Passenger Trains > The Next Southwest Chief

From a Fred Frailey posting/article:

"Amtrak is struggling to find a fix for the dilemma facing the Chicago-to-Los Angeles Southwest Chief. From Trinidad, Colo., to west of Lamy, N.M., 200-plus miles, it is by law solely responsible for maintenance of a 79-mph railroad, because BNSF Railway several years ago ended all freight service over this route it continues to own. The costs are significant: $3 million a year in normalized maintenance and $50 million in due course in capital needs, including positive train control over portions of the route. The options are few. BNSF has taken off the table (if it were ever there) the possibility of rerouting the train via Wichita, Kan., and Amarillo, Tex., over the railroad’s primary freight route, and small wonder—train density over portions of this double-track line is at 100 a day during parts of the week.

Nor is Amtrak chief executive Richard Anderson willing to pour money down a rathole, thereby giving such critics as the Wall Street Journal’s editorial writers yet another reason to demand an end to Amtrak’s federal subsidy. It sought from the states of Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico a comprehensive long-term funding plan before committing more money to this route and got no concrete plan. Thus came the proposal, lame as it may be, to bus passengers 500 miles between Garden City in western Kansas and Albuquerque, N.M. Does this seem an optimal solution to you? No, of course. But what is Amtrak to do and be taken seriously by American taxpayers?

Well, you reply, serve Chicago-Los Angeles with a section of the Chicago-Oakland California Zephyr, with Los Angeles cars splitting from the mother train between Salt Lake City and LA.

Not a bad idea, except that the California Zephyr looks more and more like the next Southwest Chief. Its super-scenic route through the mountains and deserts of Colorado and Utah is beginning to resemble in economic terms the expanse between Trinidad and Raton. Let me explain.

In the first quarter of 2018, Union Pacific averaged but seven trains a day through the Moffat Tunnel 50 miles west of Denver. Two were the Cal Zephyr and two others belonged to BNSF, whose Denver-California freights operate on trackage rights. UP operated triweekly manifest trains between Denver and Salt Lake City, one day in one direction, the other returning. The other two trains—one each way—carried coal or empty gondolas. Every other day, on average, one loaded coal train originated on the branch line north of Bond, Colo., near Steamboat Springs. The other originated from a coal mine south of Grand Junction in west Colorado. From Grand Junction to Provo, the triweekly manifest freight was balanced by triweekly coal trains.

Let me add this up for you. In essence, Union Pacific is down to one freight in each direction every day between eastern Utah and Bond, and one and a half freights from Bond to Denver. Take away coal, and almost nothing is left of its freight business. Now ask yourself what is the future of Colorado coal? Answer: It is two mine closings from becoming extinct.

When that day comes, which may soon happen, Amtrak will be caught in another vise. Does it want to maintain the expensive, six-mile-long Moffat Tunnel and potentially all 515 miles from Denver to Provo, Utah? The train’s deficit would become intolerable. Would Union Pacific offer the option of a reroute by way of Rawlins? Maybe, but don’t count on it. And if it did, kiss goodbye to the allure of the California Zephyr.

I’m not trying to depress you, but simply on the basis of facts before us, the scenario I just laid out seems inevitable, whether it occurs in five months or five years. What I wonder, living 30 minutes from the Zephyr’s route through the Rockies, is why Union Pacific has spent fortunes in recent years maintaining this line in immaculate fashion. It puzzles me.
Now you tell me, my imaginative co-conspirators: What should Amtrak do today to put off catastrophe a year or more down the road? Don’t say it’s Richard Anderson’s fault. Like the trap in which the Southwest Chief is caught, this is not of his making.—Fred W. Frailey"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/18 13:16 by reindeerflame.

"The costs are significant: $3 million a year in normalized maintenance and $50 million in due course in capital needs, including positive train control over portions of the route"

$50 million cost is not significant. Smaller amounts of money have been coming in piecemeal and they will continue. No need to pull the plug, especially when Anderson holds up funds when it does appear to force his agenda. He is sitting on $3 million, which in turn  prevents the release of $16 million Tiger grant to Colfax County, NM. 

$3 million annually is nothing. Pueblo ticket revenue is projected to be $1.45 million. So now we are down to $1.55 million. 
What is the silly bus-bridged route's deficit going to be with charter bus costs, lateness on snowbound roads in the the middle of nowhere, and ridership likely to decline 50 - 75 % ?  Anderson has flunked Incremental Accounting. 

