# Sunset Limited BULLETIN



## henryj (Dec 10, 2009)

From Gene Poon at All Aboard All Aboard:

The Amtrak Board of Directors has authorized negotiations with Union

Pacific for daily Amtrak service on the Los Angeles-New Orleans Sunset

Route.

source: Robert Manning

Director, Rail Passenger Association of California

President, Southwest Rail Passenger Association


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 10, 2009)

henryj said:


> From Gene Poon at All Aboard All Aboard:
> The Amtrak Board of Directors has authorized negotiations with Union
> 
> Pacific for daily Amtrak service on the Los Angeles-New Orleans Sunset
> ...


They don't mention a daily Sunset Limited, Henry. A conversation I had with some brass suggested they were going to be pressing ahead with the daily Texas Eagle.


----------



## henryj (Dec 10, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > From Gene Poon at All Aboard All Aboard:
> ...


Yes gml. I can read. It says 'Sunset Route'. I just posted it because I thought it was of interest to the group. Personally, I don't care what they call the train as long as it becomes daily.


----------



## darien-l (Dec 10, 2009)

This is all fine and well, as long as it doesn't involve eliminating sleeper service on the SAS-NOL segment and replacing it with that stupid all-coach shuttle. I take sleepers out of Houston often enough that it would be quite a bummer.


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 10, 2009)

darien-l said:


> I take sleepers out of Houston often enough that it would be quite a bummer.


*IF* they do make the LAX-SAS-CHI daily, they would probably tweak the times, and also eliminate the long overnight stop in SAS. That would also mean the SAS-NOL times would also be tweaked. (These are not the actual times.) So if the thru train would leave SAS at 9 PM, the NOL train may have to arrive SAS at like 6 PM, so it may leave HOU at like 2 PM. Do you still want a sleeper at 2 PM? :huh:


----------



## Agent X (Dec 10, 2009)

Here we go again... The "Sunset Limited" topic never dies. Pages and pages of speculation, ideals, consist make-up, schedules, stops...etc, and yet I betcha nothing will take place within the next year.

"I'll beleive it when I see it"


----------



## darien-l (Dec 10, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> Do you still want a sleeper at 2 PM? :huh:


Keeping a one-seat ride, HOU-LAX or HOU-TUS, in a sleeper, would be very nice. Houston is the fourth largest city in the U.S., it would be pretty unfortunate if it lost sleeper service!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 10, 2009)

darien-l said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Do you still want a sleeper at 2 PM? :huh:
> ...


The important thing is to get the daily train running, whatever it's called, whatever it's schedule! A ride from HOS-SAS in coach isn't bad, 4 hrs. or so

in return for having daily service instead of trice :lol: weekly! This thread has had lots of action since it started, even the folks up north have contributed,

as a Texan I'd love to see every city in Texas have daily train service in both directions but real world ain't gonna happen till HSR gets going, Houston should have daily service to Dallas and San Antonio and New Orleans, and it will if they ever start the Lone Star Eagle from HOS-DAL and stop the silly bustitution from Longview to Houston!


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 10, 2009)

darien-l said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Do you still want a sleeper at 2 PM? :huh:
> ...


I don't know what number they are, but I know that they are large.

You can't take a one seat ride BOS-ATL or BOS-MIA, let alone in a sleeper. The only sleeper going to BOS is from CHI - and that just recently resumed.


----------



## guest (Dec 10, 2009)

Which would you prefer: the current sleeper service 3x per week at HOS, or daily service with departures and arrivals midday? FYI, the tentative timeline for this has the TE going daily some time in the spring, and the departure from LAX will be around 10:30 p.m., with a stub train connection btwn SAS and NOL...this is from Amtrak brass...to whom I speak every time I go to work...


----------



## henryj (Dec 10, 2009)

guest said:


> Which would you prefer: the current sleeper service 3x per week at HOS, or daily service with departures and arrivals midday? FYI, the tentative timeline for this has the TE going daily some time in the spring, and the departure from LAX will be around 10:30 p.m., with a stub train connection btwn SAS and NOL...this is from Amtrak brass...to whom I speak every time I go to work...



I am all for it and it can't happen too soon for me. Also, we have further confirmation from Bruce at URPA in his latest "This Week at Amtrak" that I assume will be posted above. Amtrak's board has approved the plan for a daily Sunset/Texas Eagle with a coach train east of SAS as far as NOL. Hooray.


----------



## darien-l (Dec 10, 2009)

guest said:


> Which would you prefer: the current sleeper service 3x per week at HOS, or daily service with departures and arrivals midday? FYI, the tentative timeline for this has the TE going daily some time in the spring, and the departure from LAX will be around 10:30 p.m., with a stub train connection btwn SAS and NOL...this is from Amtrak brass...to whom I speak every time I go to work...


I guess I'd rather have thrice-weekly one-seat service than having to change at SAS. I also find morning and evening arrivals and departures much more convenient than mid-day. Instead of all this focus on daily service, I'd MUCH rather see a restoration of Sunset Limited's service to Florida. Then, when enough equipment is available, it can be made daily.


----------



## MattW (Dec 10, 2009)

Agent X said:


> Here we go again... The "Sunset Limited" topic never dies. Pages and pages of speculation, ideals, consist make-up, schedules, stops...etc, and yet I betcha nothing will take place within the next year.
> "I'll beleive it when I see it"


When I first joined this forum July '08 there wasn't a snowball's chance in a fission reactor that Amtrak would be getting new rolling stock any time soon, and well...Viewliners are practically on the way, and there's a "big announcement" coming in January (which may be confirmation of the Viewliners or no Viewliners, but it's still something).


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

guest said:


> Which would you prefer: the current sleeper service 3x per week at HOS, or daily service with departures and arrivals midday? FYI, the tentative timeline for this has the TE going daily some time in the spring, and the departure from LAX will be around 10:30 p.m., with a stub train connection btwn SAS and NOL...this is from Amtrak brass...to whom I speak every time I go to work...


Well I'd prefer a daily Sunset Limited, but failing that, then I have to opt for the current schedule that does so much better revenue wise than will the daily train without sleepers. Consider the following:

The daily Palmetto with no sleepers took in $12.9 million in revenue for fiscal 2008, from 173,949 passengers. That works out to about $74.16 per passenger.

The current Sunset limited running 3 days a week took in $8.1 million in revenue, from 71,719 passengers. That works out to $112.94 per passenger. Running three days a week, with less than half the ridership, the little Sunset produced about 60% more revenue per passenger than the Palmetto did.


----------



## Dakguy201 (Dec 11, 2009)

None of us have seen a schedule but I believe this would be the longest run (2728 miles) that Amtrak makes. I have to question the ability of the crew to keep the consist spiffy-spotless for that length of time.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 11, 2009)

Keeping a train spiffy and spotless is impossible when it does not come into the station from the yard in that condition. When I rode 21 in October, the train came into the station, and it was clear corners had been cut. The yard workers did not even put schedules on the train. And the cars were dirty too. The crew was pleasant and friendly thought.


----------



## henryj (Dec 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> guest said:
> 
> 
> > Which would you prefer: the current sleeper service 3x per week at HOS, or daily service with departures and arrivals midday? FYI, the tentative timeline for this has the TE going daily some time in the spring, and the departure from LAX will be around 10:30 p.m., with a stub train connection btwn SAS and NOL...this is from Amtrak brass...to whom I speak every time I go to work...
> ...


I don't know how the Palmetto rates a comparison with the Sunset Limited. The Palmetto is a little day train on a route with three other trains. Most passengers are going short distances. The Sunset is a long distance train with most passengers taking much longer trips. The current 3 times a week service makes the Sunset the biggest looser in Amtrak's inventory. Something had to be done to fix that. I can't imagine why anyone would want to opt for only 3 times a week service just to get a sleeper seat for what is a mostly daylight ride. Three times a week service is the same as NO service. *This change is probably the most positive thing Amtrak has done anywhere in years and the first positive thing they have done for the Sunset Route since before Katrina.* The much maligned coach trains between SAS and NOL will for the first time since the Southern Pacific ran service on this route offer daily service at times normal people would utilize the service. It can only be taken in a positive note regardless of the lack of a sleeper. They intend to offer business class in it's place for those wanting to escape from the masses. In addition, passengers continuing through SAS west will be allowed to stay on the train until their connecting train is ready. So it will be a simple across the platform transfer. Even more important, this will for the first time establish a corridor style train in Texas with daily service between SAS, HOU and NOL. This is a huge step in a state that has shunned passenger rail in the past. Houston Metro also has plans for an intermodal facility to replace the current one room station which will serve metro, Amtrak and intercity bus. With TXDOT's recently established passenger rail division and this first step at establishing corridor style service Texas is finally moving toward establishing some passenger rail corridors. We finally will have something to build on. How it develops now will depend on how well we support it. Rather than all the negativism, it would be better if everyone got behind these new changes and worked to make them a success. It's a first and very important step. Through sleepers from SAS and restoration of NOL east to Florida are the next steps along with restoring the Houston-Dallas corridor followed by multiple departures on all the routes in the triangle. Start up date for this is reported to be April. Lets hope they stick to this timetable and get this thing on the road.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

henryj said:


> I don't know how the Palmetto rates a comparison with the Sunset Limited. The Palmetto is a little day train on a route with three other trains. Most passengers are going short distances. The Sunset is a long distance train with most passengers taking much longer trips.


