From Amtrak's 2011 annual report:
"Total Expenses Selected Financial Data (in millions)Salaries, wages and benefits expenses increased by $155.3 million to $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2011,compared with fiscal year 2010, primarily because of: (i) $25.3 million increase in management salaries.....
...Management salaries increased primarily because of an increase in headcount and an increase in salaries because of the annual merit process and employee promotions."
Same number of trains, same routes, same locations, same fleet size, so why more mgt employees?
Also, I don't get the increase due to promotions. Unless you are creating positions to promote people into, the flow of retirees out the door and new hires in the door should make this a wash.
So, if they can save only $10M of the $25 a year by not hiring additional staff every year, that'll pay the ongoing cost for the SW Ltd. Maybe if they cut some staff, they could come up with the $100M for the replacement rail for the route.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd From Amtrak's 2011 annual report: "Total Expenses Selected Financial Data (in millions)Salaries, wages and benefits expenses increased by $155.3 million to $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2011,compared with fiscal year 2010, primarily because of: (i) $25.3 million increase in management salaries..... ...Management salaries increased primarily because of an increase in headcount and an increase in salaries because of the annual merit process and employee promotions." Same number of trains, same routes, same locations, same fleet size, so why more mgt employees? Also, I don't get the increase due to promotions. Unless you are creating positions to promote people into, the flow of retirees out the door and new hires in the door should make this a wash. So, if they can save only $10M of the $25 a year by not hiring additional staff every year, that'll pay the ongoing cost for the SW Ltd. Maybe if they cut some staff, they could come up with the $100M for the replacement rail for the route.
As long as Amtrak does not have any competition for intercity passenger rail, it has little incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper.
Before competition came to the electric utility industry in Texas, most of the companies had morphed into bloated bureaucracies. As long as the escalating costs could be gotten by the PUC, there was little incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper. Then competition came to the industry. All of a sudden we determined that we could get by with six layers of management instead of 13 and 10, 500 employees instead of 17,250. And whilst this was taken place, our customer base increased by 25 per cent to 3.3 million.
One way forward would be to bid the routes to the lowest effective cost operator, with an independent third party taking control of Amtrak's infrastructure, and opening it up to anyone who can meet the standards. The issues are complex and beyond the scope of this post, but the country needs to think outside of the Amtrak box regarding intercity passenger rail. Maybe the California and Florida experiments will show the way.
Sam1 ... One way forward would be to bid the routes to the lowest effective cost operator, with an independent third party taking control of Amtrak's infrastructure, and opening it up to anyone who can meet the standards. ...
... One way forward would be to bid the routes to the lowest effective cost operator, with an independent third party taking control of Amtrak's infrastructure, and opening it up to anyone who can meet the standards. ...
Might be a good idea, but could only work in the NorthEast Corridor (which Amtrak currently owns most of).
Outside of the NEC , "an independent third party taking control of ... infrastructure" would involve the "freight" railroads (I do so hate that term -- either you are a railroad, or you are not! But I digress ...). I suspect that they would resist any such move to "open access".
But, without "an independent third party taking control of ... infrastructure", or at least some "open access" provision (which, I believe, every system which has gone the private enterprise route has utilized), there can be no true competition.
Dragoman Sam1 ... One way forward would be to bid the routes to the lowest effective cost operator, with an independent third party taking control of Amtrak's infrastructure, and opening it up to anyone who can meet the standards. ... Might be a good idea, but could only work in the NorthEast Corridor (which Amtrak currently owns most of). Outside of the NEC , "an independent third party taking control of ... infrastructure" would involve the "freight" railroads (I do so hate that term -- either you are a railroad, or you are not! But I digress ...). I suspect that they would resist any such move to "open access". But, without "an independent third party taking control of ... infrastructure", or at least some "open access" provision (which, I believe, every system which has gone the private enterprise route has utilized), there can be no true competition.
I would have an independent party take control of Amtrak's current infrastructure, which would be the NEC as well as tracks in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan.
The current hoist railroads are an independent party. Potential trains operators could bid to run over their property, and the hoist railroads could bid to run the trains. They would be required to open their system to independent train operators, which they do now for Amtrak.
The track owners would be paid a fair market rent for the use of their property, which arguably is not the case with Amtrak. It could be set it up like the regulated poles and wires segment of the electric utility business. It would take some arm twisting and continuing subsidies, but it would be worth a shot.
The major barrier would be reluctance on the part of the status quo supporters to try anything new. Getting them to think outside of the nine dots is a huge challenge.
If you ask me I think the SW Chief is going to shift to the transcon route via the Texas panhandle, there is no way the states will pay to continue it on it's current routing. On the positive side.......isn't this a more populated route and hence better for the long term financial future of the train. I looked on Google Maps and Witchita, KS along with Amarillo, TX are not small towns and they currently do not have Amtrak service.
