quote:

---

Originally posted by Santa Fe 5704:
I've seen countless posters stating that the Southwest Chief get's very good handling on the BNSF and they can't seem to understand this. The UPS Contract between Amtrak and BNSF is the reason!!!

---

I'm not so sure. I have a January 1992 Trains magazine with an extensive article about the Chief. Even back then Santa Fe was instructing its dispatchers to keep the Chief on time. This was well before Amtrak Express shipments, though the photos do show one or two mail cars near the front end. According to the article, Santa Fe's handling of the Chief was the result of Amtrak's on-time incentive payments, plus a little corporate pride thrown in.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Santa Fe 5704:
Amtrak makes BNSF tons of money more ways than one and that is why the train is given immaculate handling.

---

More ways than one. Evidently one of those ways is the UPS shipments. Exactly how much does BNSF make from Amtrak's handling of UPS, anyway?

Another is the incentive payments Amtrak makes for on-time performance. Those incentive payments to BNSF for all Amtrak trains totaled $12 million in 2000, far more than any other railroad received. Much of that money will also go away if BNSF starts treating the Chief badly. I doubt BNSF would give up those millions even if the Chief does stop handling express freight.

I don't know if the the current incentives work the same way, but according to the 1992 article:
If Amtrak trains are 100% on time in a given year Santa Fe stands to make as much as $6.3 million in extra revenue. If on-time preformance is 90%, the incentive falls to about $3.1 million. "The overhead costs are theirs [Amtrak's], so if you look at costs versus potential profits, Amtrak is one of our most profitable customers," says Mike Martin, AT&SF manager of Public Relations in San Bernardino.

And that was before Amtrak was hauling UPS shipments.

And while, as you say, "the color green" is always the predominant factor in corporate decisions, one shouldn't dismiss corporate pride as a contributing factor. (NB: I never suggested it was the primary factor). Let's not forget that Santa Fe owns the rights to the "Chief" name, and allows Amtrak to use it. SF prohibited Amtrak from using it between 1974 and 1984 because on-board service had fallen below SF's standards, and they didn't want the Chief name associated with the train until Amtrak's service improved again. That decision had no effect on SF's bottom line. It was a matter preserving the goodwill and image of the Chief name, even though Santa Fe would probably never run the Chief under the SF banner again. If that isn't matter of corporate pride, I don't know what is.

BTW, what are Z trains? I've only heard that term in conjuction with tiny model trains.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

But that's beside the point.

True, BNSF is not the Santa Fe of 11 years ago. But the fact remains (and the point you have not addressed) that on-time incentive payments will continue whether or not Amtrak carries express on the Chief. Question: Is BNSF going to risk losing those incentive paymnents just because they may lose some money from the Chief no longer hauling UPS? How much does BNSF stand to lose if the Chief stops hauling UPS, anyway? These questions are central to the discussion here.

FYI I do know what intermodal trains are, I just had never heard the term "Z trains" before. A friendly reminder: I do not consider myself a railfan. I am primarily interested in the politics of Amtrak. Along the way I have picked up some knowledge about the freight business, but it is not something I go out of my way for. I am not familiar with all of the jargon, so please be patient with my ignorance.

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

The Del Monte Club Car