It rates a comparison because if this plan goes through, then the existing Sunset becomes a Palmetto between NOL and SAS. In fact, at that point the Palmetto will actually travel 300 miles further than the replacement "Sunset" will, so it will actually be carrying passengers on longer trips than the replacement "Sunset". And therefore Amtrak will see a drop in revenue.



henryj said:


> The current 3 times a week service makes the Sunset the biggest looser in Amtrak's inventory. Something had to be done to fix that. I can't imagine why anyone would want to opt for only 3 times a week service just to get a sleeper seat for what is a mostly daylight ride. Three times a week service is the same as NO service. *This change is probably the most positive thing Amtrak has done anywhere in years and the first positive thing they have done for the Sunset Route since before Katrina.* The much maligned coach trains between SAS and NOL will for the first time since the Southern Pacific ran service on this route offer daily service at times normal people would utilize the service. It can only be taken in a positive note regardless of the lack of a sleeper. They intend to offer business class in it's place for those wanting to escape from the masses.


I wouldn't argue that the 3 times a week service doesn't hurt the Sunset's numbers. But to fix that Amtrak should be making the Sunset as is daily, not downgrading the existing service to support some whimsical idea floated by railfans in California. Amtrak doesn't need another Chicago to LA train, yet; it needs a Florida to LA train, or at least for the moment a New Orleans to LA train.

And I haven't seen one study that shows that people will actually ride the daily train. If Amtrak had done some studies that show that increased ridership might actually offset the revenue loss, I might be a slight bit more inclined to support what I see as the second worst decision made by Amtrak regarding this route, behind only the failure to restore service east of NOL.

I also find it funny that Amtrak can somehow manage to hire and train enough crews to run the "Eagle" west of SAS in just a few months, but apparently they need 2 to 3 years to do it in the rest of the country. :unsure:



henryj said:


> In addition, passengers continuing through SAS west will be allowed to stay on the train until their connecting train is ready. So it will be a simple across the platform transfer.


Please show me where Amtrak has guaranteed this. This would be the first time in the last probably 10 years that Amtrak would willing pay the crew to remain on the train, such that the passengers can remain on the train. Normally the second an Amtrak train hits the bumper blocks, the crew goes off duty and stops gettting paid, so they leave the train ASAP. No crew on board, no passengers on board.



henryj said:


> Even more important, this will for the first time establish a corridor style train in Texas with daily service between SAS, HOU and NOL. This is a huge step in a state that has shunned passenger rail in the past. Houston Metro also has plans for an intermodal facility to replace the current one room station which will serve metro, Amtrak and intercity bus. With TXDOT's recently established passenger rail division and this first step at establishing corridor style service Texas is finally moving toward establishing some passenger rail corridors. We finally will have something to build on. How it develops now will depend on how well we support it. Rather than all the negativism, it would be better if everyone got behind these new changes and worked to make them a success. It's a first and very important step.


If Texas wants corridor service, that's fine by me. But corridor service shouldn't come at the expense of long distance service and the passengers served by that service. As for the improvements in Houston, bravo. I'm glad. But they don't need daily service to do that either.



henryj said:


> Through sleepers from SAS and restoration of NOL east to Florida are the next steps along with restoring the Houston-Dallas corridor followed by multiple departures on all the routes in the triangle. Start up date for this is reported to be April. Lets hope they stick to this timetable and get this thing on the road.


I see nothing but a whimsical thought that Amtrak might one day restore a through sleeper between NOL and SAS. There are no guarantees, much less even a firm promise. If there were, I might be more supportive. Let's hope that Amtrak comes to its senses before they impliment this plan.

Sorry Henry, but I've seen nothing from Amtrak that convinces me that this will be a good thing for Amtrak, much less the people living along the Sunset route.


----------



## henryj (Dec 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> I see nothing but a whimsical thought that Amtrak might one day restore a through sleeper between NOL and SAS. There are no guarantees, much less even a firm promise. If there were, I might be more supportive. Let's hope that Amtrak comes to its senses before they impliment this plan.
> Sorry Henry, but I've seen nothing from Amtrak that convinces me that this will be a good thing for Amtrak, much less the people living along the Sunset route.


Well Alan, you and I will have to majorly disagree on this one. I live in Houston and for me it's the most positive thing I have seen from Amtrak in many years. I think the coach trains will be well patronized and a big success. Right now the eastbound Sunset comes through here at 4 in the morning. Who would use that? Amtrak has many examples of passengers being allowed to either board early or remain on the train after it's arrival. It's obvious that the Sunset is NOT going back to Florida. I understand 'sour grapes' but that has been the problem all along from the 'Florida' people. They have not supported the current train. Not tried to get improvements such as connections to Phoenix or a better timetable or anything related to the train west of New Orleans. All they care about is Florida. So now they reap the harvest of their negativism. For Texas this is a great event. With TEMPO running the train it will be a success, you can bet on that. Finally finally finally we will have a San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans train someone can use on a regular basis. Something that fills a real transportation need. At this point, who cares about Florida. You people didn't support the current Sunset so who needs your support now.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

Frankly Henry, the more I think about this, the worse I think this plan will be for Texas. I'm not normally the skeptic in my family, that's my wife's job. :lol:

But I'm beginning to believe that this is an attempt by Amtrak to drop the money loosing Sunset. It wouldn't surprise me if within 5 years of implimentation to see Amtrak turn to Texas and say "hey this daily train is really a service for Texas. If you want it to continue, you have to pay the losses. Otherwise we're going to cancel the train."

This is basically what Amtrak did east of NOL too. They used Katrina as an excuse to cancel service and are now holding the states or Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama hostage to pay for a resumption of service. It may or may not take a hurricane to susped the service first, but somehow I'm beginning to believe that the master plan here is to get Texas, perhaps with a bit of help from Louisiana, to pay for the train. And Texas already has a track record of paying for service now, as they help pay for the Heartland Flyer.

I hope to god that I'm wrong about this, but again, the more I think about this the more I'm becoming convinced that this is part of the master plan. Amtrak is rushing off to do this without proper study, they are rushing to get things daily west of SAS when they've clearly stated in every other study that it will take 2+ years to train crews. Something isn't right here.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

henryj said:


> Amtrak has many examples of passengers being allowed to either board early or remain on the train after it's arrival.


Please cite one current example of Amtrak passengers being allowed to remain on an Amtrak train that has just arrived at its final destination.



henryj said:


> You people didn't support the current Sunset so who needs your support now.


I'm not sure who "you people" is, but I think that pretty much everyone on this forum has always supported the current Sunset.

I know that I have, in fact almost six months ago to the day, I was standing on the ground in Houston talking with serveral members of this forum as we waited for Chris (Saxman) to board the train.


----------



## henryj (Dec 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Frankly Henry, the more I think about this, the worse I think this plan will be for Texas. But I'm beginning to believe that this is an attempt by Amtrak to drop the money loosing Sunset. It wouldn't surprise me if within 5 years of implimentation to see Amtrak turn to Texas and say "hey this daily train is really a service for Texas. If you want it to continue, you have to pay the losses. Otherwise we're going to cancel the train."


Alan I just don't share you negative thoughts. Amtrak is entering a new era where passenger trains are relavent to the whole transportation picture. TXDOT has set up a passenger rail division for the first time ever. Our Senator KBH is a big Amtrak supporter and is now running for Governor. I see this as a great leap forward for Texas. If it's some kind of plot to drop the Sunset Route service then you can kiss all long distance trains goodbye and that would be political suicide for Amtrak. This decision was not made overnight and it's not some knee jerk reaction. The Sunset Route was included in Amtrak's RPI in the March Amtrak Ink where they made this statement: "We need to re-engineer every aspect of this train. That means redirecting everything from food to scheduling to Marketing--so that it's more customer-oriented. We're conduction a total examination of the existing model to better match customer expectations, maximize revenue opportunities and get the most out of this service" I see these developments as the end result of those studies. The I10 route between SAS-HOU-NOL is heavily congested. Daily service along this route can't help but succeed. We should all be getting behind these changes. It's a first step for Texas and a good one. Better things are coming.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak has many examples of passengers being allowed to either board early or remain on the train after it's arrival.
> ...


Upon farther review as they say in the NFL, me thinks that Alan is correct about this Henry! I'm in favor of a daily train everywhere in Texas but it's not gonna happen unless Texas pays for it and getting money out of the Leg is like asking them to support Health care reform or support President Obama!

Daily service from NOL-LAX connecting in SAS with the Daily Eagle does seem the way to go! Alan, you said give an example of pax staying on the train upon arrival, SAS is it with the sleeper and coach cut out for overnight awaiting the Sunset departure! IINM the crew aboard the cut outs are paid to stay aboard all night!

I applaud Henry for his enthusiasm and positive thoughts, once again a compromise is the best solution, that's how our country and life works best!

Alan is really correct about the rush to start up by Amtrak, the lack of studies about loads and revenue is blatant, so is the 2-3 years to train OBS and the building of stations East of NOL is another red herring!


----------



## had8ley (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm glad for those that want this service to commence. My fierce objection is the Amcan train with its nuclear reactor they call an oven that will be the sole source of food, (and probably first class seats on one end) for the 15 hour journey between NOL and SAS. Been there, done that and honestly thought we were radiation free when the City went to Superliner. I'm sure someone on here remembers Mother Henry Knowles and his nuclear re-actor in the Am-dinette on the City when it was single level. BAH-HUMBUG !!!


----------



## GG-1 (Dec 11, 2009)

Aloha

We have had a lot of discussion about the SSL having Daily Service and Restoring the full route. What has crossed my mind is possibly Service for Mon.-Fri. and then something Different for Sat.-Sun. Fi considering weekends differently this might benefit other routes. On Multiday trips this might not work, but it might considering the load for departure day.


----------



## BlakeTyner (Dec 11, 2009)

had8ley said:


> I'm glad for those that want this service to commence. My fierce objection is the Amcan train with its nuclear reactor they call an oven that will be the sole source of food, (and probably first class seats on one end) for the 15 hour journey between NOL and SAS. Been there, done that and honestly thought we were radiation free when the City went to Superliner. I'm sure someone on here remembers Mother Henry Knowles and his nuclear re-actor in the Am-dinette on the City when it was single level. BAH-HUMBUG !!!


