# I got the inside scoop...and ofcourse I think it stinks.



## GP35 (May 16, 2009)

Amtrak kills the Sunset and uses trainsets to run daily CHI-SAS-LAX. The remaining sleepers will go to California LD trains.

A few coaches will go for a daily SAS-NOL snub train and a daily NOL-Florida snub train. That makes over 1,000 miles of a snub

train between SAS-Florida. A fancy bus service on rails. This is what we get for billions in extra funding, 100 repaired coaches, and new orders. Your 21st

century Amtrak.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 16, 2009)

I thought nothing about this was final yet.

You could certainly write to your Congresspeople and Amtrak stating that you think it's inappropriate for Amtrak to take equipment away from the Sunset Limited, and that if they want to expand the Texas Eagle, you think the most appropriate way for them to do this would be to order new rolling stock for the Texas Eagle, and wait for delivery of that new rolling stock before making service changes.


----------



## GP35 (May 16, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I thought nothing about this was final yet.
> You could certainly write to your Congresspeople and Amtrak stating that you think it's inappropriate for Amtrak to take equipment away from the Sunset Limited, and that if they want to expand the Texas Eagle, you think the most appropriate way for them to do this would be to order new rolling stock for the Texas Eagle, and wait for delivery of that new rolling stock before making service changes.


I write Amtrak and Sen. Hutichison all the time. My local congress-person is anti-Amtrak so he might actually support Amtrak on this plan.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 16, 2009)

GP35 said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > I thought nothing about this was final yet.
> ...


You realize that BOTH Senators represent you, correct? Throw in your Representative and your Gov who believe it or not does have some sway-- and you have four.

As for your "scoop"... enough of it. Until you produce a paper signed and approved by Amtrak saying "this is what we're going to do..." I shant believe ANYBODY's word on the SSL as it is just pointless conjecture!


----------



## henryj (May 16, 2009)

GP35 said:


> Amtrak kills the Sunset and uses trainsets to run daily CHI-SAS-LAX. The remaining sleepers will go to California LD trains.A few coaches will go for a daily SAS-NOL snub train and a daily NOL-Florida snub train. That makes over 1,000 miles of a snub
> 
> train between SAS-Florida. A fancy bus service on rails. This is what we get for billions in extra funding, 100 repaired coaches, and new orders. Your 21st
> 
> century Amtrak.


GP35 there are no remaining sleepers to distribute anywhere. It takes every sleeper now dedicated to the Eagle/Sunset service to run a daily Eagle which requires seven sets of equipment. As for any surplus coaches, I presume would be used on the stub trains. So there isn't going to be an equipment dividend by making these changes. If anything it will require more equipment. But, there is other news, this from 'All Aboard':

Just a brief response on this. I've received highly reliable inside

information that Amtrak is "conflicted" on this issue - the proposal

as described is just a PROPOSAL being advanced by some elements of

Amtrak's middle management. This is not a done deal. There is

considerable support for maintaining an LA-NOL Sunset (with that

name) with a separate connector train east from NOL.

LH

At 2009/05/07 16:27, Gene Poon wrote:

>ANONYMOUS (from an Amtrak official for forwarding to discussion

>groups):

>

> > I wanted to clarify a number of misconceptions that have come

> > up about the revamped Sunset Limited proposal that was

> > presented by Brian Rosenwald in Los Angeles to RailPAC.

> >

> > First of all, this is nothing more than a proposal that is

> > under development and discussion, and at this time has not

> > been finalized or approved by Amtrak's Executive Committee or

> > Board of Directors.

> >

> > 1) As part of this proposal, the Texas Eagle (see name caveat

> > below) would run from Chicago - San Antonio - Los Angeles

> > daily, and a connecting Superliner train (with checked

> > baggage and meal service) would operate from New Orleans -

> > San Antonio daily.

> >

> > 2) Make no mistake, this proposal would restore daily service

> > to all points on the Sunset route. Tri-weekly service is

> > inefficient, confusing to passengers, results in poor

> > financial performance, and presents a number of marketing and

> > other challenges. The only bias that Amtrak had going into

> > this analysis was to have daily service on this route.

> >

> > 3) As presented to RailPAC, the analysis for this proposal

> > showed over 100,000 additional yearly riders for the

> > proposal, along with significant revenue increases. The

> > analysis took into account ridership demand, forecast demand,

> > and markets.

> >

> > 4) The transfer in San Antonio from the thru train to the

> > connecting train would NOT be in the middle of the night. As

> > part of the proposed schedule, the eastbound train would

> > leave Los Angeles after 10 PM, arriving San Antonio around 6

> > AM, and the eastbound connecting train would leave around

> > 7:30 AM. Going west, the connecting train would leave New

> > Orleans around 10:30 AM, arrive New Orleans around 11:30 PM,

> > and passengers could then get on the Eagle before it departs.

> > Again, no schedule has been approved by any host RR and this

> > is only a discussion at this time.

> >

> > 5) No name has been chosen for either service. This is

> > certainly up to discussion and is probably the least of the

> > concerns.

> >

> > 6) This proposal is completely independent of the Sunset-East

> > study, and would not end the possibility of re-instating a

> > transcontinental service, should the corporation decide to do

> > so. Thru-cars could potentially operate between Los Angeles,

> > San Antonio, and New Orleans, and even continue to points

> > east should this be what the study recommends.


----------



## Chatter163 (May 16, 2009)

It always amazes me how much "inside info" our people are supposedly privy to on this forum, and how most of it ends up being completely erroneous.


----------



## Ryan (May 16, 2009)

henryj said:


> GP35 there are no remaining sleepers to distribute anywhere. It takes every sleeper now dedicated to the Eagle/Sunset service to run a daily Eagle which requires seven sets of equipment.


While this may be true now, there will be a handful of repaired superliner sleepers coming out of the Grove in the not to distant future that will be available for service.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 16, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> While this may be true now, there will be a handful of repaired superliner sleepers coming out of the Grove in the not to distant future that will be available for service.


And I thought the plan was more or less that all of those 20 Superliners are going to the Empire Builder. (IIRC, the dining cars are going to the Capitol Limited which will give its CCC cars to the Empire Builder, but the net result of this is that the Capitol Limited should end up with the same number of Superliner cars it has now, and the Empire Builder will gain the CCC cars.)


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 17, 2009)

Chatter163 said:


> It always amazes me how much "inside info" our people are supposedly privy to on this forum, and how most of it ends up being completely erroneous.


I have several sources, so let me explain how it works:

Transit person A believes in proposal B. A tells me that proposal B is getting approval because thats what he thinks.

Transit Person C believes in proposal D. C tells me that proposal D is getting approval because thats what he thinks.

I report to my transit coalition that A said B and C said D. People in my group think that either B or D is going to happen.

Meanwhile, transit person E, who happens to have the ear of upper management more than A and C, convinces the company to go with idea F. A and C are reliable sources because they are upper management in the transit company. (In my case, NJ Transit, which I follow closer then Amtrak when it comes to internal plans).

They aren't the only sources, and you fall down a slippery slope if you lose sight of that.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 17, 2009)

A B C D E F... G-M-L....


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 17, 2009)

this sounds just like this song here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED4aZ3nAnw8



> A told B, and B told C, "I'll meet you at the top of the coconut tree."


----------



## photoeditor (May 17, 2009)

I don't think it's something to get up in arms about. It's a logical way to get to daily service on the Sunset given Amtrak's current equipment shortage. The main issue, whether or not this plan gets adopted, is to ensure that at least some stimulus money or regular capital appropriation goes on additional long-distance equipment, including more Superliner sleeping cars. The Superliner has been around a while, a fair few of them have been wrecked, and attrition gradually catches up with you if you don't order new equipment.


