Passenger Trains > Southwest Chief

Reading a lot about the demise of the SW Chief.

Within the plans of things Amtrak might do has there been any interest of restarting the LA section of the Zephyr so Amtrak will always maintain direct service to LA but at the same time restore service to Vegas on this route?

No one wants to see the Chief discontinued or broken apart but this seems to be something that might help Anderson politically do something with the Chief?

Thoughts? Concerns? Rotten tomatoes?

I don't see how a Desert Wind is much of a substitute for the SW Chief, and UP would likely ask for a ransom to restore it.

Raton Pass excepted, the Chief has some pretty good right of way and makes pretty good time; I remember an eastbound trip where we passed 5-6 freights going in our direction.
By comparison, the Zephyr goes "through the Rockies, not around them" and while that makes for great scenery it also includes slow running and frequent delays.
I've also ridden the Zephyr and like it, including its Salt Lake to LA section in the old days when it split in Salt Lake City. I think Amtrak had a good rationale for discontinuing that approach.

Then again -- and I say this in jest -- we could go back to the "City of Everywhere" approach with a single Zephyr from Chicago that splits in Salt Lake into sections for LA, Oakland, and Portland (with connecting service to Seattle), as was once the practice. With this approach, you could cancel the Empire Builder and Sunset Limited and go to a single "national network" train connecting both coasts. :-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/18 09:24 by hazegray.

The SW Chief plan is odd. Run a train from LA to Albuquerque, make passengers squeeze onto a bus after a 16 hour train trip, then get back on a train at Dodge City. All this because some two bit commuter railroad in New Mexico will not be PTC compliant. Really?

Better to enhance the service in the route with a second train Albuquerque west and KC east.

Posted from Android

Can anyone share a cost estimate and the time-frame from start to finish of the implementation of PTC in this case?

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The SW Chief plan is odd. Run a train from LA to
> Albuquerque, make passengers squeeze onto a bus
> after a 16 hour train trip, then get back on a
> train at Dodge City. All this because some two bit
> commuter railroad in New Mexico will not be PTC
> compliant. Really?
>
> Better to enhance the service in the route with a
> second train Albuquerque west and KC east.
>
> Posted from Android

Bingo! I think we would all agree that’s how you establish corridors and corridor trains. The more I read and try to see Anderson’s side it just looks like the Trump administrations agenda of gutting Amtrak except in the NEC. Why previous pro rail board members are allowing it, idk. It’s only going to be harder to reverse when the truly anti board members are seated.

Flyer92122 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bingo! I think we would all agree that’s how you
> establish corridors and corridor trains.

The problem is that the population centers on the SWC route are too far apart and not enough is in between for it to be suitable for corridor development.

In my opinion, for the LDT network we need more links and a more interconnected network, even if the routes are only one train each way per day. The point is to make Amtrak LDTs an option for more of the populations.

Jack

It obviously needs feeder buses for places like Wichita and Denver, but Anderson is only interested in dismantling on solely philosophical grounds, not constructing.

hazegray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Then again -- and I say this in jest -- we could
> go back to the "City of Everywhere" approach with
> a single Zephyr from Chicago that splits in Salt
> Lake into sections for LA, Oakland, and Portland
> (with connecting service to Seattle), as was once
> the practice. With this approach, you could cancel
> the Empire Builder and Sunset Limited and go to a
> single "national network" train connecting both
> coasts. :-)

I'm not sure whether the last sentence is in jest; but I want to point out this approach seems to mirror Anderson's philosophy that the end points are what counts. Yes the City of Everywhere would provide service to the major cities on the coast but it would abandon service to 10s of communities along the current Builder and Southwest Chief routes.

Evidently, separate Burlington, Santa Fe and Great Northern trains were considered more viable and accessed more people on 5/1/71.

What survived beyond 4/30/71 was not a City of Everywhere, but merely a a tail of it onto the SP west of Salt Lake to Oakland of the Zephyr, basically replacing WP's leg of the Zephyr.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It obviously needs feeder buses for places like
> Wichita and Denver, but Anderson is only
> interested in dismantling on solely philosophical
> grounds, not constructing.