The new Texas Eagle will have a full diner and staffed Sightseer Lounge restored--the Sunset's equipment would be added to the new Eagle pool. I'm not sure if Amtrak would take the Eagle's CCC's and put them on the SAS-NOL train, use a snack coach, or what, but it does free up some CCC's. Even if the corridor train doesn't get them, maybe the CONO would be able to run with two of them permanently (one being unstaffed, of course.) Does it make up for the loss of the Sightseer? No. But it adds table capacity, which is better than a kick in the rump.

I'm surprised at the reaction to this. The Sunset Route west of San Antonio remains the same--same cities being served, probably at more convenient times, and daily with sleepers.

The only real change is that service east of San Antonio will be coach/business class with a cross-platform transfer (although early on, it was rumored that the daily Texas Eagle would be split in SAS.) Still, it's daily service with connections to Chicago and Los Angeles.

The thing about "rushing" this, vis-a-vis the crews, is that essentially nothing is changing. There are already crews qualified for the route(s), as they're doing it right now. The only real change is making it one long-distance train instead of two, and subbing in a corridor train for the service to NOL. Edited: well, actually, I guess I can see this objection, as the increased frequency _would_ mean more engineers and conductors, I'd assume.

I'm all for the restoration of service east of NOL, but it will probably have to be an extension of the CONO. The upshot to that scenario is that, like the new Eagle, the route would be long enough to justify a restoration of full diner and staffed lounge service. So you'd end up with a daily, full service train on the old Sunset Limited route east of NOL. Yes, it would mean a couple of transfers (getting on board the corridor train in NOL and then aboard the Eagle at SAS) but it's pretty painless, and IMHO a small price to pay for a significant upgrade in frequency and amenities.


----------



## had8ley (Dec 11, 2009)

BlakeTyner said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad for those that want this service to commence. My fierce objection is the Amcan train with its nuclear reactor they call an oven that will be the sole source of food, (and probably first class seats on one end) for the 15 hour journey between NOL and SAS. Been there, done that and honestly thought we were radiation free when the City went to Superliner. I'm sure someone on here remembers Mother Henry Knowles and his nuclear re-actor in the Am-dinette on the City when it was single level. BAH-HUMBUG !!!
> ...


I fully respect your observation but the unknown is what bothers me. We don't know for sure if the stub train is going to be bi-level and take a CCC. Another thing that could happen is the Crescent goes to an Am-dinette to protect the SAS train. There are just too many variables on this end to placate the NOL populus that has been listening to the worst PR on the planet about "starting" trains. If, indeed we go single level three car train I firmly believe we're going to have more crew than pax. Then Amtrak will have further reason to truncate the Sunset in SAS. Need I say more ???


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Dec 11, 2009)

BlakeTyner said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad for those that want this service to commence. My fierce objection is the Amcan train with its nuclear reactor they call an oven that will be the sole source of food, (and probably first class seats on one end) for the 15 hour journey between NOL and SAS. Been there, done that and honestly thought we were radiation free when the City went to Superliner. I'm sure someone on here remembers Mother Henry Knowles and his nuclear re-actor in the Am-dinette on the City when it was single level. BAH-HUMBUG !!!
> ...


When you take into account extra board crew, and the fact that the crews only work 3 days a week in each direction there are probably more than enough to run the train daily without hiring anyone. The main obstacle would be aligning crew rotations and schedules, because if no new crew are hired there would be few extra crews sitting around should a crew go dead due to delays or any other unforeseeable problem.


----------



## Rob_C (Dec 11, 2009)

If this happens would Amtrak have to list NOL to JAX stops on the schedule of the new stub train in order to keep that option open? If they did not, wouldn't that be letting CSX know they are releasing that line?


----------



## henryj (Dec 11, 2009)

Rob_C said:


> If this happens would Amtrak have to list NOL to JAX stops on the schedule of the new stub train in order to keep that option open? If they did not, wouldn't that be letting CSX know they are releasing that line?


An interesting question. Since they have never formally discontinued the Sunset east of NOL what will become of that route on the maps and the timetables?

This for Had8ley, the coach trains are to be superliner equipment from the Sunset/Eagle pool. That was the criteria for making these changes. They had to use only existing equipment. Still open to speculation is what they will do for food service. I would hope they include a CCC on the coach trains as they are really nice, but who knows. I would assume the Eagles will now have a full diner and lounge.

By going daily you will have an increase in capacity of over 50% on the current Sunset Route or maybe more depending on car assignments.


----------



## BlakeTyner (Dec 11, 2009)

had8ley said:


> I fully respect your observation but the unknown is what bothers me. We don't know for sure if the stub train is going to be bi-level and take a CCC. Another thing that could happen is the Crescent goes to an Am-dinette to protect the SAS train. There are just too many variables on this end to placate the NOL populus that has been listening to the worst PR on the planet about "starting" trains. If, indeed we go single level three car train I firmly believe we're going to have more crew than pax. Then Amtrak will have further reason to truncate the Sunset in SAS. Need I say more ???



Understood, sir. Of course there are never any absolutes when it comes to Amtrak, but from what I understand, the stub train will be Superliner-equipped; that's been a part of the plan since the beginning. You're absolutely right about what gets said versus what gets done, but I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I think this is going to be a very good thing, particularly since the Texas Eagle is revenue managed at the local level instead of at corporate. Of course, not even THAT is guaranteed--it remains at the discretion of the Amtrak president, but I wouldn't think they'd want to mess with something that has been working so well for years.

I absolutely support rail service to other parts of the state (and country) but from my end, as a supporter of the Texas Eagle, this is excellent news. If it works as planned, I think it will be a good thing for the Sunset route, too.


----------



## Rail Freak (Dec 11, 2009)

Rookie Question.

If they change the schedule ( depart & arrive times) in the spring, how would this affect folks with reservations already booked?

RF


----------



## the_traveler (Dec 11, 2009)

Rail Freak said:


> Rookie Question.If they change the schedule ( depart & arrive times) in the spring, how would this affect folks with reservations already booked?
> 
> RF


Rookie Answer! :lol:

If Amtrak changes times for a scheduled run, they contact those previously scheduled passengers to notify them of the change(s). If they say it is inconvenient and can't be used, they may either


Reschedule to a different date

Reschedule to a different route (Example - instead of connecting CHI-LAX on the TE, taking the SWC CHI-LAX)

Cancel the trip

all without penalty!


----------



## Rail Freak (Dec 11, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> Rail Freak said:
> 
> 
> > Rookie Question.If they change the schedule ( depart & arrive times) in the spring, how would this affect folks with reservations already booked?
> ...


I was thinkin maybe they would give me 200,000 agr pts. so I could travel like you for the next month or two! :lol:

RF


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> Alan, you said give an example of pax staying on the train upon arrival, SAS is it with the sleeper and coach cut out for overnight awaiting the Sunset departure! IINM the crew aboard the cut outs are paid to stay aboard all night!


While I applaud your attempt, that's not a valid example. Those are through cars, that are attached to a terminating train. I want an example of a terminating train where passengers are allowed to remain onboard. There is no such animal within the Amtrak system. Everytime a train reaches the bumper block, the crew stops being paid and leaves the train ASAP.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly Henry, the more I think about this, the worse I think this plan will be for Texas. But I'm beginning to believe that this is an attempt by Amtrak to drop the money loosing Sunset. It wouldn't surprise me if within 5 years of implimentation to see Amtrak turn to Texas and say "hey this daily train is really a service for Texas. If you want it to continue, you have to pay the losses. Otherwise we're going to cancel the train."
> ...


Henry,

I sure hope that you are right, but frankly I'm not convinced. And I don't believe for one minute that ridership in Texas on the Sunset route will increase enough to offset the lost revenue by not having sleepers and through cars. Especially since Amtrak didn't study the issue.

And I disagree that dropping the Sunset route would mean that Amtrak kisses all LD's goodbye. Getting rid of the Sunset would get an albatross off of Amtrak's neck. Anytime John McCain or any other Amtrak hater talks about Amtrak, what's the first thing that they trot out? The $435, or whatever the number is, per passenger that it costs Amtrak to move those passengers on the Sunset Limited. We don't hear that nonsense for any other LD route, only the Sunset.

Next, while perhaps overnight isn't the correct word, it still is funny that restoring the Sunset east will take 3 years after money is found, yet this will happen within a year if it goes on the April TT. That's still rushing things by Amtrak's way of thinking.

While I wouldn't argue that the planned changes for the EB are good, I strongly suspect that if those changes were cancelled, and the bulk of equipment coming from the Stimulus wreck repairs was sent to the Sunset, I'd bet that a daily Sunset with full mix of equipment would be possible at least NOL-LAX. After all, remember that currently one trainset sits in NOL for two days. Yes, if the Sunset is restored east of NOL, then there wouldn't be enough equipment for that. But without an identified funding source currently and based on Amtrak's projections, we're at least 3 to 4 years away from any chance of service being restored east. More than enough time to get more equipment.

So why isn't this being considered?

Because it won't make Amtrak enough money, or at least that's how the thinking is going IMHO. But alas, we have no studies to look at to see one way or the other. Which is why I keep coming back to the idea that Texas will eventually be asked to pay for the "new" service. Amtrak thinks that they are getting the best of both worlds. More revenue from the EB, and the Sunset albatross off it's neck with Texas paying for the new train.