----------



## ScottC4746 (May 17, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> As for your "scoop"... enough of it. Until you produce a paper signed and approved by Amtrak saying "this is what we're going to do..." I shant believe ANYBODY's word on the SSL as it is just pointless conjecture!


Here Here!!!

I am with you...until I see something at www.amtrak.com or http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/home let's hear no more about it. It is all hearsay!


----------



## ScottC4746 (May 17, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Chatter163 said:
> 
> 
> > It always amazes me how much "inside info" our people are supposedly privy to on this forum, and how most of it ends up being completely erroneous.
> ...


See this is the problem here...the word "think" is comming up too much. Unless someone who has their hand on the axe actually says "we are going to do this" than it is all speculation.


----------



## Larry H. (May 17, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > While this may be true now, there will be a handful of repaired superliner sleepers coming out of the Grove in the not to distant future that will be available for service.
> ...



Exactly what would those CCC Cars do on the Empire Builder? Surely they aren't going to remove the diners there too? It wouldn't make much of a lounge either, so what is the purpose? Only hope for those I would see would be say in use on shorter distance routes where it is long enough to need food an lounge service but not overnight where a diner is the only decent option.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Exactly what would those CCC Cars do on the Empire Builder? Surely they aren't going to remove the diners there too? It wouldn't make much of a lounge either, so what is the purpose? Only hope for those I would see would be say in use on shorter distance routes where it is long enough to need food an lounge service but not overnight where a diner is the only decent option.


My thought is that the CCC could find good use on the Portland Section between Spokane and Portland.


----------



## AlanB (May 17, 2009)

Larry H. said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > HokieNav said:
> ...


Well the idea is that the CCC would provide a cooked meal to the passengers riding on 27/28 west of the split in Spokanne, instead of the current boxed meals that they get. The Sightseer would then go to Seattle so as to continue to provide cafe service for that section of the train. Right now the LSA operates a quasi-cafe out of the dining car.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Well the idea is that the CCC would provide a cooked meal to the passengers riding on 27/28 west of the split in Spokanne, instead of the current boxed meals that they get. The Sightseer would then go to Seattle so as to continue to provide cafe service for that section of the train. Right now the LSA operates a quasi-cafe out of the dining car.


I presume a similar thing will happen with the LSL when full Diner is restored. The Diner will go to New York and the Diner-Lite will go to Boston, and it will serve as the Cafe west of Albany.


----------



## AlanB (May 17, 2009)

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Well the idea is that the CCC would provide a cooked meal to the passengers riding on 27/28 west of the split in Spokanne, instead of the current boxed meals that they get. The Sightseer would then go to Seattle so as to continue to provide cafe service for that section of the train. Right now the LSA operates a quasi-cafe out of the dining car.
> ...


Yes, that's what seems to be coming out of the current plans, which are based upon fixing so many of the wrecks as well as getting the Viewliner Diner prototype back on the road.


----------



## JayPea (May 17, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Well the idea is that the CCC would provide a cooked meal to the passengers riding on 27/28 west of the split in Spokanne, instead of the current boxed meals that they get. The Sightseer would then go to Seattle so as to continue to provide cafe service for that section of the train. Right now the LSA operates a quasi-cafe out of the dining car.



I'd like that idea. The boxed meals on the Portland section don't amount to anything. And a Sightseer lounge on the Seattle section would be well-received, IMHO. There are lots of good scenic opportunities between Wenatchee and Seattle, in particular.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 17, 2009)

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I thought they were also planning to upgrade more of the Amfleet II cafe cars (or whatever exactly they're called) to have convection ovens (and thus meet Diner-Lite standards) as well. (I keep wondering if this will lead to better cafe car food if they start being able to use convection ovens to heat some items sold in the cafe car, but Amtrak doesn't seem to have said anything official about this.)


----------



## printman2000 (May 17, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Larry H. said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


So how would it used before the split?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 17, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Well the idea is that the CCC would provide a cooked meal to the passengers riding on 27/28 west of the split in Spokanne, instead of the current boxed meals that they get. The Sightseer would then go to Seattle so as to continue to provide cafe service for that section of the train. Right now the LSA operates a quasi-cafe out of the dining car.
> ...


I'm not sure the Capitol Limited would be giving up enough CCC cars to operate them east of Spokanne.


----------



## AlanB (May 17, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Seven are slated for conversion this year, but so far production is running behind.


----------



## printman2000 (May 17, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Larry H. said:
> ...


To clarify, I was wondering how a CCC would be used on the Empire Builder East of Spokane. Sleeper lounge or just an additional lounge?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 17, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I doubt it would be used as a sleeper lounge-- perhaps as a second diner for coach pax... they have plenty of them, and I wonder if the EB could churn out more meals if they had two diners.

As for the CL giving the EB consists each a CCC, no, it wouldn't work. You'd come up 2 or 3 short. I would assume the others are coming out of the wrecks.


----------



## EB_OBS (May 17, 2009)

JayPea said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Well the idea is that the CCC would provide a cooked meal to the passengers riding on 27/28 west of the split in Spokanne, instead of the current boxed meals that they get. The Sightseer would then go to Seattle so as to continue to provide cafe service for that section of the train. Right now the LSA operates a quasi-cafe out of the dining car.
> ...




Amtrak would of course like to add some capacity, in the form of sleeper cars, to the Empire Builder. It's one of the trains in the system that is or nearly is full for nearly ten months of the year. It can be difficult to get a room on board during the spring, summer and autumn months unless you reserved well in advance.

That being said, as far as I am aware there are no current plans to expand on the Empire Builder's consist. That's not saying this idea hasn't been discussed. It has. I'm actually a bit shocked at the speculation about the use of a CCC being so dead on to what I've heard discussed.

When the RPI for the Empire Builder began late last year no less than around 90 service improvement/enhancement ideas were come up with. Unfortunately for expanding the capacity, at that time, there was no equipment in the system to even dream it could be possible. While things have changed today, there are still, as far as I know, no plans to increase the number of sleeper cars on the Empire Builder. When the superliner cars begin rolling out of Beech Grove and if the SSL changes free up some superliners, there is still a ton of rolling stock in use today that then need to be sent back to Beech Grove for repair.

I for one would like to see expanded capacity on the EB. It would mean more revenue. The Empire Builder actually does generate enough money to fully cover it's operating costs. It also would be a few more jobs which we need right now.

Since I'm fairly certain someone will ask, yes I work for Amtrak in Seattle.


----------



## AlanB (May 17, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


I don't believe that there are any plans to convert more diners to CCC's. However, remember that if the Sunset plan goes through, then most likley they would take the CCC's off of the Eagle. That would then give one enough CCC's for the EB to run in daily revenue service full length.


----------



## AlanB (May 17, 2009)

ez223 said:


> JayPea said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Actually one of the announcements that heralded the repairing of all the wrecks with stimulus monies discussed the fact that Amtrak anticipated adding one Portland sleeper and possibly one more Seattle sleeper.

If that were to happen, then a CCC that runs the full length of the route would be the only way to handle the passenger load both in terms of the free meals for sleeping car pax, but also for coach pax to have any hope of ever getting a meal in a dining car.


----------



## EB_OBS (May 17, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Actually one of the announcements that heralded the repairing of all the wrecks with stimulus monies discussed the fact that Amtrak anticipated adding one Portland sleeper and possibly one more Seattle sleeper.
> If that were to happen, then a CCC that runs the full length of the route would be the only way to handle the passenger load both in terms of the free meals for sleeping car pax, but also for coach pax to have any hope of ever getting a meal in a dining car.



