Amtrak Says Not Cutting Any LD Trains

So Amtrak President Joe Boardman notes in interview, "We're not cutting any long-distance trains."
JoBo also said Amtrak is checking other means to pay for more equipment in addition to current orders for new electric locos and 130 single-level cars.

Here's the link to the forum interview:

(Site Admin: apologies to member; we don't allow posting of links to other rail forums. We know they're out there , we just like to pretend they don't exist. See additional note below:)

He seems to have gotten off to a slow start, but he's picking up steam. This could be good.

Here is the report noted by Mr. Chief and which is available for access to subscribers of various Kalmbach publications:

TRAINS Newswire

Brief passage:

• Amtrak President Joe Boardman says all long-distance trains will be protected as long as he is head of Amtrak, without any exceptions.,,,,"We're not cutting any long-distance trains," he said, adding that the same statement applies to all other service, including short-distance service, whether it receives state subsidies or is fully paid for by Amtrak. "We're not cutting any service."

Obviously Mr. Boardman has come to accept (how enthusiastically, we know not) that the Long Distance system has a crucial role in ensuring continuation of the wide Congressional acceptance that Amtrak has enjoyed over the past forty years. That they are "holding their own" regarding ridership and that the Class I industry has "accepted' the intrusion they represent on their freight operations is simply a "bonus".

I strongly disagree that the flyover states are a necessary evil to Amtrak. There are other political favors to be traded than LD service for corridor. I don't know why Amtrak management and this forum persist in such tunnel vision.

Example: Honorable senator from Mississippi will support NEC and Illinois Corridor if honorable senators from IL and NY support Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, MS, making aircraft carriers.

Example 2: Honorable senator from Montana will support CHI-IND track upgrades for multi-frequency Hoosier State if Honorable senator from Indiana supports new overpasses between Bozeman and Helena.

I encourage everybody to go back to my question from a few weeks ago. If the Builder were turned into a CHI-MKE-MSP train, how many frequencies/day could we run with no new equipment or dollars spent, other than converting sleepers to coaches or first-class compartment coaches?

At six sets, that's 12 locomotives, 36 revenue cars, and 12 food cars. Enough to equip (9) four-car trains with food car on each train.

Final point: if you trim the Builder to MSP permanently, what political support do you lose? ND, MT, ID? That's six senators and four Reps. Reps are allocated by population, which is tiny in the lost states. (See this graphic from Wiki http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... onment.jpg)

I'll play devil's advocate briefly here. Let's say that Amtrak did the unthinkable and canceled the Empire Builder, and was left with 9 trainsets as described above.

-----

Of those, 3 probably ought go to the CHI-MKE-MSP run. Of those, let's extend one to Duluth, one to Grand Forks, and one to either Minot or Billings. The Minot or Billings train might have to be the first out the door to make the run back to Chicago, but all three should be able to make a round trip.

Next, we'll put three trains on the west coast. One can go from Portland through Spokane to Helena, one from Seattle through Spokane to Shelby (with a guaranteed connection at Spokane to the Helena train,) and one from Portland to Boise. Again, it might be a feat, but these could each theoretically make a daily turn.

For the last three sets, detail one from Salt Lake City to Idaho Falls, one from Raton to Cheyenne, and one from Omaha through Sioux Falls to St. Paul.

Finally, institute a bus along US-2 from Shelby to Grand Forks.

Not only have we maintained service in one form or another to all of the Builder's route, it now serves entirely new districts (geographic and political) in South Dakota, Wyoming, central North Dakota, southern Idaho, southwestern and northern Minnesota, southwestern Montana, and the entire front range of Colorado.

-----

This is an extreme example, and I would argue against it coming to pass. Among other reasons, the Empire Builder serves a vital purpose for the towns along the Northern Transcon, especially during the winter when driving is foolhardy and flying is completely out of the question. It also has a huge amount of patronage CHI-MSP as well as people traveling to the Rocky Mountains. However, there are times and places for corridors, and it might take reexamining trains such as the Sunset, the Cardinal, the Silver Service, and even the Builder to see whether their equipment could be profitably used elsewhere.

Six senators is a lot actually, particularly depending on what committees they sit on or chair, and based on the way the Senate operates (each individual senator can cause a mountain of trouble). And I don't think your view of how the horse-trading works is accurate. Mississippi and Montana have gotten their shipyards and interchanges. Everybody votes for defense and highways because everyone gets a piece of those pies. Not so with Amtrak. You're not going to find a Montana senator going home to tell the folks in Whitefish that he voted to cut the EB so there would be more trains from CHI to STP, and that it's ok because Billings got a new offramp. If those were the trades to be made, they would have already happened.

Tadman wrote:Example 2: Honorable senator from Montana will support CHI-IND track upgrades for multi-frequency Hoosier State if Honorable senator from Indiana supports new overpasses between Bozeman and Helena.

These days, isn't the Honorable senator from Montana's interest in the trade a requirement that support be given for a Long Distance Amtrak train in a remote part of his sate that has scant other transportation choices?

Tadman wrote:I strongly disagree that the flyover states are a necessary evil to Amtrak. There are other political favors to be traded than LD service for corridor. I don't know why Amtrak management and this forum persist in such tunnel vision.

Example: Honorable senator from Mississippi will support NEC and Illinois Corridor if honorable senators from IL and NY support Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, MS, making aircraft carriers.

You've made the mistake of assuming that there are honorable Senators from Mississippi, haven't you? Actually, Mississippi does seem to want trains.