----------



## had8ley (Dec 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> So why isn't this being considered?
> Because it won't make Amtrak enough money, or at least that's how the thinking is going IMHO. But alas, we have no studies to look at to see one way or the other. Which is why I keep coming back to the idea that Texas will eventually be asked to pay for the "new" service. Amtrak thinks that they are getting the best of both worlds. More revenue from the EB, and the Sunset albatross off it's neck with Texas paying for the new train.


I am elated that the Sunset, or whatever handle Amtrak chooses to give it, is going 7 days west of San Antonio Alan. But I still think your analysis would add fuel to the fire that if the Sunset, without through sleepers and with possibly single level service, would give McCain and Amtrak some powerful ammunition to kill service east of San Antonio if the stub train flops. It would be a grand slam for Amtrak with Texas bearing the brunt. In the meantime what happened to the Crescent going to SAS? Sure would solve a lot of the problems associated with the stub train.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

BlakeTyner said:


> I'm surprised at the reaction to this. The Sunset Route west of San Antonio remains the same--same cities being served, probably at more convenient times, and daily with sleepers.


And I would never argue that it's a win for the cities west of San Antonio. This is something that has been needed for a long time for those cities. About the only thing that Amtrak could do now to make things better west of SAS, would be to pay UP to fix things such that the Sunset can reach downtown Phoenix.

The worry is what this does to the cities east of San Antonio and just how much of a ridership drop off will occur because those who used to board in LA and other western most cities to reach NOL can no longer do so with a one seat ride. And especially for those who pay the most to enjoy the comfort of their sleeper to cities east of SAS.



BlakeTyner said:


> The only real change is that service east of San Antonio will be coach/business class with a cross-platform transfer (although early on, it was rumored that the daily Texas Eagle would be split in SAS.) Still, it's daily service with connections to Chicago and Los Angeles.


We already know from the Cardinal's example that people don't like to change trains, even when it's a cross-platform transfer. When the Cardinal went from Superliner to single level and was extended to NY, it's ridership soared. Despite a poor departure time from NY, it leaves before 7:00 AM.



BlakeTyner said:


> The thing about "rushing" this, vis-a-vis the crews, is that essentially nothing is changing. There are already crews qualified for the route(s), as they're doing it right now. The only real change is making it one long-distance train instead of two, and subbing in a corridor train for the service to NOL. Edited: well, actually, I guess I can see this objection, as the increased frequency _would_ mean more engineers and conductors, I'd assume.


There aren't enough crews to run 2 trains per day 7 days a week west of SAS.



BlakeTyner said:


> I'm all for the restoration of service east of NOL, but it will probably have to be an extension of the CONO. The upshot to that scenario is that, like the new Eagle, the route would be long enough to justify a restoration of full diner and staffed lounge service. So you'd end up with a daily, full service train on the old Sunset Limited route east of NOL. Yes, it would mean a couple of transfers (getting on board the corridor train in NOL and then aboard the Eagle at SAS) but it's pretty painless, and IMHO a small price to pay for a significant upgrade in frequency and amenities.


I won't deny that it is likely that the CONO could well be how service is restored along the Gulf Coast, and that it does have some advantages, in terms of giving people in Chicago and just south of there another way to reach Florida. The problem IMHO is that it really cuts the ridership from the west. Perhaps people living in Texas wanting to go to Florida will still take the train. But most people west of San Antonio aren't going to want to make 2 transfers now to go from LA to Orlando. And again, people don't like transfers.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

henryj said:


> Rob_C said:
> 
> 
> > If this happens would Amtrak have to list NOL to JAX stops on the schedule of the new stub train in order to keep that option open? If they did not, wouldn't that be letting CSX know they are releasing that line?
> ...


Agreed, and I have no idea how this might affect that issue. Wonder if that was even considered.


----------



## henryj (Dec 11, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Which is why I keep coming back to the idea that Texas will eventually be asked to pay for the "new" service. Amtrak thinks that they are getting the best of both worlds. More revenue from the EB, and the Sunset albatross off it's neck with Texas paying for the new train.


Alan, I appreciate your in depth knowledge on the subject and we could debate this forever. However, apparently this is what we are going to get for better or worse. Which is why I am saying lets get behind it and make sure it is a success. It's not a done deal yet as they still have to get by the negotiations with the UP and they could torpedo the whole thing. I agree the coach train with a transfer in SAS could be a bit shaky. But the contrary is it's daily and it runs at decent times which doesn't happen now. When Amtrak gets it's shop in order we could see the addition of through cars between NOL and LAX. Just remember a through sleeper requires actually five more cars for daily service. So to institute a daily through coach and sleeper would require something like five sleepers and at least three more coaches. Yes they could have instituted a daily Sunset as it is with the addition of one more complete set of equipment. But they have decided to go with the Eagle instead. I am to the point where I don't care how they do it or what they call the train. Daily trumps everything else. Sorry about NOL east, but I believe that void will be filled with an extended CONO as it only takes one more set to do it due to the long layover the CONO equipment has in NOL. Any thoughts of a reinstated transcontinental Sunset I believe are dead forever so lets get behind what is realistic. I don't know why they went this route but at this point I don't care. If this change was to fail and they continue to run the Sunset just as it is the train will for sure be gone. What amazes me is that ridership on the Sunset has held up as well as it has. Given that, with the improved scheduling and daily service I think ridershipe will soar and so will revenues. I don't see any plots by Amtrak to get money from the state or downgrade the service so they can discontinue it. Actually just the opposite. They are finally addressing what needs to be done on this route. But, as for state support, Texas already supports the Heartland Flyer and with all the studies being done and advocacy groups being formed, it is just a matter of time before Texas begins to come around and add and fund more rail service. This hopefully, will be the catalyst for that.


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2009)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why I keep coming back to the idea that Texas will eventually be asked to pay for the "new" service. Amtrak thinks that they are getting the best of both worlds. More revenue from the EB, and the Sunset albatross off it's neck with Texas paying for the new train.
> ...


Would you also accept anything thrown on your dinner plate too? Accepting anything thrown at you will result in disappointment.

This is an insane idea by Amtrak. The Eagle and Sunset(nol-lax) should both be daily LD trains with through Eagle sleepers in both directions.(east and west)

The equipment does not exist today, but it could with stimulus money.


----------



## BlakeTyner (Dec 11, 2009)

Everyone's made some excellent points, but I think Henry's right; this seems to be what's going to happen, and the best thing we can do is hope for the best. If it works, hopefully it can be the catalyst for improved service not just in Texas, but elsewhere, too. My main reason for optimism is that TEMPO is involved--not just because it's a 'local' group for me, but because I think those guys and gals have really done a wonderful job for the past decade or so. I don't know for sure, but I'd assume that one of the selling points for the new daily Eagle was this group and their past performance.

I know enough to know that I shouldn't make any predictions about whether the effort will increase revenue or ridership, and I'll eat my share of crow if this turns out badly.


----------



## MattW (Dec 11, 2009)

Hrm, if there's daily service NOL-LAX, then that could mean faster travel time. I ran the current schedules and WAS-LAX means you leave Wednesday and either arrive Saturday or Sunday morning depending on if you go through Chicago or New Orleans respectively. If this new train gets you there at least at the same time as connecting through Chicago, then perhaps this could be a push to improved service on the Crescent and it would give people another good option going transcontinental.

Does anyone have a hypothetical schedule of the NOL-SAN-LAX trains this would entail?


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

BlakeTyner said:


> My main reason for optimism is that TEMPO is involved--not just because it's a 'local' group for me, but because I think those guys and gals have really done a wonderful job for the past decade or so.


I wouldn't argue this at all. They have done a wonderful job, it's shame that there aren't more organizations like TEMPO.



BlakeTyner said:


> I don't know for sure, but I'd assume that one of the selling points for the new daily Eagle was this group and their past performance.


This I'm not so sure about. I can't imagine how they could promote the Eagle anymore than they already do. And it won't be their job to promote the Eagle in AZ and NM. And to my knowledge this wasn't their idea, this grew out of a CA rail group's initiative.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

MattW said:


> Hrm, if there's daily service NOL-LAX, then that could mean faster travel time. I ran the current schedules and WAS-LAX means you leave Wednesday and either arrive Saturday or Sunday morning depending on if you go through Chicago or New Orleans respectively. If this new train gets you there at least at the same time as connecting through Chicago, then perhaps this could be a push to improved service on the Crescent and it would give people another good option going transcontinental.Does anyone have a hypothetical schedule of the NOL-SAN-LAX trains this would entail?


I can't being to imagine how this change would improve travel times. No matter what, you will still have to overnight in New Orleans. The Crescent gets in at 8:00 PM, and a daily train would have to leave early that morning, long before the Crescent would arrive.

So travel times will be the same, since going via Chicago means that one doesn't need to spend a night on the ground, while going through NOL you will have to spend a night on the ground.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 11, 2009)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why I keep coming back to the idea that Texas will eventually be asked to pay for the "new" service. Amtrak thinks that they are getting the best of both worlds. More revenue from the EB, and the Sunset albatross off it's neck with Texas paying for the new train.
> ...


Henry,

And I certainly appreciate your views and all that you've written on this topic. 

However, I'm sorry to say that until such time as this plan does become reality, I will continue to shout from the rooftops that I think it a terrible plan. Sorry.  As long as there is even the slighest chance that Amtrak will reconsider this IMHO misguided plan, then I must continue to persist.

Once it is on the TT and the first trains turn a wheel, then and only then will it get my support. And support it I will because the futher alternatives are even worse. But that still doesn't make this a good plan.

As for a transcontinental Sunset, I fail to see how such a return can be considered dead, when Amtrak included that very scenario in the plan submitted to Congress.

And no, they aren't addressing what needs to be done to this route. If they were, then the Eagle would be left alone and the extra equipment would be going to the current Sunset to make it daily. I think that we can both agree that in a perfect world, that would be the ideal choice. Yes?