Yes, if any passenger capacity were to be added to the Empire Builder, most definitely it would come with additional food service capacity as well. That's right out of the mouth of an Amtrak VP.

Like I said though, as far as I'm aware, Amtrak is not talking about any plans to actually make these changes happen on the EB. When we talked about it early on in the RPI process, it was mostly deemed wishful thinking. As noted things have changed and money what wasn't available then, is now. Plans change. Tomorrow, it's entirely possible that someone pulls this off the shelf. It's certainly a good idea and a necessary one if Amtrak wants to increase revenue on the EB.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 17, 2009)

ScottC4746 said:


> See this is the problem here...the word "think" is comming up too much. Unless someone who has their hand on the axe actually says "we are going to do this" than it is all speculation.


Absolutely. In my position as a transit advocate, it is useful to have some clue what transit companies are going to do. As a result, I do have some sources, mostly within NJT, about plans for the future and so on. They are accurate, I would guess, about 40% of the time.

I report it as "rumors from within". If someone makes the mistake of taking it for gospel, its honestly their own fault. GP35 here seems to see things in terms of dooms day scenarios. In this instance, he not only assumed the rumor was a done deal, but that it was going to destroy the southern transcon and provide Amtrak with an excuse to kill off service entirely.

I don't know what GP35 sees or knows, but what I do know is that in threads like this, I am operating with implied "if this is true"s in front of my commentary.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 17, 2009)

Ah but then who gets the diner? Does coach get the CCC and the sleepers get a diner? Or the converse?


----------



## AlanB (May 17, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Ah but then who gets the diner? Does coach get the CCC and the sleepers get a diner? Or the converse?


My thinking would be that the Portland sleeper pax would eat in the CCC through out the trip. Seattle pax in the regular diner. Coach pax where ever they can be accommodated.


----------



## EB_OBS (May 17, 2009)

I think the general consensus was that the CCC would be positioned either between the cafe/lounge and the 14 car or between the 15 car and the 2*30 sleeper. It could work either way but would ideally suit the sleeper car if it was positioned after the 15 car.

The passengers in the rear sleeper could choose to eat meals in the CCC or make the walk up to the dining car. With the large number of coach passengers that often don't even get a chance to eat in the diner during peak season, the CCC would add a significant amount of capacity for coach. I don't think anytime was it mentioned that the CCC would be for sleeper passengers only.


----------



## EB_OBS (May 17, 2009)

Also, just to mention it as it does relate to what we are talking about.

The EB already is required to double spot the train at a handful of station stops to load and unload passengers at the front and rear of the train. If two or possibly even three more car lengths were to be added to the consist then we're also talking about some significant station and platform improvements that also would need to be made.


----------



## TVRM610 (May 17, 2009)

GP35 said:


> Amtrak kills the Sunset and uses trainsets to run daily CHI-SAS-LAX. The remaining sleepers will go to California LD trains.A few coaches will go for a daily SAS-NOL snub train and a daily NOL-Florida snub train. That makes over 1,000 miles of a snub
> 
> train between SAS-Florida. A fancy bus service on rails. This is what we get for billions in extra funding, 100 repaired coaches, and new orders. Your 21st
> 
> century Amtrak.


So any train not operating with sleepers and full diner is a "fancy bus on rails"???


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 18, 2009)

It's OK to speculate, afterall, we're all railroad buffs here, but to say there's a definite answer as to what is going to happen with the SL when Amtrak has not stated its final position does nobody any good.

GP35 I can tell you're just as passionate about the SL as I am. I don't want to see the train die. At the same time, I see the "potential" daily service as an opportunity. An opportunity for more people to discover train travel, even if that means less amenities on board.

Let's wait and see how this all plays out. I'm anxious to see what will be decided upon.


----------



## VentureForth (May 18, 2009)

I would LOVE to see anything increase the speed from CHI to LAX through SAS by removing the I-35 pad and the overnight pad in SAS. Add a new SAS - JAX with guaranteed connections, and you have an effective Southern route. No, it's not the Sunset Limited any more, but it is no more transfers than what is needed now to get from the Southeast coast to LA. Would save a LOT of time, too.


----------



## haolerider (May 18, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> It's OK to speculate, afterall, we're all railroad buffs here, but to say there's a definite answer as to what is going to happen with the SL when Amtrak has not stated its final position does nobody any good.
> GP35 I can tell you're just as passionate about the SL as I am. I don't want to see the train die. At the same time, I see the "potential" daily service as an opportunity. An opportunity for more people to discover train travel, even if that means less amenities on board.
> 
> Let's wait and see how this all plays out. I'm anxious to see what will be decided upon.


I could not agree more. No one has the "inside scoop" and anyone who thinks they do is sadly mistaken. The proposal is just what it says, a proposal and from what I understand, it is being considered seriously, but I don't think anyone can fully understand the tremendous amount of work that must go into an analysis of this sort of change. It is all well and good for people on this forum to discuss their wishes and thoughts, but it is not about our wishes and desires, it is about what is best for Amtrak.


----------



## GP35 (May 18, 2009)

haolerider said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > It's OK to speculate, afterall, we're all railroad buffs here, but to say there's a definite answer as to what is going to happen with the SL when Amtrak has not stated its final position does nobody any good.
> ...


We are the tax payers who pay for Amtrak existing. Amtrak should not take public money if tax payers wishes and thoughts are ignored.


----------



## Alice (May 18, 2009)

GP35 said:


> We are the tax payers who pay for Amtrak existing. Amtrak should not take public money if tax payers wishes and thoughts are ignored.


Amtrak riders are a small minority of tax payers. If the wishes of the majority of tax payers' wishes were followed, I doubt there'd be any Amtrak.

Regarding all of the posts saying this is just a proposal, not only is it just a proposal, but it has to be sold to a board of directors, those guys who want to see immediate increased revenue and decreased expenses before considering anything long-term. I think some of the items in the proposal were to enable accounting tricks to at least get something (anything) daily approved by the BOD. The numbers for the SL shown at NARP/RailPAC in LA were abysmal.


----------



## saxman (May 18, 2009)

Also we must realize the this is all subject to UP approval. How many other times has Amtrak "announced" something, and they hadn't even got approval from the BOD, or the freight railroad. Now I know, these days UP has said they are willing to work with Amtrak and passenger carriers, but I'm going to believe anything until I'm holding a ticket in my hand for new said service.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 18, 2009)

Thanks, Alice, that's another point. GP35, you are acting like Amtrak is trying to "fix" something that ain't broken. Fact of the matter is: The Sunset Limited has the worst fiscal performance of any Amtrak train. It IS broken. If they can improve their numbers this way, perhaps things will be the reverse of what you have mentioned.

That is, if they don't do this, there will be no _Sunset Limited_.


----------



## TVRM610 (May 18, 2009)

Am I the only one who actually likes the idea?

Daily Service from CHI to LAX by way of SAS with a full diner and sleepers.

Daily Service from SAS to NOL by a train that does not need sleepers or full diner.

Why is this a problem? I'm 100% for this idea!


----------



## GP35 (May 18, 2009)

The numbers for the Texas Eagle were abysmal, when it ran tri-weekly. The numbers on any LD train running tri-weekly would

have abysmal numbers. The Sunset has the decked fixed against it winning then you blame it for losing. Kinda like a poor kid

getting stuck in a poor low performing school then you blame the kid for not matching the performance of the rich private school.

If this is the thinking of Amtrak, then Amtrak needs not to exist at all.