Also, doesn't this make a shorter Northern extension of the Heartland Flyer, North of OKC more likely?
It does strike me as strange that if the transcontinental route is so congested, that BNSF doesn't run some freight on the SW Chief route. maybe empties, or other less time sensitive freights. I guess the obvious answer is to eventually pull the rail.
The ex-Santa Fe Station in Armadillio looks pretty awesome, BTW and it's located on a WYE. If that station is used I would envision a short backup move to use it on one leg of the WYE. Google Earth has a good overview of the track layout and station.
I think this might turn out to be a good move though for the train. The Raton Pass route might be a little more scenic and might have made more sense when there was service to Denver but thats gone now and IMO, Amtrak might be better off with this move.
I've said it here before and I'll say it again - the SW Chief NEEDS to stay on the Raton Pass mainline. For people of western KS; SE Colorado, and northern New Mexico, this is really the only transportation option they have. You take the SW Chief and put it on the Transcon, you're taking that away. Plus, a link needs to be developed for future service from Denver to connect with the SW Chief.
Los Angeles Rams Guy I've said it here before and I'll say it again - the SW Chief NEEDS to stay on the Raton Pass mainline. For people of western KS; SE Colorado, and northern New Mexico, this is really the only transportation option they have. You take the SW Chief and put it on the Transcon, you're taking that away. Plus, a link needs to be developed for future service from Denver to connect with the SW Chief.
Judging by the actions of the states involved, it would appear that they want the service to stay on its current route, they just don't want to pay for it.
CSSHEGEWISCH Los Angeles Rams Guy I've said it here before and I'll say it again - the SW Chief NEEDS to stay on the Raton Pass mainline. For people of western KS; SE Colorado, and northern New Mexico, this is really the only transportation option they have. You take the SW Chief and put it on the Transcon, you're taking that away. Plus, a link needs to be developed for future service from Denver to connect with the SW Chief. Judging by the actions of the states involved, it would appear that they want the service to stay on its current route, they just don't want to pay for it.
I have a long list of things I want that I don't want to pay for. Who wants to buy them for me?
Looking at the map and and ridership numbers by station for 2011, the route through Kansas is probably the farthest away from a parallel interstate of any of Amtrak's LD trains and the ridership is small, but not zero. So, the "essential rural service" argument is probably more in play here than other Amtrak LD routes.
But, It boards and alights less than 10 people per train at Hutchins, Dodge City, and Garden City. It is even smaller at the stops in CO and NM Lamar, La Junta, Trinidad and Las Vegas. Only Raton and Newton have more - 23 and 19 people per train, respectively. Most of this traffic could be handled by a bus or two along US50/54 and I-25 with connections to trains at Denver and KC or a truncated SW Chief at Santa Fe or a rerouted SW Chief at Belen and Wichita. Might even be able to run the bus during the day rather than the dead of night. Or, have the bus connect to the KC and Denver airports as well.
I'm at a loss to explain why these rural towns in KS, CO and NM should enjoy Federally subsidized passenger rail service more than the people of rural South Dakota or isolated eastern Tennessee.
The SW Chief is just one more Amtrak train that is stuck with a 1950's Streamliner route and schedule while the world shifted under it's feet (wheels?). For example, the Grand Canyon is a huge tourist attraction. But, the EB SW Chief gets to Williams Junction at 3 AM and only 10 people a day use each train to and from Williams each day. If it were an 18hr day train LA to Santa Fe, both trains would be there mid afternoon making the train more attractive and cheaper to use for tourists.
Then, on the east end, you either run a KC to Chicago day train on the existing route, or reroute the train via St Louis (UP, State of Missouri and $$ willing) to take advantage of the high speed StL to Chicago route and provide more frequency on the StL - KC corridor.
Expensive sleepers and diners and their staff and support no longer needed. Better service to more people. Should equal lower cost and more revenue. Why not?
My thoughts on a potential Southwest Chief Re-Route:
I agree that there is the potential for more passengers on the transcon due to larger cities served, but will a re-route actually lead to more passengers?
These "new" cities have not had train service for a long time. Will passengers embrace something they have not had during most of their lifetimes? Interesting thought to ponder over.
Some thoughts on potentially abandoned stations that I'm very familiar with:
Raton
I know that the Southwest Chief almost lives off of the summer Boy Scout traffic to Raton. A lounge car attendant on the Chief told me that the Chief's lounge car outperforms all other long distance trains for sales of food and beverages. This is mostly due to the heavy Boy Scout traffic.