----------



## henryj (Dec 12, 2009)

AlanB said:


> If they were, then the Eagle would be left alone and the extra equipment would be going to the current Sunset to make it daily. I think that we can both agree that in a perfect world, that would be the ideal choice. Yes?


Sigh, yes it would but it's not to be. I think Katrina just did it in. New Orleans just dropped off the map as far as ridership. I think it has hurt the CONO and the Crescent too, but I don't have any stats to back that up. Florida was a big traffic generator for travel east of SAS. The combination of the UP melt down and Katrina just did it in. We can protest all we want, but nothing is going to change. In fact protesting it will just hurt the current service and the proposed changes more. Being in Texas I just have a different take on this than those that lost their train east of NOL. I want daily service and I want a train through Houston. This gives it to us. The world is not perfect so we have to take what we can get.

There is no extra equipment regarding this switch by the way. My understanding is they had to make this happen(daily service) with the equipment pool they now have from the combined trains. Going daily with the Eagle and running a coach train east was the only way they could come up with to do it. Any other scenario would have required more equipment.

People on the Gulf Coast east are going to have a hard road ahead. With the PTC requirements coming up CSX will probably want to downgrade some of the little used sections of the route. To put a train back on that route is going to take some extra $$$$. Additionally, the advocacy groups over there want day trains, corridor type trains and they don't give a hoot about an overnight train like the Sunset was. This was our problem from the start in trying to get the Sunset back east. They want something different. I guess now they have it.............nothing.

My personal view is this has been brewing for a long time in the back rooms at Amtrak. When we first started up SMART, what.....two years ago, Joy Smith of Amtrak told me in a weak moment......."think daily, forget Florida". I tried to tell people back then, but no one would listen. They kept throwing up the Florida thing until the Amtrak people just refused to come to anymore of their meetings. In fact they walked out of the last meeting they attended with SMART. So now we have what we have. My suggestion is to live with it and make it work.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 12, 2009)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > If they were, then the Eagle would be left alone and the extra equipment would be going to the current Sunset to make it daily. I think that we can both agree that in a perfect world, that would be the ideal choice. Yes?
> ...


The stats disagree with you:



> Passengers (FY2008)	154,532 ▲ 23% (Amtrak)


While Katrina may have affected ridership, even put a severe impact, I'd say a 23% gain in ridership is proof that NOL intends to come back "on the map"...


----------



## AlanB (Dec 12, 2009)

henryj said:


> New Orleans just dropped off the map as far as ridership. I think it has hurt the CONO and the Crescent too, but I don't have any stats to back that up.


I can help with that. 

Note that all numbers represent Amtrak's fiscal year which ends in September of the year, not a calendar year.

Sunset

2004: 96,426

2005: 81,348

2006: 51,860

2007: 63,336

2008: 71,719

2009: 73,134 *

CONO

2004: 190,017

2005: 183,237

2006: 175,237

2007: 180,473

2008: 197,394

2009: 182,185 *

Crescent

2004: 256,577

2005: 263,080

2006: 252,072

2007: 263,136

2008: 291,222

2009: 265,672 *

* Indicates that the data represents the first 11 months of fiscal 2009, the data for the final month has not yet been released by Amtrak.



henryj said:


> There is no extra equipment regarding this switch by the way. My understanding is they had to make this happen(daily service) with the equipment pool they now have from the combined trains. Going daily with the Eagle and running a coach train east was the only way they could come up with to do it. Any other scenario would have required more equipment.


I could well be wrong on this, but I seem to recall that the plan that I saw indicated that they would be getting at least a few of the wreck repairs in order to make this possible. As I already mentioned, they won't be getting all, as a bunch of equipment is earmarked for the EB, but again I'm pretty sure that they are getting at least a few cars.


----------



## nferr (Dec 12, 2009)

If you're going Westbound from Houston the coach run is only a couple of hundred miles to San Antonio. Eastbound from Houston to NOL is about 350 miles. I think either run is fine for a day coach only train. I do think the entire run NOL to SAS is kind of long on a coach only train at about 550 miles but doable. The tradeoff is getting daily daytime service. I do hope they put some kind of Diner-Lite on it instead of just a snack bar but looking at the Palmetto I doubt it.


----------



## Montanan (Dec 12, 2009)

Even after reading all of this, I have to say that I'm one of the people who feels this is an extremely positive step for Amtrak. They'll be adding a LOT of train-miles with this change ... and how long has it been since they've done that without a state paying for it? In addition, a very large number of endpoint pairs are getting significantly improved service, both through the increased frequencies and the return of a full diner north of San Antonio. Travel time for many of those city pairs will be reduced, and arrival/departure times at several major stops will be improved. And coach passengers will no longer have to spend a long night in San Antonio without moving towards their destination.

The lack of sleeping car service to New Orleans is definitely unfortunate, as is the need for a cross-platform transfer, but I think the increased frequency more than makes up for that. Certainly the readers of this group are willing to wait a day or two to ride a less-than-daily train, but that's undoubtedly less true of the public in general. And we have to remember that even today, the vast majority of the Sunset's passengers aren't traveling the entire LA - New Orleans route end-to-end -- most won't even be impacted by the cross-platform change.

I've ridden the Sunset three times, and it's pretty clear that its ridership is strongest in the west, and weakest between San Antonio and Houston. The last time I rode the train (eastbound, about two years ago), my notes show that there were roughly 35 passengers on the entire train leaving San Antonio. While that was an off-season run, it still suggested to me that the current service approach wasn't working. Basically, the only way for them to go is up, and I think Amtrak is to be commended for its willingness to try something.

As an aside: has anyone seen statistics of passenger numbers riding through San Antonio ... it would be interesting to know what percentage of through passengers currently connect to/from the Eagle, and what percentage use the Sunset east of there.


----------



## henryj (Dec 12, 2009)

BlakeTyner said:


> Everyone's made some excellent points, but I think Henry's right; this seems to be what's going to happen, and the best thing we can do is hope for the best. If it works, hopefully it can be the catalyst for improved service not just in Texas, but elsewhere, too. My main reason for optimism is that TEMPO is involved--not just because it's a 'local' group for me, but because I think those guys and gals have really done a wonderful job for the past decade or so. I don't know for sure, but I'd assume that one of the selling points for the new daily Eagle was this group and their past performance.
> I know enough to know that I shouldn't make any predictions about whether the effort will increase revenue or ridership, and I'll eat my share of crow if this turns out badly.


Blake we do have a web site we set up when it became apparent that SMART and NARP were going to go their own way and abandon us out west. we would be glad to have you or anyone else that is interested. It's a low key site where we just try and keep up with what is going on in our own area.

http://groups.google.com/group/sunset-limited-west?hl=en


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 12, 2009)

nferr said:


> If you're going Westbound from Houston the coach run is only a couple of hundred miles to San Antonio. Eastbound from Houston to NOL is about 350 miles. I think either run is fine for a day coach only train. I do think the entire run NOL to SAS is kind of long on a coach only train at about 550 miles but doable. The tradeoff is getting daily daytime service. I do hope they put some kind of Diner-Lite on it instead of just a snack bar but looking at the Palmetto I doubt it.


Since they said there will be a daily stub train between SAS-NOL with coaches AND a Biz class car I'm pretty sure they can take one of the unloved CCC's

and Reconfigure it into a cafe/biz car similar to the biz cars on the River Runners and the NEC trains except it will be a Superliner (we hope!) which should

make more folks on this route happy! I'm with the Please no Amcans with nuclear reactor microwaves like another poster said!


----------



## BlakeTyner (Dec 12, 2009)

henryj said:


> Blake we do have a web site we set up when it became apparent that SMART and NARP were going to go their own way and abandon us out west. we would be glad to have you or anyone else that is interested. It's a low key site where we just try and keep up with what is going on in our own area.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sunset-limited-west?hl=en



I've bookmarked the site and poked around a bit. I'm happy to help in whatever way I can, sir.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2009)

Montanan said:


> Even after reading all of this, I have to say that I'm one of the people who feels this is an extremely positive step for Amtrak. They'll be adding a LOT of train-miles with this change ... and how long has it been since they've done that without a state paying for it? In addition, a very large number of endpoint pairs are getting significantly improved service, both through the increased frequencies and the return of a full diner north of San Antonio. Travel time for many of those city pairs will be reduced, and arrival/departure times at several major stops will be improved. And coach passengers will no longer have to spend a long night in San Antonio without moving towards their destination.
> The lack of sleeping car service to New Orleans is definitely unfortunate, as is the need for a cross-platform transfer, but I think the increased frequency more than makes up for that. Certainly the readers of this group are willing to wait a day or two to ride a less-than-daily train, but that's undoubtedly less true of the public in general. And we have to remember that even today, the vast majority of the Sunset's passengers aren't traveling the entire LA - New Orleans route end-to-end -- most won't even be impacted by the cross-platform change.
> 
> I've ridden the Sunset three times, and it's pretty clear that its ridership is strongest in the west, and weakest between San Antonio and Houston. The last time I rode the train (eastbound, about two years ago), my notes show that there were roughly 35 passengers on the entire train leaving San Antonio. While that was an off-season run, it still suggested to me that the current service approach wasn't working. Basically, the only way for them to go is up, and I think Amtrak is to be commended for its willingness to try something.
> ...


If you fill the train to full capacity out SAS going east, then no one east of SAS can ride. This is what many of you don't understand.

If the Great Golden state is truely successful, at full capacity going into SAS from Chicago, then the 7 million people SAS to NOL wouldn't be able to tranfer.

