# Daily Texas Eagle?



## CSXfoamer1997 (Apr 29, 2016)

Are there any proposals to run the Texas Eagle daily beyond San Antonio? If so, when?

Currently, it runs daily between Chicago and San Antonio, but only runs beyond San Antonio 3 times a week.


----------



## ScouseAndy (Apr 29, 2016)

the TE combines with the Sunset Limited at SAS onwards to LA as the SL is only 3 days per week this is why the TE is also past this point. I'm not sure if its a case of shortage of equipment or the host class1's refusing expansion or a mix of the 2 why they don't continue


----------



## CCC1007 (Apr 29, 2016)

This has been discussed on this board before, and the main points were that a) Union Pacific wanted more money than Amtrak could afford for a daily train and b) that the equipment needs would not change. The last round of negotiations was circa 2009 and included a clause that kept Amtrak from asking again for a certain number of years before UP would even sit down and talk.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 29, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Are there any proposals to run the Texas Eagle daily beyond San Antonio? If so, when?
> 
> Currently, it runs daily between Chicago and San Antonio, but only runs beyond San Antonio 3 times a week.


In addition to the Sunset Limited beyond San Antonio, there are two other options for extensions, both within the Lone Star State: Brownsville via Corpus Christi [uP Corpus Christi and Brownsville Subs], and Laredo [uP Laredo Sub]. Both are in the State Rail Plan which has been around since 2005 or so, and revised along the way.

Texas, though, is about as backward as 2 other states I can think of vis-a-vis passenger rail: New Hampshire and Florida. You could throw Georgia and South Carolina in there, too, I suppose.

In re-reading your post, there has been talk of running a daily Sunset Limited, but as stated elsewhere on this board, UP is the main obstacle to a daily train, even with the tremendous increase in track capacity that they've added west of El Paso.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Apr 29, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Are there any proposals to run the Texas Eagle daily beyond San Antonio?


Yes...it is summarized in the PRIIA Section 210 FY10 Performance Improvement Plan

Sunset Limited / Texas Eagle that is available on the Amtrak website and google...which is how I found it.



CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Are there any proposals to run the Texas Eagle daily beyond San Antonio? If so, when?
> 
> Currently, it runs daily between Chicago and San Antonio, but only runs beyond San Antonio 3 times a week.


When someone finances it and subsidizes the operation.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 29, 2016)

Truer words were never spoken.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 29, 2016)

Could we Hoosier State portions of the route (NOL-HOS, HOS-SAS, NOL-SAS) to give daily service along some of the route?


----------



## afigg (Apr 29, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> This has been discussed on this board before, and the main points were that a) Union Pacific wanted more money than Amtrak could afford for a daily train and b) that the equipment needs would not change. The last round of negotiations was circa 2009 and included a clause that kept Amtrak from asking again for a certain number of years before UP would even sit down and talk.


I think the last round of negotiations (that we know of) were in 2011 and early 2012. The agreement that Amtrak reached with UP for shifting the SL schedule and not to ask UP for a daily SL for the next 2 years was signed and dated in February 2012. The two year period has obviously passed, so Amtrak presumably could ask UP to allow a daily SL, or more accurately, daily service over the SL route from NOL to LAX. Maybe Amtrak had had some discussions with UP, or maybe any proposals for daily service have been put on deep freeze in the latter portion of Boardman era. Don't know.

The issues with a daily SL or daily service over the route have been recently discussed in several threads, so this is not a new topic.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 29, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Could we Hoosier State portions of the route (NOL-HOS, HOS-SAS, NOL-SAS) to give daily service along some of the route?


Unclear question.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 29, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Could we Hoosier State portions of the route (NOL-HOS, HOS-SAS, NOL-SAS) to give daily service along some of the route?
> ...


The Hoosier State runs CHI-IND on the days the Cardinal doesn't. Could we run a similar train on portions of the SL on the days the SL doesn't run?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 29, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> This has been discussed on this board before, and the main points were that a) Union Pacific wanted more money than Amtrak could afford for a daily train and b) that the equipment needs would not change. The last round of negotiations was circa 2009 and included a clause that kept Amtrak from asking again for a certain number of years before UP would even sit down and talk.


Even if Amtrak somehow had $750 million dollars available to spend it would have been an obscene waste of resources and dereliction of duty to hand it over to Union Pacific in exchange for a single schedule change for a single passenger route. That offer had no basis in reality and no relevance for doing any actual business. Looked more like an emotional outburst and intentional insult than anything else. So far as I can tell Union Pacific is unlikely to be a reasonable negotiating partner when it comes to new or improved passenger rail services on the long distance network. If you doubt me consider Union Pacific's insistence that long distance trains continue to be denied faster speeds over track that has undergone taxpayer funded improvements.

The only way I can envision Union Pacific allowing Amtrak to take the Sunset Limited daily is if Amtrak is willing and able to vastly overpay for the privilege. Probably to the point of being severely financially crippled. At this point the Sunset Limited is dead to me. The extremely poor calling times and the the three days a week scheduling are completely impractical for me. Because UP has no logical incentive to change their position, and because UP can bring far more pain to bear against Amtrak than the other way around, I would not expect much in the way of substantial improvements. If anything it might make more sense to use the eventual dissolution of the Sunset Limited as a bargaining chip to improve some other route with a more stable service and brighter future.


----------



## afigg (Apr 29, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


Who will pay for corridor service over portions of the SL route between New Orleans and San Antonio? Any such service would require state support, capital funding, and an operating subsidy. Louisiana is in the midst of a severe budget crisis thanks to former Gov. Jindal, the drop in oil prices, and is not a state with strong political support for passenger trains. While TX does chip for the Heartland Flyer, the Houston to San Antonio route is slow and getting state support would be a challenge.

The one segment of the SL route that has good prospects of seeing corridor service is in CA between LA and the Palm Springs region in the Coachella Valley. There are studies underway (after several decades of studies and feasibility reports), but my read is that the odds of starting a LA to Coachella Valley corridor service with 2 daily trains are pretty good. But this would be a daytime corridor service that would have schedules independent of the SL. It also will take years before any such service would start.


----------



## Eric S (Apr 29, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> The Hoosier State runs CHI-IND on the days the Cardinal doesn't. Could we run a similar train on portions of the SL on the days the SL doesn't run?


The State of Indiana subsidizes the Hoosier State to run on the 4 days/week that the Cardinal does not run. There is nothing to stop an individual or collection of states and/or local governments from doing the same with the Sunset Limited. So the question then becomes which state or local government or collection of states and local governments do you feel is most likely to subsidize such a service (like Indiana does)?


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 30, 2016)

Anything is possible, I suppose, as long as there's money there to run a particular service. But you're not going to get much out of Texas if history has a lesson to learn. Things in Austin could always change, but I have my doubts.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 12, 2016)

The state of Texas has a pick-up or car attitude towards transportation. Look at the mess I-35 is in going from San Antonio to Dallas, especially downtown Austin. They throw money at widening roads 10 years after the highway is a massive traffic problem. The Texas Legislature has no Rail leadership driving passenger expansion. When Kay Baily Hutchinson was a US Senator she was able to twist arms, dragging and kicking to get the Texas Eagle to be a daily train. Bottom line do not expect any funds from Texas in the next 20 years unless there is a huge benefit politically.

Probably, the best scenario would be a Daily TE CHI/LAX with a NOL connector train NOL/SAS thus eliminating the switching costs and time delays in SAS. True this would eliminate the SL, but in Congress the SL is a bad word, so maybe politically it works. Of course all depends on the new Amtrak President.


----------

