Amtrak Southwest Chief Discussion

Tadman wrote:. . . worth noting - ABQ-LAQ and CHI-Wichita both are above the 700-mile threshold for long distance federal support. Perhaps it's worth having two trains?

Amtrak likes to have its LD trains run from one maintenance base to another. So L.A., Emeryville, Seattle, Chicago, New Orleans, Miami, Sanford, D.C., NYC, Boston are the usual end points. Amtrak wouldn't like to leave a train stuck in ABQ when it has a problem. (Exceptions to every rule, e.g. Savannah.)

Generally, a kind of planetary gravitational pull seems at work -- the biggest planets like Jupiter, NYC, Saturn, and Chicago attract the most moons and passengers. But there is considerable traffic in the middle. Chicago-L.A. is the most lucrative, and Chicago-Flagstaff the third best city pair ranked by revenue. ABQ-Chicago and Kansas City-L.A. are the 5th and 6th highest city pairs of the Southwest Chief by revenue, with Chicago-Kingman, AZ and Chicago-Fullerton, CA coming in 8th and 9th. That kind of business would disappear if the thru route were severed.

That said, the Chief is very weak in the midpoints. Even the forlorn Sunset Ltd has five population centers of a million or so between the end points: Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Tucson, [Mariposa standing for] Phoenix. The Chief has just the two. And yet it performs about as well as other similar trains.

I always maintain that the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak: more equipment, more frequencies, more trains, more connections. So I'm intrigued by the suggestion of adding complementary trains down the line. So a second train from L.A. serving the small cities and tourist centers of Northern AZ and ABQ, then taking the "other route" to Kansas City and Chicago, whether the "other route" would be the Transcon or the Chief's current route. And perhaps a Heartland Flyer from Chicago to San Antonio or Houston or New Orleans, overlapping the Chief from Chicago to Wichita.

But unless we see Howard Johnson's, K-Mart, and Blockbuster as models of success, cutbacks and retrenching usually don't work as a business strategy nearly as well as growing out of a problem does.

Agree wholeheartedly, Woody.

Amtrak needs MORE ROUTES, not fewer.

There is frequent demand for CHI-Fla. via Nashville and Denver-Texas.

But unless we see Howard Johnson's, K-Mart, and Blockbuster as models of success, cutbacks and retrenching usually don't work as a business strategy nearly as well as growing out of a problem does.

Interesting how every other business has changed in the 40+ years since 1971.

TVs, TV networks (there are 500+ networks today compared to 3-4 in 1971), radios, radio broadcasting, music itself, automobiles, airline service, restaurants, newspapers, home improvement stores, motels, hotels, bicycles, anything you name, it's made significant changes to adapt to modern times.

Of course, one can point to precarious funding as the culprit here, but it would be difficult for to point to any significant changes Amtrak has made in its 40+ years of existence in terms of expanding its business model or finding new ways to serve more customers.

According to this article, the Chief will continue running through Colorado.they don't seem to be aware the other 2 states must agree as well.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26499 ... west-chief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Southwest Chief will keep chugging through Colorado thanks to a $12.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation."

This "TIGER" grant is only 1 piece of the puzzle,but bodes well for Kansas "TIGER" request for funds,
NO mention of the "Pueblo Detour" in the story.
The study in NM is still "chugging" along for now,due in Jan'15 for the 60 day session.

Backshophoss wrote:This "TIGER" grant is only 1 piece of the puzzle,but bodes well for Kansas "TIGER" request for funds, NO mention of the "Pueblo Detour" in the story.
The study in NM is still "chugging" along for now, due in Jan'15 for the 60 day session.

Only a small piece of the puzzle. The TIGER grant to Colorado is only $12-13 million. They need $200 million to keep the line open performing all the maintenance needed. Assuming Kansas and New Mexico get another $12-13 million each, a total around $39 million, where do you think the remaining $161 million will be coming from?

That will depend on the next session after the elections on Nov 4th in each of the state capitals in Jan '15.
Co's study is done,NM's still in progress,Ks is unknown. The political "landscape" may change for better or worse.
Still no simple answer. for now!

FYI, Kansas got their "TIGER" grant http://www.kob.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for the story at 6p news tonight

Backshophoss wrote:FYI, Kansas got their "TIGER" grant http://www.kob.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for the story at 6p news tonight

I thought this was a very interesting development. Note that, unusually, the Democratic challenger is even in the polls against Gov. Brownback. Possibly a grant given with an eye towards possible political change in Kansas that would enable future state based funding. Either way I found this one strange. Amtrak is going to be hard pressed to walk away from the current route now, especially with USDOT funds committed to improvements. In theory they could be reprogrammed but there is now a federal political factor in support of the current route that wasn't there previously.

Some of the congress critters in NM and Co have taken an intrest in the SW Chief, KS critters are the unknowns for now.
Gov.Martinez is leading in the polls in NM,barring any major changes,The NM critters will return to DC,
and most of the "Roundhouse"(State Capital) critters will return(some retirements).

It looks, by recent news, that some money has been raised to save the route.

Lee

ebtmikado wrote:It looks, by recent news, that some money has been raised to save the route.

Lee

It has but nowhere near the required amounts. Furthermore the funds from CO come with strings attached for a cumbersome reroute through Pueblo.

If the reroute through Pueblo includes a high speed swing around the 160 mph test track, that could make it a fun ride at least!

Matt Johnson wrote:If the reroute through Pueblo includes a high speed swing around the 160 mph test track, that could make it a fun ride at least!

Especially "fun" in a Superliner!!

I notice there's been no word of Texas or Oklahoma stepping up to get a grant to reroute. Guess it isn't a high enough priority for those states to step on the toes of their neighbors, or they're just content to let the spoils come their way.

Ok and Tx have been silent,Woodward Ok has a restored station,reportly Amarillo,has started the process to aquire
the waiting room area in the former Santa Fe RR Division office building and any remaining platforms there.
Only city funds are avaible,NO state $$$$.

Backshophoss wrote:Only city funds are avaible,NO state $$$$.

No problem there. It's all they're going to need.

On the Pueblo Detour,the route will pass by the access point to the AAR test faclity,NOT thru it.
Unknown if the Pueblo Union Station is still useable,or if Walsenburg has a station(or station site)
for a possible connection with IP's SL&RG to Alamosa,BNSF will need to upgrade the connecting track from
the former FW&D side to former ATSF and get the needed slots on UP(ex-DRGW)trackage Pueblo Jct to
Walsenburg(Joint track with BNSF).