This Golden State train will hit many huge MSA's;Dallas, FW, Austin, SAS, military base at Killeen, and LR. I can not believe those areas can not sell out a

LD train to LA daily. This leads to the stub passengers getting snub. Unless Amtrak will run a half empty train from Chicago to SAS reserved for the stub train.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 12, 2009)

Currently the Eagle deadheads the STL coach to/from STL-SAS daily. Today was the first time all year I've actually seen pax in the third coach, and the sleepers were full but thats rare on this route. With the train going daily to LAX, instead of the Sunset being thrice weekly from NOL-SAS-LAX, there will be more spaces available, not less! The Sunset from SAS-NOL very rarely is even half full most trips, it's probably Amtraks lowest rated train in # of pax IINM?

Once the details are worked out I hope they let the customers name the train, not some lame group think name like the Golden State Ltd. (what's golden about Ill/MO/Ark?TEX/NM/AZ??), what's wrong with keeping the Oldest continously used passenger route name in the USA, the Sunset Ltd. ?The sun sets three times on this route! The Texas Eagle can be the stub train SAS-NOL and if it ever happens the Lone Star Eagle from DAL-HOS!


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 12, 2009)

Just my 10 cents... Every town is still served by a train DAILY! That is an improvement in service for all towns IMHO. I understand the argument, but i really do think this is a good thing.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 12, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> Just my 10 cents... Every town is still served by a train DAILY! That is an improvement in service for all towns IMHO. I understand the argument, but i really do think this is a good thing.


But sleepers make more money.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 12, 2009)

That I am not arguing... Amtrak as we all know does not exist to make money, they provide transportation service. There is no possible way that any of us can guess, but I have a feeling that Amtrak may just fill more sleepers with this routing anyways.


----------



## Montanan (Dec 12, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> That I am not arguing... Amtrak as we all know does not exist to make money, they provide transportation service. There is no possible way that any of us can guess, but I have a feeling that Amtrak may just fill more sleepers with this routing anyways.


Well, at the very least the sleepers (and other revenue-generting equipment) will spend significantly less time sitting idle. And that's a good thing, especially considering Amtrak's equipment constraints.


----------



## GG-1 (Dec 13, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> Just my 10 cents... Every town is still served by a train DAILY!


REALLY, I wasn't aware we had rail service, or Phoenix either. 

Aloha


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 13, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> That I am not arguing... Amtrak as we all know does not exist to make money, they provide transportation service. There is no possible way that any of us can guess, but I have a feeling that Amtrak may just fill more sleepers with this routing anyways.


If they are there to provide service... why are they giving daily service SAS-NOL in place of tri-weekly service NOL-ORL


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> The Sunset from SAS-NOL very rarely is even half full most trips, it's probably Amtraks lowest rated train in # of pax IINM?


While the Sunset is currently the lowest performing train in terms of the number of passengers, it's interesting to note that when it comes to sleepers the Sunset does top the Cardinal which sells the least amount of sleepers, 14,692 to 6,856 respectively. Granted there simply are more sleepers to sell on the Sunset than the Card, but still sleepers are popular on this train.

Even more interesting is that the Sunset not only beats out the Cardinal for generating more revenue from it's sleepers, it generated nearly 3 times as much revenue despite just barely doubling the number of rooms sold. And it's only $260M behind the City of NOL in terms of revenue generated by the sleepers. And the CONO sold 28,893 sleepers in 2008. This means that Amtrak is generating a far greater return on those sleepers on the Sunset, by comparison to some of the other runs.

Now granted in theory Amtrak won't loose all that revenue, unless guest is correct and the Eagle comes in sold out to SAS going westbound, but still one has to figure that they'll loose at least half the sleeper revenue since one night is being cut out, which results in a loss of $1.9 million in revenue.

And just imagine what the Sunset could be doing if it was running 7 days a week, if it can currently sell half the number of rooms of the CONO, but only lag $300M behind it in revenue. That's a lot of money to walk away from IMHO.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Dec 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > The Sunset from SAS-NOL very rarely is even half full most trips, it's probably Amtraks lowest rated train in # of pax IINM?
> ...


I have a feeling the cross-platform transfer will be short-lived and will be replaced by a split going east and a merging going west. I think they are doing the across platform transfer at this time to save on equipment, It will also ensure the equipment is there in SAS to send back east even if the LAX train arrives extremely late. Once more cars are available I think we will see a split similar to the EB or LSL with the majority of the train going to CHI and a couple coaches, a sleeper and a CCC or diner-lite going to NOL.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 13, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> Once the details are worked out I hope they let the customers name the train, not some lame group think name like the Golden State Ltd. (what's golden about Ill/MO/Ark?TEX/NM/AZ??), what's wrong with keeping the Oldest continously used passenger route name in the USA, the Sunset Ltd. ?The sun sets three times on this route! The Texas Eagle can be the stub train SAS-NOL and if it ever happens the Lone Star Eagle from DAL-HOS!


Golden State Limited is not a lame name. Its a storied name, a Rock Island & Pacific train running from Chicago to Los Angeles, via Tucson. It wasn't quite as round about as the train proposed here, but it was close. It competed with Santa Fe's Chief.

It is important for Amtrak to drop the Sunset name. Its a public relations disaster.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> I have a feeling the cross-platform transfer will be short-lived and will be replaced by a split going east and a merging going west. I think they are doing the across platform transfer at this time to save on equipment, It will also ensure the equipment is there in SAS to send back east even if the LAX train arrives extremely late. Once more cars are available I think we will see a split similar to the EB or LSL with the majority of the train going to CHI and a couple coaches, a sleeper and a CCC or diner-lite going to NOL.


If they're going to do that, then there is no point to this entire exercise. Just run the Sunset daily as if we're going to split the train like the EB, then there is no point to run the Eagle all the way instead. We're just flip-floping things now. If Amtrak can find the equipment to do what you suggest once more cars are available, then let's just stick with 3 days a week service until we get those cars out of Beech Grove.

Waiting another six months isn't going to make that big a difference.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Once the details are worked out I hope they let the customers name the train, not some lame group think name like the Golden State Ltd. (what's golden about Ill/MO/Ark?TEX/NM/AZ??), what's wrong with keeping the Oldest continously used passenger route name in the USA, the Sunset Ltd. ?The sun sets three times on this route! The Texas Eagle can be the stub train SAS-NOL and if it ever happens the Lone Star Eagle from DAL-HOS!
> ...


It doesn't have to be a disaster and it's easy to fix. Instead of putting more equipment on the EB, take everything coming out of Beech Grove from the wreck repairs and do up the Sunset just like the EB, with real table cloths and a bit more quality. Watch the Sunset's numbes climb and all the bad stuff about the name will go bye-bye.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> It doesn't have to be a disaster and it's easy to fix. Instead of putting more equipment on the EB, take everything coming out of Beech Grove from the wreck repairs and do up the Sunset just like the EB, with real table cloths and a bit more quality. Watch the Sunset's numbes climb and all the bad stuff about the name will go bye-bye.


Alternatively, the sane concept that not many people along its route have much interest in trains compared to the EB, which is a major transportation option in its location, and it will just cost more money to operate and become an even bigger money losing disaster, a poster child for Amtrak mismanagement.

As a transit advocate, I'll tell you this is more attractive and more workable. The concept of one seat ride becomes less and less important as the length of the ride increases. Keep in mind that the Cardinal serving New York was competing with a single seat ride that took, ahem, TEN HOURS LESS then that two-seat Cardinal ride. I'd say the increase in ridership has to do with it having a lower bucket coach price and people just going with the cheaper train.

Your railfan mind is gumming at the perspective of losing the Sunset Limited. Working-transit wise, the Golden State Limited and Texas Sunrise plan works better, period.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Dec 13, 2009)

The problem is that there is pretty strong Sleeper demand year-round on the Sunset to/from New Orleans. Even on the days in the Summer and during off-peak times when the train might be carrying 60 in Coach into NOL, it's not uncommon for the sleeper to be full or nearly full. I have totally mixed emotions about this. Daily service is great, and long needed, but the lack of a Sleeper or through Coach service for NOL and HOS leaves a LOT to be desired. New Orleans and Houston didn't totally get screwed due to the daily service, but still...was this the best they could come up with?


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Dec 13, 2009)

I'm also curious to see what happens to the NOL-JAX cities if/when this new schedule is introduced. I assume they'll have to list them so as not to say that the service is officially canned.

So will this be the first time since 1894 that there won't be same train service between NOL and LAX? What a disgrace...

If I had my way I'd have the TE CONNECT in SAS to the SL....not the other way around. CHI-LAX already has a daily train operating on a much faster schedule and why have NOL/HOS lose their through train at the expense of DFW? As for STL passengers, they can still easily connect in SAS or CHI.


----------



## henryj (Dec 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > The Sunset from SAS-NOL very rarely is even half full most trips, it's probably Amtraks lowest rated train in # of pax IINM?
> ...


LOL, this just doesn't compute. How are they cutting out one night? The schedule is the same both ways. Between NOL and SAS there is no night. That night is spent sitting in SAS going nowhere. Additionally the Sunsets sleeper sits in New Orleans for three days before returning and earns nothing. Now these cars will be utilized daily and earn revenue daily. By going daily sleeper space will more than double on the route as will coach seats. The reason for the coach only trains east of SAS is because they were told they could go daily only if they did not require any additional equipment. This was the only combination they could come up with that met that criteria. And all this planning started before all the stimulus money became available. Perhaps now when more equipment becomes available they can began through cars from NOL. Like I said before a through sleeper from NOL will take five more cars and a through coach at least three more. When you add up the equipment pool there may be one spare sleeper and one spare coach. Even more critical is locomotives. The trains will have to be single engine to SAS. They might have enough to put on two west of SAS. If necessary they could add a coach and sleeper in SAS during peak periods. But, we will have to wait and see just how Amtrak actually handles all this. It will be interesting to say the least. Going daily is the key. This is a huge step for the Sunset route and for Amtrak. As for Florida, well who knows what happens over there. Those people want corridor day trains. They don't give a hoot about the Sunset because it served all those little towns at night.