PTC is NOT required and is a fake issue. 

Anderson does NOT answer to the Wall Street Journal, especially their stupid editorial board. 

"Well, you reply, serve Chicago-Los Angeles with a section of the Chicago-Oakland California Zephyr, with Los Angeles cars splitting from the mother train between Salt Lake City and LA. Not a bad idea, "

Wrong. It is a very dumb idea. 5% of the Chief's ridership are Chicago and LA endpoints. 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/18 15:25 by joemvcnj.

still love to see the wind come back but NOT at the expense of the chief

Does not mention the BNSF trackage rights train traffic, which outnumbers UP's traffic on many days, but still the lack of traffic density seems to make the maintenance of the ex-Rio Grande untenable, and don't even mention Tennessee Pass any more! === === = === JLH

Frailey’s right on, here... It’s a real dilemma for NRPC and hard to justify maintaining ROW that will only see two daily passenger trains and a handful of freights. So much has changed since the coal business was lost and there’s no going back. Sadly, these trains are caught in a struggle where their long term survival appears very unlikely— ride them while you can.

One difference between Raton and Moffat is that UP  chose the DRGW route for BNSF to provide Central Corridor competition in the UP/SP merger settlement agreement.  If UP ever did decide to eliminate freight service on part of the route it would have to provide an alternative route for BNSF before being able to declare Amtrak the sole user of the segment.  

rdb

highgreengraphics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does not mention the BNSF trackage rights train
> traffic, which outnumbers UP's traffic on many
> days, but still the lack of traffic density seems
> to make the maintenance of the ex-Rio Grande
> untenable, and don't even mention Tennessee Pass
> any more! === === = === JLH


The BNSF traffic is mentioned in the fifth paragraph. However, can UP be expected to maintain its line for a competitor? It would seem they can find BNSF slots on the Wyoming line.

It does seem that it will end up being Amarillo and Wyoming, ultimately, or nothing. Amtrak, like Greyhound, otherwise can reroute its passengers via 1/2 or 7/8.

I do think the California Zephyr National Historical Park is another option.

UP still is spending a lot of money on the grande

UP may want a backup if Wyoming is blocked. I don't think Frailey should be judging that UP should get rid of it.

In a passenger train discussion, it's a non-issue anyway - the Desert WInd is not replacement for the SW Chief. It's not even rumored UP wants to get rid or severely downgrade The Grande. People were saying that about the ex-C&O nearing Cincy over a year ago also because of coal .Nothing happened. 

BNSF backed out of the Amarillo offer because they and most other stakeholders thought Raton Pass was a done deal. Anderson opened it because he doesn't see a full funding agreement, which doesn't exist for anything anyway. 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UP may want a backup if Wyoming is blocked. I
> don't think Frailey should be judging that UP
> should get rid of it.
>
> In a passenger train discussion, it's a non-issue
> anyway - the Desert WInd is not replacement for
> the SW Chief. It's not even rumored UP wants to
> get rid or severely downgrade The Grande. People
> were saying that about the ex-C&O nearing Cincy
> over a year ago also because of coal .Nothing
> happened. 
>
> BNSF backed out of the Amarillo offer because they
> and most other stakeholders thought Raton Pass was
> a done deal. Anderson opened it because he doesn't
> see a full funding agreement, which doesn't exist
> for anything anyway. 


It wasn't even being rumored that Amtrak wanted to get out of the Southwest Chief, until it happened.

It does seem useful to be aware of possible trends and developments, before they occur.

In any case, it is now being rumored that UP may want to downgrade the Rio Grande pursuant to the above analysis, even if UP is currently unaware that they may want to do so.

Reopening Tennessee Pass is the answer for both trains.  😎

$50 M is small change in transportation dollars.  It might buy you two overpasses for a highway to avoid two grade crossings.  

