Passenger Trains > SW Chief: "Rosey" midsummer update by Russ Jackson

*The Southwest Chief: a "Rosey" mid-summer update

Report and Commentary by Russ Jackson, RailPAC

Opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of
the RailPAC Board.


> *Here it is mid-summer, 2014, and no final decisions have been made
> about the future of Amtrak's /Southwest Chief/; whether it will
> continue to run on its historic route west of Newton, Kansas to
> Albuquerque, New Mexico be re-routed via the Burlington Northern
> Santa Fe (BNSF) "Transcon" route through Amarillo, Texas, and
> Wichita, Kansas, or be eliminated. True, that decision does not have
> to be made now but will have to be made by the end of this year. Is
> there any news? Yes, and that news has a "Rosey" ring to it.
>
> The legislative sessions of the states affected have ended. While
> none of the states, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico have allocated
> the final funds to comply with Amtrak's demands that they participate
> in preserving the historic route, they have all expressed support for
> the continuance of the service to the affected areas of their states.
> The Texas legislature did not meet this year, but the opinion in
> Texas is that the original route will be selected even though
> Amarillo is a larger metropolis than any of the towns on the historic
> route and would support a new train service.
>
> At issue has not been the desirability of service to the smaller
> stations along the route that might be dropped, but on who will pay
> to maintain that three-state section since the BNSF does not
> currently run freight service there on any regular basis. Amtrak is
> required to fund incremental maintenance above the freight class of
> operation (49 U.S.C. Section 24309(c). It does not say that the
> states must pay anything, only that "Amtrak" must pay if it wants the
> railroad to upgrade to passenger standards. Amtrak has chosen to
> pass the burden on to the states of KS, CO, and NM, to "participate"
> if they want the service to continue because Amtrak does not have the
> funds to fully pay for it and apparently is unwilling to fight in the
> Congress to get an allocation. Throughout its history, _no_ Amtrak
> long distance train has _ever_ received any continuing state funding.
> The /Southwest Chief/ is a "national system" train. But, with Amtrak
> management's focus on getting every dollar possible for use in the
> Northeast Corridor, the precedent of state support for the long
> distance trains can provide a large pot of additional dollars that
> can be spent in the NEC, rather than Amtrak having to go to the
> Congress and get specific money for NEC use. What are they afraid
> of?
>
> Now, what is the good news? This report began with saying there was
> some. Early in July Amtrak President and Chief Executive Officer
> Joe Boardman rode a special train from Topeka, KS, to Albuquerque,
> NM, meeting along the way with officials regarding the future of the
> historic route. Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said "This is about
> the risk to that route, the communities have been supportive of this,
> but we do not have an agreement and the clock is ticking." The
> special train stopped in Newton, KS, where Magliari spoke of the
> future by saying, "You lose (the /Southwest Chief/) and you lose the
> idea of additional service." He was referring to plans to expand the
> /Heartland Flyer/ train north from Oklahoma City through Wichita to
> Newton and perhaps on to Kansas City and Chicago or even a connecting
> bus service.
>
> In New Mexico U.S. Senator Martine Heinrich and the NM Governor's
> Transportation Cabinet Secretary, Tom Church, joined the train.
> Church said, "The /Southwest Chief/ is an institution in New Mexico.
> The Governor and the agency would really like to see it run," but
> went on the say that the state would rather see Congress continue to
> provide funding for Amtrak instead of the state. Boardman expressed
> his support to continue on this route so that the communities would
> continue to be served and the Boy Scouts could continue to take the
> train to their NM Ranch outside Cimarron.
>
> The state of Colorado has come up with funds but has put in a caveat
> that the train must be re-routed to serve Pueblo. And while that
> would be a boon for ridership and revenue, as well as provide a
> closer connection for Denver-Pueblo passengers, it means using two
> legs of the BNSF that have not had passenger service since 1970. So,
> that brings up another passenger who rode some of the route with Mr.
> Boardman and the dignitaries: BNSF President Matt Rose spent several
> hours in close communication with the Amtrak people. While nothing
> has "leaked" about their conversation it obviously was bound to have
> included the /Southwest Chief /route and its finances.
>
> Here is this writer's speculation about what Boardman and Rose could
> have talked about. First, they both must know that freight traffic
> has increased greatly in recent years, and the BNSF "Transcon" is
> nearly at capacity. While Amtrak cannot be forced off the section
> west of Albuquerque, and the historic passenger route in northern NM,
> CO, and KS, has little or no freight traffic now, should some
> catastrophe on the Transcon happen the need for an alternate route
> for freight trains grows more important. Couple that with the
> obvious state support for preserving the route, Rose may have looked
> at the potential public relations disaster that might fall his way if
> the train is rerouted or eliminated. Boardman was playing a high
> game in this regard. Along with that, could it be that Rose said to
> Boardman that the railroad will not stand for a reroute to Pueblo and
> does not want the train on the Transcon? Is it possible that a quid
> pro quo is in the works?: Amtrak would keep the/Southwest Chief / on
> the historic route, but not to Pueblo. In exchange, the BNSF would
> increase its share of the pot of funds needed to maintain it if
> Amtrak gets the states to contribute their funds at the beginning,
> but be promised no additional funds will be requested? Did Rose
> propose a lower speed limit for the train to, say, less than 70 mph,
> lowering the maintenance cost?
>
> Backroom deals are what makes this country great. Things get done.
> That's something the U.S. Congress no longer feels the need to do,
> but this deal (if there is one) would not require any legislation at
> the federal level. How great would it be if it worked to the
> advantage of all...Amtrak, the BNSF, the states, the communities
> along the way, and to train riders everywhere. That's the American
> way!

