demand, and political lockup. So it may sound like at some point that I'm swinging either way on the political scheme, but the railroad is the one that gets my vote.

I'm not saying that I'm not rooting for Amtrak, believe me, I am. They are losing money on their long distance routes because in this day and age, time rules the day. Sure, there are some people who prefer to take the train, me being one of them (at least from Boston to NY), but in the end, for most people, a short flight at usually the same cost per ticket (talking about sleeping cars here) means that people usually prefer to fly.
Yes, I know that they don't own the track that they run on, and I'm not saying it's their fault that some trains got rerouted, but it is just something unfortunate that adds to the problem that I was pointing out.
Amtrak's Michigan routes are very popular because they are focused on fast, relatively short haul service between cities in one region.
In terms of comfort, I would say that it depends on which service you choose. I was generalizing a bit, and when it comes down to it, I would agree that taking the train is overall better.
Amtrak is in financial trouble, no matter how you slice it. Yes, the amount of funding that they receive is minuscule compared to other modes of transportation, but even so, they could be doing more to try to get their numbers in the black.