I am not going to try to get into Mr. Anderson's head as far as his motivations are concerned, but he does seem to have some misconceptions.

I am a bit trouble by this (attached) from the document on an earlier SWC thread. Parties can talk about that for five years without anything coming of it. We need someone with the guts to take charge and put some demonstration projects together. He could take the approach of Amtrak funding the demonstration for a period of two years, while the interested parties work out their participation. If Congress liked what he was doing with demonstrations, it could give Amtrak more money for those purposes. If Congress did not like how it was working out, it could say stop.

Jack

---

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Evidently, separate Burlington, Santa Fe and Great
> Northern trains were considered more viable and
> accessed more people on 5/1/71.
>
> What survived beyond 4/30/71 was not a City of
> Everywhere, but merely a a tail of it onto the SP
> west of Salt Lake to Oakland of the Zephyr,
> basically replacing WP's leg of the Zephyr.

One unfortunate loss was the Denver Zephyr which was still a credible overnight train.

Jack

amtrakbill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reading a lot about the demise of the SW Chief.
>
> Within the plans of things Amtrak might do has
> there been any interest of restarting the LA
> section of the Zephyr so Amtrak will always
> maintain direct service to LA but at the same time
> restore service to Vegas on this route?
>
> No one wants to see the Chief discontinued or
> broken apart but this seems to be something that
> might help Anderson politically do something with
> the Chief?
>
> Thoughts? Concerns? Rotten tomatoes?




Bring back the Desert Wind Amtrak 35&36, it still daily LAX, CA to Chicago, IL train stop in Las Vegas, Salt lake City, Denver, and Chicago, IL. a lot cheap than the chief bring together again one train from Salt Lake City to Chicago with Amtrak 5&6 again. It work again that Dick thinking on doing. Main thing a daily LAX, CA to Chicago daily train still.

railcity Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> amtrakbill Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Reading a lot about the demise of the SW Chief.
> >
> > Within the plans of things Amtrak might do has
> > there been any interest of restarting the LA
> > section of the Zephyr so Amtrak will always
> > maintain direct service to LA but at the same
> time
> > restore service to Vegas on this route?
> >
> > No one wants to see the Chief discontinued or
> > broken apart but this seems to be something
> that
> > might help Anderson politically do something
> with
> > the Chief?
> >
> > Thoughts? Concerns? Rotten tomatoes?
>
>
>
>
> Bring back the Desert Wind Amtrak 35&36, it still
> daily LAX, CA to Chicago, IL train stop in Las
> Vegas, Salt lake City, Denver, and Chicago, IL. a
> lot cheap than the chief bring together again one
> train from Salt Lake City to Chicago with Amtrak
> 5&6 again. It work again that Dick thinking on
> doing. Main thing a daily LAX, CA to Chicago daily
> train still.

Railcity, really? Sacrifice one train for another works, yeah right! Besides have you looked at the requirements UP would put on Amtrak to resurrect the Desert Wind?

Posted from Android

No one in their right mind would endure this type of transportation. 

Lost in all of this handwringing about the Southwest Chief is a larger issue about how all of Amtrak's long-haul trains are refugees from economic reality and will always be a hair away from disaster when Federal funding is chopped or Amtrak gives up any interest. The Southwest Chief situation is just the most extreme example given the huge amount of track without any other users which makes it even more threatened.

The long haul trains have had so many decades of disinterest by Amtrak it is hard to know where to start. They are operated in a way that maximizes losses and minimizes demand. A few things in no particular order. . .

-Consist size. Compare the number of passengers on train #4 most nights to what Santa Fe felt they had to carry on the El Capitan to make money. I heard 400-600 pax was the guideline for the El Capitan, I doubt Amtrak does half that. Most of these western trains run with shrunken consists compared to 15-20-25 years ago. This may have an impact on revenue.