----------



## Montanan (Dec 13, 2009)

One thing I wonder is if the railfans are jumping the gun again ... after all, the board only authorized Amtrak to enter into negotiations with Union Pacific on the proposal. UP is notorious for their dislike of Amtrak, so it's probably likely that they're going to play hardball on this. I can see them demanding an insane amount of track improvements in exchange for the added frequency, causing Amtrak to back down.

At any rate, if Amtrak is just beginning to talk with UP now, even if UP cooperates it would be a challenge to get everything sorted out in time for the next timetable change.


----------



## Montanan (Dec 13, 2009)

Oh, and my proverbial two cents on train names.

If I were the timetable king of Amtrak, I'd give the _Sunset_ name to the daily Chicago-LA train, and name the stub train _The Argonaut_ ... which was the name of the secondary train on the Sunset Route back in Southern Pacific days. It's a cool name, I think, and it would fit for the stub train.

Overall, I really like the legacy of the classic train names ... and the names Amtrak has constructed over the years just don't compare. In particular, I never liked the "hybrid" names, where Amtrak constructed its own names using phrases from the great historic names. They just seem awkward and forced to me: _San Francisco Zephyr, North Coast Hiawatha ... Texas Eagle._

And though I can't find it now, I know I read it somewhere: I'm pretty sure that back in the 1890s (before the Golden State Route was completed) the _Sunset LImited_ actually had a section that ran to Chicago!


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Alternatively, the sane concept that not many people along its route have much interest in trains compared to the EB, which is a major transportation option in its location, and it will just cost more money to operate and become an even bigger money losing disaster, a poster child for Amtrak mismanagement.


If Amtrak had a survey that proved that, then I might be willing to accept it. But I rather doubt that would be true. History shows us in fact that it wouldn't be true, especially for Texas. When the Eagle went from 3 to 4 days, ridership went up. When the Eagle went from 4 to day 7 days, ridership soared.

And then there is the fact that despite having lost all that ridership east of NOL, that the remains of the Sunset has managed to surge back on ridership.



Green Maned Lion said:


> As a transit advocate, I'll tell you this is more attractive and more workable. The concept of one seat ride becomes less and less important as the length of the ride increases. Keep in mind that the Cardinal serving New York was competing with a single seat ride that took, ahem, TEN HOURS LESS then that two-seat Cardinal ride. I'd say the increase in ridership has to do with it having a lower bucket coach price and people just going with the cheaper train.


The Cardinal is not a cheaper ride than the LSL. I just pulled up the date of Feb 24th and both the Card & the LSL are selling at $84 for a coach seat. That's low bucket for NY to CHI.

So no, the Cardinal's surge in ridership isn't because it's cheaper and it's certainly not because it takes 10 hours longer. It's because people want one seat rides.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Your railfan mind is gumming at the perspective of losing the Sunset Limited. Working-transit wise, the Golden State Limited and Texas Sunrise plan works better, period.


I'm not a historian of RR's past and present, while I do find it interesting to hear about things (especially from Bill Haithcoat's near encyclopedia mind), my thing is to get out and ride trains. That's what I like to do. I couldn't care if they called the Sunset Limited the Sunset Limited, the George HW Bush, the Money Pit, or just plain Train #1 & Train #2. The Sunset's history means nothing to me. Numbers are what's important to me and so far I've not seen any numbers period, much less any numbers that show that this might actually be good for both Amtrak and the states affected.

We've studied several other possible trains, including the return east of the Sunset, and these projects aren't being rushed. In fact some actually acuse Amtrak of deliberately dragging its feet and coming up with unrealistic numbers because they don't want to restore those trains. So why are we rushing this and without a study?


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

henryj said:


> LOL, this just doesn't compute. How are they cutting out one night? The schedule is the same both ways. Between NOL and SAS there is no night. That night is spent sitting in SAS going nowhere.


Henry, when I just rode the Sunset from NOL to LAX this past July, I was sound asleep in my room about 2 hours out of Houston, as were the other OTOL'ers. Under the new plan, there would be no sleeper for us and Amtrak would have lost that revenue. Revenue that we know to be substantial.



henryj said:


> Additionally the Sunsets sleeper sits in New Orleans for three days before returning and earns nothing. Now these cars will be utilized daily and earn revenue daily. By going daily sleeper space will more than double on the route as will coach seats.


I wouldn't argue this, except to say that it would be better to utilize them daily on the Sunset route.



henryj said:


> The reason for the coach only trains east of SAS is because they were told they could go daily only if they did not require any additional equipment. This was the only combination they could come up with that met that criteria. And all this planning started before all the stimulus money became available.


This idea was first floated, at least publicly, after the Stimulus plans had been announced. And I still haven't seen anything that says that they aren't getting some of the Stimulus cars to do this. In fact, while I haven't had the time to go looking, I remain convinced that I saw something that did indeed indicate that they were getting a few Stimulus cars in order to make this happen.



henryj said:


> Even more critical is locomotives. The trains will have to be single engine to SAS. They might have enough to put on two west of SAS. If necessary they could add a coach and sleeper in SAS during peak periods.


Engines aren't a problem. Amtrak has 15 P40's coming back on line, and they could take still more out of mothballs if needed.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

Montanan said:


> One thing I wonder is if the railfans are jumping the gun again ... after all, the board only authorized Amtrak to enter into negotiations with Union Pacific on the proposal. UP is notorious for their dislike of Amtrak, so it's probably likely that they're going to play hardball on this. I can see them demanding an insane amount of track improvements in exchange for the added frequency, causing Amtrak to back down.
> At any rate, if Amtrak is just beginning to talk with UP now, even if UP cooperates it would be a challenge to get everything sorted out in time for the next timetable change.


I don't believe that UP is in that strong of a bargaining position. No matter what they have to do PTC on the Sunset route anyhow. They're already double tracking because even without Amtrak, they're choking on that line. And finally, I believe that they are only able to demand that Amtrak pay for improvements when Amtrak is starting service on a line that wasn't grandfathered in on Amtrak Day 1 and hasn't seen service discontinued since.

UP could still drag its feet and delay things, but they can only go so far before Amtrak hauls them into a challenge.


----------



## Neil_M (Dec 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> I couldn't care if they called the Sunset Limited the Sunset Limited, the George HW Bush, the Money Pit, or just plain Train #1 & Train #2. The Sunset's history means nothing to me. Numbers are what's important to me and so far I've not seen any numbers period, much less any numbers that show that this might actually be good for both Amtrak and the states affected.


Indeed. Just don't get the hang up with the past, yes the history of a lot of this kind of thing is interesting, but you have to do what works now, rather than what has gone on in the past. Daily service must be the thing here, 3 times a week is as near as useless and a waste of resources. What you call the train is of little or no interest to 99.99999% of the people who might actually use it.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 13, 2009)

Never knew we had so many Accountants (beancounters)on this forum! Guess when we get older things from the past mean more, but I don't understand the thinking that train names don't mean anything! Back in the day the crack/deluxe trains had grand names (The Broadway Ltd./Twenty Century Ltd./City of San Francisco/Sunset Ltd.!

Various Zephyers/The National Ltd. (a great name!). The milk runs and lesser trains were #6/#8/#12

If the Orient Express had been called #3 or the Old Pantegonian Express had been #12 would it be the same? No way Jose!Even the numbering system on the Acelas reminds me of selling a used car or an inventory number! The City of New York/The Boston Express/The Washingtonian etc. would mean something IMHO!

I'll grant you that the important thing is to get and keep the trains running daily on as good a schedule as possible!

Let us old timers (Bill are you and I the only ones on this side?I'd think that Tom and a few others that I've read/seen old timey pics and posts from would agree!) IMHO it does matter to people that take LD train trips what the train is named/called! The City of New Orleans/The Empire Builder/Coastal Starlight etc. mean a lot more than #10/#202 to people taking vacations and dream trips and especially first time riders! Most LD trains have lots of retired and Senior people on them and in my experience they do care!


----------



## Neil_M (Dec 13, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> Never knew we had so many Accountants (beancounters)on this forum! Guess when we get older things from the past mean more, but I don't understand the thinking that train names don't mean anything! Back in the day the crack/deluxe trains had grand names (The Broadway Ltd./Twenty Century Ltd./City of San Francisco/Sunset Ltd.!Various Zephyers/The National Ltd. (a great name!). The milk runs and lesser trains were #6/#8/#12
> 
> If the Orient Express had been called #3 or the Old Pantegonian Express had been #12 would it be the same? No way Jose!Even the numbering system on the Acelas reminds me of selling a used car or an inventory number! The City of New York/The Boston Express/The Washingtonian etc. would mean something IMHO!
> 
> ...


Granted it is part of it, but do you think that someone who is going to pay up to $1200ish for a bedroom on the CZ does so because the train name is nice? Or someone who is 14 hours late on the CZ at the moment is really pleased that even though he has missed the appointment/wedding/funeral he was going to, at least he is 14 hours late on the Zephyr, not just boring old train number 5? I suspect it is only foamers that get really worked up over train names, the other passengers just don't care much.