The whole discussion of public transportation in the U.S. is completely out of whack.  We need a serious gas tax increase to fund public transportation on many levels.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UP may want a backup if Wyoming is blocked. I
> don't think Frailey should be judging that UP
> should get rid of it.
>
> In a passenger train discussion, it's a non-issue
> anyway - the Desert WInd is not replacement for
> the SW Chief. It's not even rumored UP wants to
> get rid or severely downgrade The Grande. People
> were saying that about the ex-C&O nearing Cincy
> over a year ago also because of coal .Nothing
> happened. 
>
> BNSF backed out of the Amarillo offer because they
> and most other stakeholders thought Raton Pass was
> a done deal. Anderson opened it because he doesn't
> see a full funding agreement, which doesn't exist
> for anything anyway. 
Full Funding agreements exist for almost everything in transportation, transit projects and highways all get full funding agreements for the federal portions. Funding agreements also lay out in writing what everyone is expected to pay and who covers cost overruns, so you don't have uncertainty like the SWC project being done piecemeal. So in a level playing field, this should have gotten funding agreement from the USDOT/FRA and Amtrak was right to try to get one, as it would have laid out exactly what was needed and what all the parties concerned where expected to contribute.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > UP may want a backup if Wyoming is blocked. I
> > don't think Frailey should be judging that UP
> > should get rid of it.
> >
> > In a passenger train discussion, it's a
> non-issue
> > anyway - the Desert WInd is not replacement for
> > the SW Chief. It's not even rumored UP wants
> to
> > get rid or severely downgrade The Grande.
> People
> > were saying that about the ex-C&O nearing Cincy
> > over a year ago also because of coal .Nothing
> > happened. 
> >
> > BNSF backed out of the Amarillo offer because
> they
> > and most other stakeholders thought Raton Pass
> was
> > a done deal. Anderson opened it because he
> doesn't
> > see a full funding agreement, which doesn't
> exist
> > for anything anyway. 
>
>
> It wasn't even being rumored that Amtrak wanted to
> get out of the Southwest Chief, until it
> happened.
>
> It does seem useful to be aware of possible trends
> and developments, before they occur.
>
> In any case, it is now being rumored that UP may
> want to downgrade the Rio Grande pursuant to the
> above analysis, even if UP is currently unaware
> that they may want to do so.
The UP will not close down the Moffat route, but a downgrade is very much on their radar, class 2 or 3 has been discussed, but nothing within the next several years. They have slots to accomodate the BNSF traffic on the Wyoming route if BNSF should request it, but ideally BNSF will be accomodated with the slower speeds for their current traffic. I personally suspect that the UP is first going to see if Colorado will pony up funding to help keep the line in top shape as Colorado has shown interest in corridor service to Grand Junction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/18 19:54 by bretton88.

A Friday up to Steamboat Springs and a Sunday return during the ski season would be a slam dunk!
There's one more train on the Moffat route!

UP last summer did a lot of tie replacement ( ties, concrete from 2006ish that didn't last long) and other work, the line is in the best shape ever, doesn't need more that i am aware of,  so no need to downgrade for awhile i would think.

tax increase--you have to be kidding
 

RollinB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One difference between Raton and Moffat is that UP
>  chose the DRGW route for BNSF to provide Central
> Corridor competition in the UP/SP merger
> settlement agreement.  If UP ever did decide to
> eliminate freight service on part of the route it
> would have to provide an alternative route for
> BNSF before being able to declare Amtrak the sole
> user of the segment.  
>
> rdb

Rollin, thank you for that piece of information. Looks like another complex situation developing.

I guess that the line has had a big drop-off in coal and BNSF does not have enough traffic to pick up the line itself (and still would be dependent on trackage rights beyond Salt lake City). I wonder if the state of Colorado ultimately will want to acquire the line? Are there any potential natural resources in the area that might eventually replace the coal?

Appreciate any additional thoughts that you may be able to give.

Jack

BNSF may have the G JCT gas deliveries, for western colorado and utah, area is rich in minerals, railroads don't always want to give up the franchise as well.  

IC_2024 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frailey’s right on, here... It’s a real
> dilemma for NRPC and hard to justify maintaining
> ROW that will only see two daily passenger trains
> and a handful of freights. So much has changed
> since the coal business was lost and there’s no
> going back. Sadly, these trains are caught in a
> struggle where their long term survival appears
> very unlikely— ride them while you can.

If you're committed to spending all that money for just two trains per day, it would make sense to add another train on a schedule 8 to 12-hours different from the current one. That is not as unlikely as it might seem. On another thread it was said there is support for another Chicago-Kansas City corridor train. Extending it to the west so that travelers west of KC in Kansas-eastern colorado and in western New Mexico and Arizona would not have to leave or depart in the middle of the night makes complete sense. Of course there are all sorts of obstacles to overcome and the chance of it actually coming to fruition are less than slim, but if the tracks are there and upgraded, why let them sit unused for another 24 hours after the SW Chief passes?