-Dining. Would any restaurant on land not maximize the number of people they could serve in costly facility, with long hours, customer-friendly policies and good food. Has Amtrak ever looked at any alternatives other than a crappy cold box lunch? I would be all for stopping for an hour or so each evening somewhere like Reno, or Grand Junction, with plenty of restaurants nearby at this point given the downward trend. Could a company like Panera do a worse job than Amtrak does, combining high prices and high costs with low quality?

-Marketing. When did anyone last see or hear an ad for the Southwest Chief or Sunset Limited.

-Overhead expenses. How crazy is it to have just one train between Chicago and LA to support all of this fixed expense and overhead. Advocates should have decades ago figured out how additional frequencies could have been added and paid for. While it was done poorly, Ed Ellis at Amtrak had the right idea, paying for additional services with priority cargo. I bet the post office would consider mail between LA and Chicago if Amtrak made a credible offer. Why not an additional between Chicago and the Grand Canyon which would certainly fill up. With any imagination and innovation, more trains at different times could work. To simply have the same static always declining pattern for decades and wonder why it does poorly and never revives is nuts.

In a normal business, the business (Amtrak) would always be thinking of new innovations and services and products, other than buses or box lunches. Since they clearly cannot imagine any kind of a future with growth, others must do it for them.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flyer92122 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bingo! I think we would all agree that’s how
> you
> > establish corridors and corridor trains.
>
> The problem is that the population centers on the
> SWC route are too far apart and not enough is in
> between for it to be suitable for corridor
> development.
>
> In my opinion, for the LDT network we need more
> links and a more interconnected network, even if
> the routes are only one train each way per day.
> The point is to make Amtrak LDTs an option for
> more of the populations.

They really need 2 or 3 frequencies per day, routes going in multiple directions and value added services like ferrying autos.  The fixed costs and demand of a single train a day service just don't work.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They really need 2 or 3 frequencies per day,
> routes going in multiple directions and value
> added services like ferrying autos.  The fixed
> costs and demand of a single train a day service
> just don't work.

You wouldn't even come anywhere close to meeting your incremental cost with that approach. The demand just isn't there.  The cities in the West are just too far apart, so you pretty well have covered the people who will take the train with  the existing train. Shorter corridors might work with better frequency of service, but generally they are not in the West (except up the coast).

I especially like the energy efficiency of ferrying autos. First you incur the tare weight per passenger of the train. Then you add on the tare weight of the auto and its share of the tare weight of the railroad car carrying it.

Jack

 

Without hurting ridership on the SW Chief's Route.

I wouldn't mind seeing more corridor like Service. That can operate at different times then the SWC does.

I also think more long distance Trains are also needed on the same route.
The one problem here is. Amtrak has not ordered more cars to really expand it's service.

If Amtrak had Ordered more then enough Viewliners. Although I am a fan of the Superliner/Surfliner style Car.
If we are to attract and get more people to ride. I wouldn't mind putting some viewliners on an LA to DEN,
LA to Portland. The Desert Wind, Pioneer, Maybe a LAX-ABQ-Denver. Maybe the return of other Long Distance
Trains that were cancelled in years past. (Sadly, I doubt Amtrak would order more Superliners anytime soon. And 
I would hazard a guess. Amtrak might not order anymore Viewliners. Or they would have got Lounge and Coaches)

As for the Corridor Style service. I wouldn't mind seeing LA-PHX-Tucson. LA-FLG, DEN-ABQ-FLG-PHX-Tucson.
Places that corridor service can feed the LD Trains and vice-versa.

Amtrak should focus on creating and revamping it's Network of LD and Corridor Service. In places that both Long Distance and Corridor Trains.
Can help each other grow and benefit from the ridership. i don't really see how breaking up routes would really be of any help. 


 

Jerry Martin
Los Angeles, CA
Central Coast Railroad Festival

GP25 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn't mind seeing more corridor like Service.
> That can operate at different times then the SWC
> does.
>
> I also think more long distance Trains are also
> needed on the same route.

Don't you think we should add links to the network first to make it more useful instead of doubling up on certain LDT routes? if I lived in an area that had nothing and Garden City KS was getting two trains each way, I'd be feeling a little left out.

Jack