Take Raton station away and the Scouts will have to find another way to get to that camp. Probably bus. But that will really hit the Chief hard in lounge car sales.
Lamy
There is essentially nothing at Lamy. But you know what, when the train comes in there are people everywhere. Santa Fe is a large draw. And the connecting Amtrak shuttle to Santa Fe connects at Lamy. I use this station a lot as well. It is amazing to see a good amount of people show up almost out of thin air waiting for the Chief. And both the eastbound and westbound (if on time) practically meet there.
Albuquerque
I think if a re-route happens = no more direct Albuquerque service. Belen will become the new Albuquerque stop. If you want to get to Albuquerque there might be a shuttle bus, or maybe even a combined ticket with the Rail Runner service. To wye the train at Albuquerque using the existing trackage would be a complicated and very time consuming process. A new wye could be built, but that will need $.
So will a re-route happen? In my opinion, probably. It will happen in 2015 most likely. If the Southwest Chief and other long distance Amtrak trains are still running by then.
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
CNSFWichita would not be a significant gain. Newton, half an hour up the interstate, is essentially the Wichita stop. Whatever incremental traffic you'd pick up by adding a downtown Wichita stop you'd lose by forcing Albuquerque passengers to travel to/from Belen. In fact, since the train goes through Wichita in the dead of night in both directions, you might not gain anything. If you're die-hard enough to use that schedule, going to Newton's no big deal. I should know, I've done it. As for Amarillo, any gains there would be at least partially offset by the loss of Lamy/Santa Fe. Still, that's not an argument for the northern route. I'm just sayin' the southern route's not likely to generate many more passengers.
So, lets get rid of all the dead of the night stops. Cut the train in two. A Wichita - Chicago train and a Santa Fe - LA train.
Scenery? Western AZ and NM are no slouch and you'd get it all in daylight.
Tourists? Williams Jct stop during the afternoon, not the middle of the night. Train becomes viable for Grand Canyon visits from LA.
Witchita (or KC) to Chicago - perhaps you could "horsetrade" no transcon train for a pair of KC - Chicago trains. Maybe some frequency of service and some elusive "scalablity" would yield better results.
oltmannd So, if they can save only $10M of the $25 a year by not hiring additional staff every year, that'll pay the ongoing cost for the SW Ltd. Maybe if they cut some staff, they could come up with the $100M for the replacement rail for the route.
But that wouldn't end the cost. The $100,000,000 is only to fix the line. Then there would be the perpetual cost of operating and maintaining it, which would be well in excess of other routes because this route would stand alone as the only long distance route where Amtrak was the ONLY train using it for hundreds and hundreds of miles.
This, of course, would be great ammunition to the anti-long distance train crowd who frequently tout the per-capita cost of such trains. The added expenses from operating this very sparsely-used passenger-only railroad would drive up the cumulative cost of long distance trains, without any corresponding increase in ridership.
The increased cost and negative publicity associated with pumping money into an untenable situation hurts and threatens all long distance trains. Amtrak should reroute the train as soon as possible.
Of course, the $100,000,000 doesn't exist, but if it did, I would use it to establish stations along the new route (too bad Amtrak blew the money on new platforms at places like Lamar and Trinidad when the could have been put in place at Amarillo and Clovis), upgrade the wye in Albuquerque to retain service there, and buy new rolling stock to add capacity to each Southwest Chief and other long distance trains.
Mark Meyer
VerMontanan oltmannd So, if they can save only $10M of the $25 a year by not hiring additional staff every year, that'll pay the ongoing cost for the SW Ltd. Maybe if they cut some staff, they could come up with the $100M for the replacement rail for the route. But that wouldn't end the cost. The $100,000,000 is only to fix the line. Then there would be the perpetual cost of operating and maintaining it, which would be well in excess of other routes because this route would stand alone as the only long distance route where Amtrak was the ONLY train using it for hundreds and hundreds of miles. This, of course, would be great ammunition to the anti-long distance train crowd who frequently tout the per-capita cost of such trains. The added expenses from operating this very sparsely-used passenger-only railroad would drive up the cumulative cost of long distance trains, without any corresponding increase in ridership. The increased cost and negative publicity associated with pumping money into an untenable situation hurts and threatens all long distance trains. Amtrak should reroute the train as soon as possible. Of course, the $100,000,000 doesn't exist, but if it did, I would use it to establish stations along the new route (too bad Amtrak blew the money on new platforms at places like Lamar and Trinidad when the could have been put in place at Amarillo and Clovis), upgrade the wye in Albuquerque to retain service there, and buy new rolling stock to add capacity to each Southwest Chief and other long distance trains.
That would have been the rational thing to do, but logic and rational analysis has not been a major player for Amtrak and its legacy route structure.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.