----------



## Alice (May 18, 2009)

GP35 said:


> The numbers for the Texas Eagle were abysmal, when it ran tri-weekly. The numbers on any LD train running tri-weekly wouldhave abysmal numbers. The Sunset has the decked fixed against it winning then you blame it for losing. Kinda like a poor kid
> 
> getting stuck in a poor low performing school then you blame the kid for not matching the performance of the rich private school.
> 
> If this is the thinking of Amtrak, then Amtrak needs not to exist at all.


Exactly why figuring out a way, _any _way, to get SL daily is important.


----------



## TVRM610 (May 18, 2009)

GP35 said:


> The numbers for the Texas Eagle were abysmal, when it ran tri-weekly. The numbers on any LD train running tri-weekly wouldhave abysmal numbers. The Sunset has the decked fixed against it winning then you blame it for losing. Kinda like a poor kid
> 
> getting stuck in a poor low performing school then you blame the kid for not matching the performance of the rich private school.
> 
> If this is the thinking of Amtrak, then Amtrak needs not to exist at all.


I don't understand what the problem is?

What do you not like about the "proposal" ?


----------



## Ryan (May 18, 2009)

The SAS-NOL leg will be on a stub train without sleepers or a diner, which GP35 seems to think is no better than a "bus on rails" despite the many, many other trains around the nation that run like this.


----------



## JAChooChoo (May 18, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I thought nothing about this was final yet.
> You could certainly write to your Congresspeople and Amtrak stating that you think it's inappropriate for Amtrak to take equipment away from the Sunset Limited, and that if they want to expand the Texas Eagle, you think the most appropriate way for them to do this would be to order new rolling stock for the Texas Eagle, and wait for delivery of that new rolling stock before making service changes.


*New rolling stock is not an off-the-shelf, shovel-ready item. It would take about 36 months*


----------



## GP35 (May 18, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > The numbers for the Texas Eagle were abysmal, when it ran tri-weekly. The numbers on any LD train running tri-weekly wouldhave abysmal numbers. The Sunset has the decked fixed against it winning then you blame it for losing. Kinda like a poor kid
> ...


I don't like anyone losing a LD train when it is not necessary. I don't like the idea of changing trains 2 times

to go between Florida and California.

Solution: There is 7 superliner trainsets.(including the ones in NOL). Amtrak could run daily SL between NOL-LAX

with 6 trainsets and daily TE through coaches at SAS. No one loses service. NOL-Florida can be brought back with DAILY SERVICE using

a few(about 28) of the 93 single deck being repaired. They remainig single deck can be used to run the Cardinal daily.

This is the best plan. I should be running Amtrak. CASE CLOSE.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 18, 2009)

GP35 said:


> Solution: There is 7 superliner trainsets.(including the ones in NOL). Amtrak could run daily SL between NOL-LAXwith 6 trainsets and daily TE through coaches at SAS. No one loses service. NOL-Florida can be brought back with DAILY SERVICE using
> 
> a few(about 28) of the 93 single deck being repaired. They remainig single deck can be used to run the Cardinal daily.
> 
> This is the best plan. I should be running Amtrak. CASE CLOSE.


How do you plan on doing this without Viewliner cars for the Cardinal and NOL-Florida?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 18, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > Solution: There is 7 superliner trainsets.(including the ones in NOL). Amtrak could run daily SL between NOL-LAXwith 6 trainsets and daily TE through coaches at SAS. No one loses service. NOL-Florida can be brought back with DAILY SERVICE using
> ...


I think his contention is that you could do NOL-Florida as a... guess what... SNUB TRAIN using single-level consists.

So either way, guess what, you're gonna get a a SNUB!


----------



## GP35 (May 18, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > Solution: There is 7 superliner trainsets.(including the ones in NOL). Amtrak could run daily SL between NOL-LAXwith 6 trainsets and daily TE through coaches at SAS. No one loses service. NOL-Florida can be brought back with DAILY SERVICE using
> ...


Of all the 93 single deck coaches being repair, is not a few of them sleepers? If not, then Amtrak already said they

are ordering viewliner sleepers.


----------



## GP35 (May 18, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


Some of us think disagreeing with Amtrak is heresy. Is it?


----------



## AlanB (May 18, 2009)

GP35 said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


No, other than the proto-types which I've not heard any news about, all 50 Viewliner sleepers are currently active.

Any new sleepers are at least 2 to 3 years away from seeing service.


----------



## GP35 (May 18, 2009)

AlanB said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


NOL-Florda can be ran on 3 trainsets, so 6 sleepers are needeed. I would bet VIA Rail have plenty un-used sleepers. Also

the cruise ships and Alaska railroad are over stocked with Colorado rail sleepers. Amtrak could lease those sleepers until

the new viewliners are ready. I'm sure those companys could used the extra money while in this recession.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 18, 2009)

GP35 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


the thing with via is there cars are not compatible with Amtraks HEP. amtrak would need to use a adapter.


----------



## GP35 (May 18, 2009)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Get adapters or lease 3 full VIA Rail trainsets. The point is it can be done if Amtrak uses some creative thinking...


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 18, 2009)

BRING BACK THE AMTRAK LRC COACHES AND TRAINS.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

GP35 said:


> KISS_ALIVE said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


Yes, but at considerable cost. Money that Amtrak doesn't have and its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I for one don't like the idea of loosing the Sunset, even if the alternative does get us daily service. I'm not convinced that ridership will be better with a daily NOL-SAS than it would be with a daily ORL-LAX or even a daily NOL-LAX train. But I'm sorry leasing equipment to keep the Sunset is a leap too far. That doesn't make sense IMHO.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 19, 2009)

GP35 said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Your solution results in lesser service than the one Amtrak provides and, guess what, uses the snub train that you so detest.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 19, 2009)

GP35 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


Alaska and the cruise lines do NOT have CRC sleepers. GrandLuxe has some, but not enough to be important- they don't have effective capacity.

As for VIA, Amtrak has made interested noises about actually buying some of VIA Rail's unused Budd sleepers/lounges/diners/coaches at various points. VIA Rail, for reasons that elude me and a lot of other people, is not interested. Around the time Amtrak had to give up the Heritage sleepers, there was talk of them acquiring enough equipment from VIA to bring back the Broadway. Amtrak can't buy if VIA isn't selling, and VIA isn't selling.



GP35 said:


> Get adapters or lease 3 full VIA Rail trainsets. The point is it can be done if Amtrak uses some creative thinking...


Let's talk politics, ok? In the New York/New Jersey area, there are 7 major stations that have the capability of serving as main-line terminals. They are, in no particular order, Newark Penn Station, Hoboken Terminal, New York Penn Station, Grand Central Terminal, Flatbush Avenue, and Jamaica.

Those stations are variously located and owned. Hoboken Terminal, owned by NJ Transit, is located for terminating trains running on the former Erie Lackawanna lines, as well as a few odd North Jersey Coast Line (That is, CNJ) trains. Newark Penn Station, owned by NJ Transit, is located on the Northeast Corridor and is primarily a through station, but is located in a way to comfortably handle terminal duties, and does serve as the terminus for trains operating on the Raritan Valley Line. New York Penn Station is located on the Northeast Corridor, is primarily a terminal serviced by Sunnyside Yard, and is owned by NJ Transit. Grand Central Terminal is a terminal station on essentially permanent lease to Metro-North. Jamaica is a through station, Flatbush is a terminal, and both are owned and exclusively served by the Long Island Rail Road.