Example 2: Honorable senator from Montana will support CHI-IND track upgrades for multi-frequency Hoosier State if Honorable senator from Indiana supports new overpasses between Bozeman and Helena.

Indiana politicians don't want trains, and Montana politicians do, so this is a completely backwards example. In reality, we might be able to get a revived North Coast Hiawatha in exchange for useless freeway pork in Indiana.

I encourage everybody to go back to my question from a few weeks ago. If the Builder were turned into a CHI-MKE-MSP train, how many frequencies/day could we run with no new equipment or dollars spent, other than converting sleepers to coaches or first-class compartment coaches?

Zero. See PRIIA section 209 (corrected reference). Next question?

Can we please stop with this idiocy? The Congressional mentality *and* the economics is such that cutting LDs in favor of short-distance trains is a losing game.

Final point: if you trim the Builder to MSP permanently, what political support do you lose? ND, MT, ID? That's six senators

Aka 6% of your political support. At least until we abolish the Senate. Completely insane suggestion.

After a conference call news conference yesterday, it appears that Mr. Boardman's position regarding the Long Distance train's role has been modified since his December conference. Here is a report posted at TRAINS Newswire (available to subscribers) regarding the latest conference:

http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20New ... unset.aspx

Brief passage:

• WASHINGTON — Amtrak won’t push for negotiations with Union Pacific over the $700 million tab the freight railroad wants in order to host a daily passenger train over its Sunset Route between Los Angeles and El Paso, Texas. Amtrak President Joseph Boardman made the announcement at a press conference today, in which he also outlined planned equipment acquisitions, Northeast Corridor infrastructure improvements, and organizational changes on tap for 2012.
  
  Another key revelation from the conference: Boardman said that the company had no immediate plans to expand capacity by adding to the upcoming California and Midwest bilevel passenger car order.

Bottom line; no new routes; no new equipment beyond what is presently on order.

All told, Mr.Boardman recognizes the role of LD's; they have proven to be a means to garner Federal-level funding for a service that only has potential to provide meaningful passenger transportation through regions with a high population density - commonly known as Corridors.

Until at least January 2013, the existing LD's appear safe; but "visions" of expansion, such as a Daily Sunset, had best be laid to rest.

@Neroden

I stated that you lose "six senators and four reps", yet you chose to only quote half my point about the six senators. You state that this is six percent of political support. Yet if you add up six senators, four reps, and divide it by 535 (total of reps and senators) the reality is you lose 1.9% of political support, not 6%.

Also, you gain a heck of a lot more than zero trains by making the Builder a CHI-MSP game. I don't care what PRIIA 209 says. Laws come and laws go at the whim of the congress. Ending service west of MSP physically frees up quite a few train sets for useful service between centers of commerce in our country. It's not idiocy, it's basic math.

Corridor trains also provide a much more useful service than LD trains. A corridor train can carry 400 passengers in a 5-6 cars including a cafe, while a long distance train can hold about 300 people in nine cars and requiring an additional 3-4 staff for the [money losing] dining car.

Corridor trains also have greater political support. Going back to the truncated Builder example, you have 34 reps and six senators across IL/WI/MN, compared to 4 reps and 6 senators across ID/MT/ND. That's chicken feed. If you've ever watched Charlie Wilson's War (or read the book) you know they trade things on a much higher level than trains-for-trains. Charlie Wilson traded all kinds of things for Mujahideen arms, none of which went to his Texas district.

Tadman wrote:I stated that you lose "six senators and four reps", yet you chose to only quote half my point about the six senators. You state that this is six percent of political support. Yet if you add up six senators, four reps, and divide it by 535 (total of reps and senators) the reality is you lose 1.9% of political support, not 6%.

But the House and Senate don't combine to vote as one body. Given the rules and customs of the Senate, alienating even one senator can cause major problems for any program. And, as suggested above, a highway ramp or sewer plant in Billings won't assuage the folks on the High Line if the EB were to disappear. The LD network is simply what is demanded for the existence of the NEC and other corridors. If there were other "trades" available, they would already have been made.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:

• WASHINGTON — Amtrak won’t push for negotiations with Union Pacific over the $700 million tab the freight railroad wants in order to host a daily passenger train over its Sunset Route between Los Angeles and El Paso, Texas. Amtrak President Joseph Boardman made the announcement at a press conference today, in which he also outlined planned equipment acquisitions, Northeast Corridor infrastructure improvements, and organizational changes on tap for 2012.
  
  Another key revelation from the conference: Boardman said that the company had no immediate plans to expand capacity by adding to the upcoming California and Midwest bilevel passenger car order.

Bottom line; no new routes; no new equipment beyond what is presently on order....

Until at least January 2013, the existing LD's appear safe; but "visions" of expansion, such as a Daily Sunset, had best be laid to rest.

Doesn't look like there's going to be a daily Cardinal either.

Here is my read:

Sometime this fall, the mega-cuts of last fall, the ones the Sooper-Dooper Joint Economic Committee failed to address, will kick in.

When they do, Katey Bar the Door. Every agency which is part of the discretionary budget (as DOD and DOT both are) will take mega-hits in budget authority. When that day comes, Amtrak may well have to make some difficult choices.

I'd not be surprised to see 180 day Notices of Discontinuance of Service show up.

Well, I think the GOP will say the defense cuts are unacceptable and the Dems will say the non-defense cuts are unacceptable, so they'll vote to call the whole charade ("sequestration") off. Thus, I don't see any threat there to Amtrak generally, or the LDs in particular. The real threat will be the elections results.