-Russ Jackson

Would Colorado be satisfied with a dedicated Thruway bus (and I do not mean the current Greyhound bus) ?

OK I get it now, "Rosey"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/14 10:52 by RRTom.

I already have a ticket to Amarillo.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I already have a ticket to Amarillo.

Give it up! I just hope you can get your money back. And put your efforts into getting train service to Amarillo without stealing someone else's train.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/14 08:03 by Ptolemy.

< I already have a ticket to Amarillo. >

Did you pay the $5 extra for Greyhound's priority boarding ?

RRTom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The correct spelling is "Rosy", Mr. Jackson.
.
"...BNSF President Matt Rose[y]..."
.
Ring-a-round the rosie,
A pocket full of posies,
Ashes! Ashes!
The Chief goes Clovis.

Lurch_in_ABQ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ring-a-round the rosie,
> A pocket full of posies,
> Ashes! Ashes!
> The Chief goes Clovis.

If you think that keeping the SW Chief on Raton is expensive, just wait until you hear what BNSF will want for rerouting it.

If perchance we lose any LDTs in this coming year's budget, I would greatly reduce the SW Chief's chances of surviving the following year since either route will require big bucks.

Thanks, not sure how I missed that!

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lurch_in_ABQ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ring-a-round the rosie,
> > A pocket full of posies,
> > Ashes! Ashes!
> > The Chief goes Clovis.
>
> If you think that keeping the SW Chief on Raton is
> expensive, just wait until you hear what BNSF will
> want for rerouting it.
>
> If perchance we lose any LDTs in this coming
> year's budget, I would greatly reduce the SW
> Chief's chances of surviving the following year
> since either route will require big bucks.


Sure, but then they can add cars and a locomotive to the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limit.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, but then they can add cars and a locomotive
> to the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limit.

and have three night Chicago-LA service instead of two.

I think Boardman should take to Buffet....Make him know that by losing this route many small towns would be affected....Hell, he might right him a check for the whole thing....He can afford it...

Steve

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reindeerflame Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sure, but then they can add cars and a
> locomotive
> > to the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limit.
>
> and have three night Chicago-LA service instead of
> two.


Of course, but Amtrak schedules have tended to get longer over time as it is.

The savings would be considerable.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > reindeerflame Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Sure, but then they can add cars and a
> > locomotive
> > > to the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limit.
> >
> > and have three night Chicago-LA service instead
> of
> > two.
>
>
> Of course, but Amtrak schedules have tended to get
> longer over time as it is.
>
> The savings would be considerable.

Right.... and if the Texas Eagle/Sunset is canceled too, then the savings would be even more considerable. :P That is a pretty silly line of argument IMHO.

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reindeerflame Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ts1457 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > reindeerflame Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Sure, but then they can add cars and a
> > > locomotive
> > > > to the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limit.
> > >
> > > and have three night Chicago-LA service
> instead
> > of
> > > two.
> >
> >
> > Of course, but Amtrak schedules have tended to
> get
> > longer over time as it is.
> >
> > The savings would be considerable.
>
> Right.... and if the Texas Eagle/Sunset is
> canceled too, then the savings would be even more
> considerable. :P That is a pretty silly line of
> argument IMHO.

Why don't we get rid of all trains, all airplanes, and all highways, and really save a bunch of money.

Yeah, okaaay.

An oil train wreck in Lac Megantic is a PR disaster.

To BNSF a discontinued passenger train would be same as the stray dog that disappears and doesn't come around anymore to beg for food.

Rose may have looked
> at the potential public relations disaster that might fall his way if
> the train is rerouted or eliminated

Have fun there.


reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I already have a ticket to Amarillo.

Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > < I already have a ticket to Amarillo. >
> >
> > Did you pay the $5 extra for Greyhound's
> priority
> > boarding ?
>
> I'm not sure I'd take a bus anywhere in the
> southern tier of states these days what with the
> immigration folks loading them up with illegals
> (excuse me - "undocumented immigrants") and
> sending them west from Texas. Unwashed is one
> thing; reports are that lice on some is so bad
> that they can be seen crawling down their face.
> Being a passenger on a bus after that means you
> have to bring your own decontamination supplies.
> They are also flying them to other areas, however,
> I haven't heard of them being placed on Amtrak.


It's probably because the Amtrak service is so inconvenient and of limited use.

Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > < I already have a ticket to Amarillo. >
> >
> > Did you pay the $5 extra for Greyhound's
> priority
> > boarding ?
>
> I'm not sure I'd take a bus anywhere in the
> southern tier of states these days what with the
> immigration folks loading them up with illegals
> (excuse me - "undocumented immigrants") and
> sending them west from Texas. Unwashed is one
> thing; reports are that lice on some is so bad
> that they can be seen crawling down their face.
> Being a passenger on a bus after that means you
> have to bring your own decontamination supplies.
> They are also flying them to other areas, however,
> I haven't heard of them being placed on Amtrak.

After all, they aren't REALLY people are they?....

these are children for God's sake.

I hope they get somethin' going, traffic's increasing and BNSF might have no choice but to reactivate freight service over Raton, they don't want to keep dragging their feet when traffic keeps growing and then be like what happened with Burlington Northern back in 94 when both routes into the Pacific Northwest was overloaded with trains and they were still contemplating on ractivating Stampede Pass for crying out loud! Rose better look at the big picture ASAP before it bites him!