So there are essentially four parties- Amtrak, NJ Transit, Metro-North, and Long Island Rail Road. Over the years there have been various ideas for cooperation amongst the companies and their stations and rail lines. Usually involving Amtrak service. Talks of trains such as a Boston/Washington _Hamptons Cannonball_ for example. Those haven't worked. There have been talks of each company getting access to additional terminals- primarily NJ Transit getting access to Grand Central, LIRR getting Grand Central access, and MCNR getting Penn Station access.

That last would be very simple. Instead of continuing through the Bronx to Grand Central, all that you'd have to do is switch a few MNCR Hudson trains onto Amtrak's Empire Connection, simply throwing a switch at Spuyten Duyvil. It might require a few passing sidings, depending on when you are doing things, but not a big deal. No multi-billion dollar tunneling project. Never happened. The best that has happened is occasionally Metro North letting Amtrak use Grand Central Terminal, usually at considerable expense.

My point is, the various rail companies don't cooperate, even if it means mutual benefit to them. When it comes to these types of things, Amtrak is usually the most compliant. What you are suggesting as a soluton has a snowballs chance in hell, even if Amtrak wanted to.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > NOL-Florda can be ran on 3 trainsets, so 6 sleepers are needeed. I would bet VIA Rail have plenty un-used sleepers. Also
> ...


I think that Grandluxe, or rather what was left of it, has sold off those cars.



Green Maned Lion said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > Get adapters or lease 3 full VIA Rail trainsets. The point is it can be done if Amtrak uses some creative thinking...
> ...


Me thinks you meant Amtrak here. Either that or I missed some big press release. :lol:



Green Maned Lion said:


> There have been talks of each company getting access to additional terminals- primarily NJ Transit getting access to Grand Central, LIRR getting Grand Central access, and MCNR getting Penn Station access.
> That last would be very simple. Instead of continuing through the Bronx to Grand Central, all that you'd have to do is switch a few MNCR Hudson trains onto Amtrak's Empire Connection, simply throwing a switch at Spuyten Duyvil. It might require a few passing sidings, depending on when you are doing things, but not a big deal. No multi-billion dollar tunneling project. Never happened. The best that has happened is occasionally Metro North letting Amtrak use Grand Central Terminal, usually at considerable expense.


No multi-billion dollar tunnel, but a major expense to deal with the power problems caused by Metro North's under-running third rail and the LIRR's over running third-rail, the latter is what exists inside Penn.



Green Maned Lion said:


> My point is, the various rail companies don't cooperate, even if it means mutual benefit to them. When it comes to these types of things, Amtrak is usually the most compliant. What you are suggesting as a soluton has a snowballs chance in hell, even if Amtrak wanted to.


And on this I agree, it can be very difficult to get these various rail companies to cooperate at times. But not impossible either, as Amtrak and NJT usually play pretty nice with one another, and NJT and MN play rather nice with each other too. NJT & MN cooperate on the West of Hudson Metro North service.


----------



## GP35 (May 19, 2009)

AlanB said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > KISS_ALIVE said:
> ...


1. Amtrak already leases coaches

2. Amtrak President is on video foaming at the mouth when he talks about all the money Obama is giving Amtrak.

3. You're the one not making sense. If you think as I, that a snub train between SAS-NOL will not be any better than it is now, then

that SAS-NOL will be killed in the future.

My plan provides daily SL/TE LD service to LA from both CHI and NOL with existing equipment. What part of this does not make

sense to you?

NOL-Florida has 3 options

1. wait for the ordered viewliners

2. snub it until the viewliners are ready.

3. lease sleepers or trainsets until viewliners are ready.

What doesn't make sense about this? Amtrak has the money to do any of the 3.


----------



## GP35 (May 19, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


My solution offers daily LD service from NOL-LA and CHI-LA. How is that less? ofcourse I expect you not to answer but to create a smoke screen.


----------



## GP35 (May 19, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Alaska and the cruise lines do NOT have CRC sleepers. GrandLuxe has some, but not enough to be important- they don't have effective capacity.
> As for VIA, Amtrak has made interested noises about actually buying some of VIA Rail's unused Budd sleepers/lounges/diners/coaches at various points. VIA Rail, for reasons that elude me and a lot of other people, is not interested. Around the time Amtrak had to give up the Heritage sleepers, there was talk of them acquiring enough equipment from VIA to bring back the Broadway. Amtrak can't buy if VIA isn't selling, and VIA isn't selling.


What about a 2-3 year lease until viewliners are ready? I'm sure the recession is hitting VIA rail too.


----------



## AAARGH! (May 19, 2009)

GP35 said:


> How is that less? ofcourse I expect you not to answer but to create a smoke screen.


GP35, must you be tactless and abrasive? When most others (not all) are trying to hold a civil conversation, you consistently revert to personal attacks. This is not appreciated by those of us who are reading this thread. I find it to be an very interesting discussion and your points are as vaild as any others. But they carry less weight when they come with personal attacks.

There, I have said my peace. Please reflect on this when posting in the future.

Thank you.


----------



## haolerider (May 19, 2009)

GP35 said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Alaska and the cruise lines do NOT have CRC sleepers. GrandLuxe has some, but not enough to be important- they don't have effective capacity.
> ...


VIA does not have any equipment to lease. Amtrak has already tried to lease/purchase dome cars as well - with nothing available from VIA. I have to also echo the above comments about sarcastic and abrasive personal comments. There is no place for those on this forum. They waste time and space and accomplish absolutely nothing.


----------



## GP35 (May 19, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > How is that less? ofcourse I expect you not to answer but to create a smoke screen.
> ...


I say do AB, he says CD won't work. I say AB again, he say EF won't work. I say AB again, he say GH won't work.

Is that not a smoke screen? if not, what is it?


----------



## PetalumaLoco (May 19, 2009)

GP35 said:


> AAARGH said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


You're not having a discussion with individuals here, you're tilting at a windmill that looks like your computer.

Time to lock this one down, it's pointless.


----------



## GP35 (May 19, 2009)

haolerider said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Well fine, I'll leave this board. I was called silly, naive, stupid, and ignorant yet not a peep from you or anyone else. Double standard?

or it was ok because I commited heresy towards Amtrak plans.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 19, 2009)

GP35 said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


Because Amtrak already has daily service CHI-LA (SWC).

First off, the only service gap(s) are LA-SAS, and SAS-NOL. Amtrak's plan (again, pretending its the only one, and that it becomes official...) will fill a LA-NOL gap with DAILY service in both those areas. A daily TE and a snub from SAS to NOL. The majority of the current SSL/TE's riders come from West of SAS. By doing it this way you increase ridership on the TE and get daily service to NOL. The only loss is that you can't get a sleeper directly to NOL.

Secondly, as grand as LD trains are... the loose money! Last time I checked it was less expensive to run the Palmetto than it was the CL (the latter actually covers less milage than the snub which uses single levels) as for other snubs, take a look at the Penny (formerly Three Rivers, formerly Broadway Limited) her OTP is great and usually has a full train. The Carolinian, the Vermonter, ect. This would be, in fact, a GREAT snub train. Think of it as the PDX EB section without the sleeper... nice roomy Superliner seats a proper lounge and a full-service diner (albeit CCC) that is worlds away from a single-level café...


----------



## frj1983 (May 19, 2009)

GP35 said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


GP35,

I just went through this entire discussion string and no-where did anyone use the words "silly" "naive," "stupid" or "ignorant" towards you. There is some sarcasm on both sides, but that happens when people have strong feelings about a certain subject. People disagreed with you, but I didn't see anyone calling you names!


----------



## haolerider (May 19, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


I think the term "stub train" is better than "snub train".


----------



## VentureForth (May 19, 2009)

I'm really confused here. I'll try to make it easy to follow:

If the Texas Eagle was made daily to run from CHI to LAX, the SAS pad eliminated and the schedule optimized,

AND

A daily SAS to JAX overnighter was added and scheduled to correlate with the adjusted arrival in SAS of the TE, the CONO, the Cresent and the Silvers,

What is the problem? Sounds like this is the best utilization of existing and available equipment and re-establishes a cross country link to the South with no more than two connections from Miami to LA.

I'll answer my own question - A) Neither SAS or JAX is a terminal/service facility. Equipment trade out would most likely take place in NOL which would be disruptive, or else taken deadhead from JAX to Sanford - which in that case, might as well run the train all the way to ORL. B) The marathon ride from LA to Orlando would no longer exist. It doesn't anyway right now, so bummer.

In any of these scenarios, will Mobile build a new station?


----------



## AAARGH! (May 19, 2009)

GP35 said:


> AAARGH said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


There is a difference between pointing out an irregularity in someones response versus personaly attacking them for not answering (or worse yet misunderstanding) your post. The difference is civility. You take offense when none is meant (or misunderstand sarcasm to be as such) and thus become defensive and abrasive. I am left scratching my head thinking how you could reasonably respond in the way you do. I am not trying to 'diss' you ar anything like it. I just want the personal attacks to stop and to get back on topic.

Thanks.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 19, 2009)

haolerider said:


> I think the term "stub train" is better than "snub train".


I would agree-- however that's what GP intends on using, so I'll use it as it suits him. I wouldn't even call them "stubs" they're pretty nice and decent routes...



vnetureforth said:


> I'll answer my own question - A) Neither SAS or JAX is a terminal/service facility. Equipment trade out would most likely take place in NOL which would be disruptive, or else taken deadhead from JAX to Sanford - which in that case, might as well run the train all the way to ORL. B) The marathon ride from LA to Orlando would no longer exist. It doesn't anyway right now, so bummer.


The "inside scoop" talks about a day train running from SAS to NOL, not to JAX... using Superliner equip.

This could be done by either (a) doing a SPK split like the EB and cutting a few cars off that are picked up in the morning and ready to go or (B) have the second train across the platform or in a siding down the line and bringing it out when pax from the TE/CONO are ready to transfer...


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 19, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> ...


And, according to Amtrak, "Business class" service. Not sure what that entails on Superliners but I'd sure like to find out. I suspect the consist would be 1 Coach (maybe offering Business class seating), 1 Coach/Baggage, and 1 CCC.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 19, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > GP35 said:
> ...


The Surfliners are based on the Superliner design-- they have BC. It's just a matter of ripping out seats and putting in new ones. There is, in fact, so much room in Superliner seats they could probably still get the same number of seats per car... just plushy and with faux-leather.


----------



## printman2000 (May 19, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> And, according to Amtrak, "Business class" service. Not sure what that entails on Superliners but I'd sure like to find out. I suspect the consist would be 1 Coach (maybe offering Business class seating), 1 Coach/Baggage, and 1 CCC.


The Heartland Flyer runs with 3-4 coaches. Wouldn't you think this train would need at least as many as that?


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

GP35 said:


> 1. Amtrak already leases coaches2. Amtrak President is on video foaming at the mouth when he talks about all the money Obama is giving Amtrak.
> 
> 3. You're the one not making sense. If you think as I, that a snub train between SAS-NOL will not be any better than it is now, then
> 
> that SAS-NOL will be killed in the future.


1. Yes they do, but they are coaches that Amtrak first brought and then leased back. And IMHO that wasn't a good idea either. It provided Warrington with a bunch of cash to help on his glide path, and saddled Amtrak with considerable debt.

2. Much of that money is specifically earmarked for certain types of projects, leasing is not one of those projects. Amtrak can't use those monies to lease cars.

3. I don't think that a stub train will be worse or the same as the current 3-day per week service. I believe that the stub train will do better than the current service. I also believe however that a daily Sunset will do better than either the stub or the current service.



GP35 said:


> My plan provides daily SL/TE LD service to LA from both CHI and NOL with existing equipment. What part of this does not make sense to you?
> 
> NOL-Florida has 3 options
> 
> ...


The part where Amtrak starts leasing equipment. It's an expense that Amtrak doesn't need, and an expense that revenues will not be able to cover.


----------



## wayman (May 19, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > And, according to Amtrak, "Business class" service. Not sure what that entails on Superliners but I'd sure like to find out. I suspect the consist would be 1 Coach (maybe offering Business class seating), 1 Coach/Baggage, and 1 CCC.
> ...


I can't imagine it running with anything short of four cars--2.5 coaches, .5 baggage, and a CCC. (2.5 = 2 Superliner coaches with upstairs and downstairs seating, and 1 Superliner coach with the baggage instead of seating downstairs; possibly having BC seats upstairs.) Maybe one additional coach beyond this, even. It's, as others have said, a very comfortable day train just like many others Amtrak operates.

I'd like to seem them run the CHI-SAS-LAX train as P42s, baggage, sleepers, diner, sightseer, coaches; and run the NOL-SAS train as P42, coaches, CCC, BCcoach/baggage. Then join them at SAS, and you get something set up almost exactly like the EB and LSL (except we have a BC car instead of a PDX or BOS sleeper). But I don't know if they can do that, equipment-wise, right now. They might have to do a cross-platform transfer at SAS, like the LSL did up until recently.

Ridership will increase due to daily frequency and better scheduling, and demand will grow for a "NOL sleeper". By 2015, a Superliner equipment order will be placed, and by 2019 the NOL train will split at SAS and include both through coaches and a through sleeper.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> First off, the only service gap(s) are LA-SAS, and SAS-NOL. Amtrak's plan (again, pretending its the only one, and that it becomes official...) will fill a LA-NOL gap with DAILY service in both those areas. A daily TE and a snub from SAS to NOL. The majority of the current SSL/TE's riders come from West of SAS. By doing it this way you increase ridership on the TE and get daily service to NOL. The only loss is that you can't get a sleeper directly to NOL.


We don't know that the majority of the current riders come from West of SAS. And frankly I can't believe that. Between NOL and SAS you have several more major population centers that the train passes through, than west of SAS. So I find it hard to believe that a majority of the riders board west of SAS.

In fact my rather crude and rudimentary calculations, which I will admit I had to make some assumptions with, shows that more people board the Sunset between NOL & SAS, than between LA & SAS. I had to make some assumptions, like saying that 40% of all the people boarding/detraining in NOL go to the Sunset, while the remainder goes to the City. At Houston, I had to do something similar, since I believe that the passenger counts include the Thruway bus. And of course at SAS itself, I guessed that 30% of pax went west, 20% east, and 50% went north on the Eagle.

With those assumptions in place, ridership west of SAS comes in at 66,301 for 2008. Ridership east of SAS comes in at 91,774. Now there was no way for me to even begin to guess what the ridership out of LA was, since there are simply too many trains, but one can speculate that perhaps as many as 20,000 to 30,000 ride the Sunset to/from LA. At 20,000 ridership west of SAS would remain lower, at 30,000 it would be just slightly higher than east.

Either way, I don't believe that ridership west of SAS is so much higher as to justify making the Eagle the daily train at the possible expense of much higher ridership that could be found east of SAS with a daily through train. Again, as I mentioned in my post to GP35, a daily stub I believe would still increase ridership east of SAS over the current situation, but I firmly believe that a daily Sunset would do even better.



ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Secondly, as grand as LD trains are... the loose money! Last time I checked it was less expensive to run the Palmetto than it was the CL (the latter actually covers less milage than the snub which uses single levels) as for other snubs, take a look at the Penny (formerly Three Rivers, formerly Broadway Limited) her OTP is great and usually has a full train. The Carolinian, the Vermonter, ect. This would be, in fact, a GREAT snub train. Think of it as the PDX EB section without the sleeper... nice roomy Superliner seats a proper lounge and a full-service diner (albeit CCC) that is worlds away from a single-level café...


First, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train by Amtrak. Second, it's the second best performing train behind the Auto Train, which does run with sleepers and actually does make a profit over it's direct expenses. Once Amtrak adds in overhead expenses, even the AT looses money. The Palmetto on the other hand still does loose money against its direct expenses. Not much, only $600,000, but it still lost money.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 19, 2009)

wayman said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > NativeSon5859 said:
> ...


Now that I think about it, that's probably right. I was basing my idea of 2 coaches and 1 CCC off of the current SL consist, which is usually 2 NOL coaches; but, if this is a daily service, I'm sure they could use one more coach.

I'd like to see them find a way to at least have a through coach from day one, but, I suppose it's not the end of the world.


----------



## VentureForth (May 19, 2009)

I think that a daily Sunset would only REALLY work if it could shrink its schedule, reliably. The pad in SAS is killer. OTP for the whole route of the Sunset has been horrible.

I just think that one new train to Jax from SAS would work the best and take the TE to LA every day.


----------



## jis (May 19, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Either way, I don't believe that ridership west of SAS is so much higher as to justify making the Eagle the daily train at the possible expense of much higher ridership that could be found east of SAS with a daily through train. Again, as I mentioned in my post to GP35, a daily stub I believe would still increase ridership east of SAS over the current situation, but I firmly believe that a daily Sunset would do even better.


All else being equal I completely agree with you. I find the proposed situation acceptable only as an interim measure until the additional Super Sleepers and Coaches can be corralled from wreck repairs to enable Sunset to become daily all the way again using through LAX - NOL cars. I believe the only reason they are using TE as the base train for the 7 day service is that it is already a 7 day service for a significant part of the journey, and hence the number of cars needed works out just right for current availability. It is purely a pragmatic logistical solution to a problem sticking to the constraints that they are operating under.

Believe me, I would like nothing better than to see us find the 5 or so additional Sleepers and Coaches needed to make a transfer of at least one Sleeper and one Coach transferable to the SAS - NOL train from the get-go, thus providing daily service LAX - NOL.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 19, 2009)

> First, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train by Amtrak. Second, it's the second best performing train behind the Auto Train, which does run with sleepers and actually does make a profit over it's direct expenses. Once Amtrak adds in overhead expenses, even the AT looses money. The Palmetto on the other hand still does loose money against its direct expenses. Not much, only $600,000, but it still lost money.


I'm not quite sure what your point is Alan.. I said that day/stub trains generally make more money against their expenses than overnight trains. This is partially because a lot of them go through the NEC and are used as NEC trains when they are between NYP and WAS-- but still another part of this is the cost of running a full diner, sleeping cars-- additional crew.

Day trains make more sense sometimes.

As for ridership figures, I was looking over the FY 2007 reports which, on the whole (and I will admit it is far from an exact science) demonstrate greater ridership West of SAS.

I'll grant you that point however, as you are more experienced-- but the ridership figures would tend to disagree. (And yes, I am not factoring in NOL and LAX because they are served by multiple trains and its impossible to tell how many pax each train handled from those stations)

And I would agree with jis. This sounds like a good solution and I support it... until Amtrak has an excess of cars. With a shortage of cars present, this seems like the best solution especially as it also gives some sleepers to the other LD trains which could probably use them to shorten their loss gaps.


----------



## Greg (May 19, 2009)

It seems to me that if the SSL went from tri-weekly to daily (in essence, more than doubling its frequency) that the total number of riders would not necessarily double, therefore each train would not need the same number cars that it has now thereby requiring fewer cars than some of the conversations here seem to indicate. example....tri-weekly service requires 2-3 sleepers per train...daily service would require 1-2 sleepers per train...Or am I missing something in this line of thinking?


----------



## jis (May 19, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> > First, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train by Amtrak. Second, it's the second best performing train behind the Auto Train, which does run with sleepers and actually does make a profit over it's direct expenses. Once Amtrak adds in overhead expenses, even the AT looses money. The Palmetto on the other hand still does loose money against its direct expenses. Not much, only $600,000, but it still lost money.
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what your point is Alan.. I said that day/stub trains generally make more money against their expenses than overnight trains. This is partially because a lot of them go through the NEC and are used as NEC trains when they are between NYP and WAS-- but still another part of this is the cost of running a full diner, sleeping cars-- additional crew.


One point of correction. The Palmetto does not operate as a corridor train on the NEC. It operates as LD trains, i.e. receive only heading south and drop only heading north between WAS and NYP, i.e. no local traffic between NYP and WAS. The Carolinian does operate as a corridor service southbound but for receive only at NWK and Northbound it operates like an LD train i.e. drop only WAS to NYP.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 19, 2009)

jis said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > > First, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train by Amtrak. Second, it's the second best performing train behind the Auto Train, which does run with sleepers and actually does make a profit over it's direct expenses. Once Amtrak adds in overhead expenses, even the AT looses money. The Palmetto on the other hand still does loose money against its direct expenses. Not much, only $600,000, but it still lost money.
> ...


I didn't say that either!

I said "a lot of them"... I'm very careful with my words guys, I use modifiers where appropriate. 

Still dig ya though jis!

But if you look at the Vermonter, or the Penny (albeit limited stops) and others... a lot of them are indeed corridor trains and serve corridor traffic.


----------



## wayman (May 19, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> But if you look at the Vermonter, or the Penny (albeit limited stops) and others... a lot of them are indeed corridor trains and serve corridor traffic.


Er, I don't think there are any others....

The Crescent, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Palmetto and Cardinal are D-only WAS-NYP and R-only NYP-WAS; the Carolinian is half-restricted (D-only WAS-NYP and R-only SB at NWK); and ... as you say, the Pennsylvanian stops at PHL, TRE, NWK, and NYP only (just 4 of the 10 stops from PHL to NYP), which doesn't put a lot of corridor-only traffic on it, I would think. The Vermonter, you're absolutely right, makes most NEC stops (10 out of 17) and is never restricted (except for New Carrolton). So there are sort of one and a half "non-corridor corridor trains", and even those trains only make about half the stops.


----------



## TVRM610 (May 19, 2009)

Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.


----------



## jis (May 19, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.


That is roughly what the current apparently leading proposals, such as they are, are.


----------



## TVRM610 (May 19, 2009)

jis said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.
> ...


Haha! Nice. Yea... that's what I was wondering... that seems to be a great solution to me. NOL is not near the destination that SAS is... IMHO (and for the record I have been to both within the past 12 months). I mean look at it as SAS becoming a new "hub" of sorts... TE from the North... SL from the West... WL ("whatever Limited  ) from the East. Makes sense to me.. yea I know thats wayy down the rails but I like the idea IF thats what amtrak has in mind from this "Inside Scoop" idea.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 19, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > TVRM610 said:
> ...


How is NOL not near the destination that SAS is? Based on what? NOL actually has more to offer the casual visitor...more interesting neighborhoods to explore, better live music scene, better restaurants, etc.


----------



## TVRM610 (May 19, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Well I said IMHO... so based solely on my opinion as a traveler.

San Antonio has the Riverwalk, the Alamo, two major theme parks (Six Flags, and Sea World), a great collection of restaurants, the Sky Deck, etc.

New Orleans has an Aquarium, French Quarter, Streetcars (yea!), zoo, great restaurants, jazz music, Cafe du Monde' (yea!), Riverboat, Casion, etc.

I didn't say I didn't like New Orleans... just in my opinion San Antonio is a nicer place to visit for vacation. It's cleaner, more tourist oriented.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> > First, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train by Amtrak. Second, it's the second best performing train behind the Auto Train, which does run with sleepers and actually does make a profit over it's direct expenses. Once Amtrak adds in overhead expenses, even the AT looses money. The Palmetto on the other hand still does loose money against its direct expenses. Not much, only $600,000, but it still lost money.
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what your point is Alan.. I said that day/stub trains generally make more money against their expenses than overnight trains. This is partially because a lot of them go through the NEC and are used as NEC trains when they are between NYP and WAS-- but still another part of this is the cost of running a full diner, sleeping cars-- additional crew.


My point was that you lumped the Palmetto in with other Regional/State sponsored trains. It's not, it's a long distance train. Furthermore, it is not the best performing Long Distance train, the Auto Train is. That's my point.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > TVRM610 said:
> ...


At least so far as Amtrak is concerned, NOL is a much better destination than SAS. Ridership in 2008 was 154,532 departing/arriving in NOL, only 48,151 for SAS.


----------



## henryj (May 19, 2009)

Greg said:


> It seems to me that if the SSL went from tri-weekly to daily (in essence, more than doubling its frequency) that the total number of riders would not necessarily double, therefore each train would not need the same number cars that it has now thereby requiring fewer cars than some of the conversations here seem to indicate. example....tri-weekly service requires 2-3 sleepers per train...daily service would require 1-2 sleepers per train...Or am I missing something in this line of thinking?


What you are missing is that the Sunset is only a 6 car train now. One sleeper, one dorm sleeper, two coaches and a diner and lounge. How much smaller can you make it? There is only one sleeper and one coach transferred from the Eagle at San Antonio for a total of eight cars on into LAX. Most of the time all the sleeper space is sold out so a daily train with the same consists would more than double capacity. There is NO EQUIPMENT DIVIDEND to be extracted from making this train daily no matter which route it takes. It will actually need more equipment.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 19, 2009)

jis said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.
> ...


It seems to me that when Amtrak presents all of this to Congress, they really ought to be including a description of what service they would run if they were given the funding to purchase perhaps 100-200 new Superliner III cars.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 19, 2009)

The Corridor trains lose more money than the long distance trains do.


----------



## henryj (May 19, 2009)

AlanB said:


> How is NOL not near the destination that SAS is? Based on what? NOL actually has more to offer the casual visitor...more interesting neighborhoods to explore, better live music scene, better restaurants, et
> Well I said IMHO... so based solely on my opinion as a traveler.
> 
> San Antonio has the Riverwalk, the Alamo, two major theme parks (Six Flags, and Sea World), a great collection of restaurants, the Sky Deck, etc.
> ...



New Orleans before Katrina was attracting something like 10 million visitors a year and had a population of around 1.3 million. That has dropped to maybe half the visitors and a population of around 1 million. San Antonio on the other hand attracts 25 million visitors annually and has a population of 1.9 million. New Orleans is dieing as a destination for any of the three trains that serve it. to get the boardings for the Sunset you have to subtract two daily trains from that 154,532 and leave only a three times a week departure. Sometimes the train comes through Houston with less than 100 passengers on it. San Antonio on the other hand has only one daily train and the tri-weekly Sunset to account for it's 48k boardings and the Sunset serves the city in the middle of the night or wee hours of the morning. Not an opportune time. Once Amtrak adjusts the schedule so the Sunset/Eagle arrives at decent times boarding will jump in San Antonio and I think Houston also. New Orleans on the other hand is not likely to improve as there is nothing to drive the improvement unless they restore service to Florida. Prior to Katrina many of the Sunset's passengers were going through New Orleans to Orlando which attracts 50 million visitors a year. They weren't going to New Orleans. The suspension of through service to Florida has cost the Sunset a great deal of ridership east of San Antonio.


----------



## AlanB (May 20, 2009)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > At least so far as Amtrak is concerned, NOL is a much better destination than SAS. Ridership in 2008 was 154,532 departing/arriving in NOL, only 48,151 for SAS.
> ...


While I don't doubt your population numbers, or your visitor numbers, that doesn't change what those two cities represent to Amtrak in terms of ridership.

And just for the record, Katrina did not make a big impact on Amtrak's numbers, nor did the loss of the Sunset east of NOL. In Fiscal 2004, the station in NOL saw 161,449 boardings/alightings in total for all trains. That means that between 2008 and 2004 pre-Katrina, passenger counts hava only gone down by 6,917.

San Antonio by contrast has only increased its passenger count by 1,362 over that same period, and it didn't suffer the devestation of a hurricane.

So again, at least so far as Amtrak is concerned, it remains a major destination. Just how much of that can be attributed to the Sunset could be debated, but the station passenger counts don't lie that Amtrak takes in far more revenue from NOL than from SAS.


----------



## AlanB (May 20, 2009)

henryj said:


> Greg said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that if the SSL went from tri-weekly to daily (in essence, more than doubling its frequency) that the total number of riders would not necessarily double, therefore each train would not need the same number cars that it has now thereby requiring fewer cars than some of the conversations here seem to indicate. example....tri-weekly service requires 2-3 sleepers per train...daily service would require 1-2 sleepers per train...Or am I missing something in this line of thinking?
> ...


Actually at least during the summer, I believe that they add another coach. Won't swear to that, but I believe that they do.

And no, I wouldn't expect ridership to double with a daily train, but it will go up considerably. I seem to recall that the Eagle saw something like a 60% increase in ridership by going daily. That was many years ago, so I could be in error, but I know that it was significant and it wasn't like the 3-day ridership was now distributed across 7 days. Personally if I were a betting man, I'd bet that a daily stub would see about 20% less business than a daily Sunset would.

Additionally there is one other thing to consider here. While you're correct Henry that all coaches would provide more carrying capacity, they generate less revenue. If I go out to next October I find a price of $66 for a seat in coach. Forget for a moment that Amtrak works on buckets, as that's just too hard to deal with, especially since I don't know all the bucket levels. If Amtrak replaces one sleeper with a coach, and fills it, that generates $4,950 in revenue.

A roomette for the same day costs $103 + the railfare $134 (for two) for a total of $237. Multiply that by 13 and we get $3,081. A bedroom is going for $224 + $134 = $358 times 5 and we have $1,790. The family room is going for $443 + 201 - $644 and the H room should be going for the same as a roomette, so there's another $237. Add them all up and you get $5,752.

Now I know that some would of course argue that not every room will have two people in it, and that is correct. But then remember that I did not account for buckets here. And as anyone whose been following Amtrak for a little while knows, the buckets for sleepers increase far more dramatically than do the buckets for coach. That difference will more than make up for some rooms not being at full occupancy. Additionally, I just looked at NOL-SAS, if we have a stub train, you can't charge someone the current $236 low bucket price for a roomette. That's a loss of $133 per room, just on the roomette charge for any through passenger.

Amtrak would need to sell out two new coaches on the stub train, above and beyond the current number of coaches, to generate more revenue than they do right now via 1 sleeper. And I'm not sure that they can do that.


----------



## GG-1 (May 20, 2009)

Aloha

In all these comments about the impact of 3 trains a week service, and the potential for daily service, or what occurred when a train went from daily to 3 time a week no one has suggested what could the implications be for Mon-Friday service.

Now should I put on a NOMEX swimsuit or just Jump in the Ocean


----------