----------



## Montanan (Dec 13, 2009)

Historic train names certainly matter far more to us than the average traveler ... but there's also no doubt that an evocative train name is a good marketing tool. Get on pretty much any long-distance Amtrak train and start talking to passengers, and they're all going to know the train name, but relatively few will know the train number.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Dec 13, 2009)

Montanan said:


> Oh, and my proverbial two cents on train names.
> If I were the timetable king of Amtrak, I'd give the _Sunset_ name to the daily Chicago-LA train, and name the stub train _The Argonaut_ ... which was the name of the secondary train on the Sunset Route back in Southern Pacific days. It's a cool name, I think, and it would fit for the stub train.
> 
> Overall, I really like the legacy of the classic train names ... and the names Amtrak has constructed over the years just don't compare. In particular, I never liked the "hybrid" names, where Amtrak constructed its own names using phrases from the great historic names. They just seem awkward and forced to me: _San Francisco Zephyr, North Coast Hiawatha ... Texas Eagle._
> ...


 The Texas Eagle was a premier Missouri Pacific/Texas and Pacific train from 1948 through 1971. It originally ran in two sections from St. Louis via Little Rock and Texarkana with one section going to Palestine, Austin and San Antonio and Houston and the second section following the same route until Longview Texas where it diverage west to Dallas, Fort Worth and El Paso. For much of its time, it carried through cars from New York and Washington to Texas points and through cars from Dallas to Los Angeles via the Sunset Route. It also had a Memphis section that was added or detached at Little Rock with through cars to Texas points. I lived in or traveled to and from Hot Springs Arkansas in the 1950s and 1960s. Between 11PM and 2:30AM Little Rock Union Station was a busy place with the arrivals and departures of the various sections of the Texas Eagles. Until the early 1960s, MoPac also ran the Sunshine Special which was downgraded in 1948 when the New Texas Eagles arrived. The Sunshine Special ran on a slower schedule with more stops and more sections from other trains operating in it such as the St. Louis-Hot Springs section which was cut out at Little Rock, the El Dorado section which was cut out at Gurdon, Ar and the Shreveport section what was cut out at Hope, AR. The thing I remember most about the Texas Eagle was the northbound run from Little Rock to St. Louis leaving Little Rock at 2:05AM with a brief stop at Poplar Bluff and then stopping at Tower Grove Station in St. Louis at 8:05AM...it then took 30 min to get into St Louis Union Station because of having to back in. But the train really flew averaging over 58 miles an hour from Little Rock to Tower Grove and thats the same route Amtrak's Texas Eagle uses today.


----------



## BlakeTyner (Dec 13, 2009)

Montanan said:


> Overall, I really like the legacy of the classic train names ... and the names Amtrak has constructed over the years just don't compare. In particular, I never liked the "hybrid" names, where Amtrak constructed its own names using phrases from the great historic names. They just seem awkward and forced to me: _San Francisco Zephyr, North Coast Hiawatha ... Texas Eagle._


Texas Eagle isn't an Amtrak constructed name; it's a legacy name from the Missouri Pacific. Now it's not as old as the name Sunset Limited, having debuted in the late 40's IIRC, but it is a legacy name.

As for what the services will be called, I'd have to point out the obvious--the "TE" in TEMPO. It's been acknowledged here and elsewhere that the group has a good bit of pull, and I assume that they will lobby hard to keep the Texas Eagle name intact. I personally wouldn't mind if the name of the train switched in SAS, with service west being the SSL and service north being the TE, but I don't think that's even been proposed (and it would be a little odd for a train to switch names in the middle of the route) but, outside of restoring the pre-Katrina SSL, that seems to be the thing that would appease the most people--you'd get the upgrade in service frequency along the SSL route and you'd keep the name intact.

At the end of the day, I do think that the Amtrak higher-ups would like to just sweep the SSL into the dustbin of history; that hasn't been said to me personally or announced anywhere, but the writing's on the wall.

The pink elephant in the room is that the new plan (Daily Texas Eagle to LA) seems to be fragmenting some of the advocacy groups: for TEMPO and those of us along the Eagle route, the change is extremely good for us. For SMART, it's bad. For the folks between NOL and SAS, it's somewhere in the middle--daily service but coach only. I haven't been involved in this advocacy thing for very long, but it doesn't take very long to get a good idea of the politics and the egos and the personalities (and, to be clear, I'm not referring to anyone here at this board.) The end result is similar to when Ross Perot entered the presidential race in the early 90's: you split the vote, so to speak. There isn't one united group of people standing up for the SSL--rather, there are several splinter groups with their own agendas, juxtaposed against one group that has operated quite well for about a decade and that benefits from the new plan.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2009)

This is what I am sure will happen. Between Little Rock and San Antonio, all sleepers will be full going west of SAS. This leaves nothing for

riders on the NOL-SAS. I think coach also will be extremely limited or sold out. We are talking the second largest state and one of the fastest growing

states all trying to squeeze onto 1 LD train. Houston, Dallas, Fort worth, Austin, New Orleans, Little Rock, San Antonio, and towns in between trying

to ride west of SAS. Why stop in El paso unless a good number of passengers get off there. For Example if only 3 passengers get off in El Paso, then only 3

passengers can get on. The number of riders in El Paso will drop and Green can say El Paso has no interest in rail passenger service.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Dec 13, 2009)

This is just a blanket post not directed at anybody in particular. Just sharing my two cents.

I don't think that the SMART group is anti-Western SL. Some group members in the organization are indifferent as to what happens with the NOL-LAX portion of the route because it doesn't really affect them (the Florida members mostly), but that doesn't mean they want to see the train picked apart...as is, apparently, what's happening now. Obviously this is a blow to all involved in the process of getting the FLA service restored. I would have rather seen a full, LAX-ORL tri weekly Sunset over a daily Sunset/Eagle with a stub train to NOL. This new Eagle/Sunset deal, in my view, lessens the chance of NOL-ORL service ever happening, as now the best option seems to be extending the City of New Orleans. New equipment will have to be added for that to happen, IIRC....new equipment didn't have to be added if 1/2 went back to their old schedule. Good for TEMPO for getting things done but don't think the folks in SMART didn't try. Amtrak obviously decided which route segment they thought was more important.

As for the train name, I just hope the stub train isn't called the Texas Eagle. Better yet, if the name Sunset Limited has to go, they might as well get rid of the name Texas Eagle as well, and just call the whole thing "Golden State."

As much as I like daily service, I loathe the reduced quality in on board service for the cities in between NOL and SAS. I've been on this route many times over the past seven years and there's never a shortage of sleeper patronage.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 13, 2009)

Montanan said:


> Oh, and my proverbial two cents on train names.
> If I were the timetable king of Amtrak, I'd give the _Sunset_ name to the daily Chicago-LA train, and name the stub train _The Argonaut_ ... which was the name of the secondary train on the Sunset Route back in Southern Pacific days. It's a cool name, I think, and it would fit for the stub train.
> 
> Overall, I really like the legacy of the classic train names ... and the names Amtrak has constructed over the years just don't compare. In particular, I never liked the "hybrid" names, where Amtrak constructed its own names using phrases from the great historic names. They just seem awkward and forced to me: _San Francisco Zephyr, North Coast Hiawatha ... Texas Eagle._
> ...


The Sunset Limited was the poster child, and is the poster child, for how much money Amtrak can lose. Marketing to passengers isn't important. Its telling congress that they are discontinuing a money losing joke, and reconfiguring the whole set up so that it serves the same riders more frequently at lower cost. Amtrak has two customers- the public and congress. This is a marketing plan aimed at congress.

What Alan is saying is inaccurate. The convenience of no transfer made the Cardinal a more attractive option then it was relative to the Lake Shore Limited. If there were two trains serving NOL-LAX, one running through and one requiring a transfer, Alan would have a point and I'd concede it. But there isn't. There is but one train, and you can't get NOL-LAX with a one seat ride except by airplane. Greyhound does not offer a one seat ride, so there is no competition. Except the airlines. And if people were looking for fast, simple, service the airlines would have their business whether the train is one seat or two seats.

Lastly, I have it from very solid sources that there are currently five trains involved in this equation- Sunset East, Sunset West, the Texas Eagle, and the City of New Orleans. At the end of the day, you will have three trains involved in the equation. The tentative names I have heard are _Golden State Limited_ (CHI-SAS-LAX), _Texas Sunrise_ (NOL-SAS) and _City of Miami_ (CHI-NOL-MIA). All will run daily, and can be run tightly with no additional equipment whatsoever. Plans call for an additional trainset to make the run more comfortable and allow for better scheduling when the whole thing comes online.

Also keep in mind the accounting differences here. You are creating three separate entities long the route. The City is already a decently performing train, and internal thoughts within Amtrak are that its performance will be hurt a little- but not much- by the extension. The Texas Eagle is one of the better performing trains in the system, thanks in no small part to TEMPO. The section of the Sunset's run from SAS to LAX has always been the best performing segment of the route, so the change is supposed to actually improve the performance of the CHI-SAS-LAX train.

The Texas Sunrise is expected to be a money pit. But its a short, 573 mile money pit requiring only 2 conductors, 2 coach attendants, a chef, and an LSA, with coaches, money adding business class, and a cross country cafe. So even though it will have a bad fare box recovery, its cost per passenger should be much much smaller then the Sunsets, perhaps even under $150 a passenger.

Yes, the same money is going to likely be spent. Yes, the financial performance is not going to be hugely better- although there are some that disagree. But the fact is, the Sunsets $600+ a passenger loss will be a thing of the past. Because that loss will be spread over the three trains, two of them good performers, the losses will not be attributable to one single train. Word is there is pressure to simply discontinue the train altogether.

I also have it on the same solid sources that this is not a done deal. The source indicated the chances are about 50% that this will come to pass within the next 2-3 years. The Sunset dying is very important to Amtrak for the reasons I stated.



Neil_M said:


> Granted it is part of it, but do you think that someone who is going to pay up to $1200ish for a bedroom on the CZ does so because the train name is nice? Or someone who is 14 hours late on the CZ at the moment is really pleased that even though he has missed the appointment/wedding/funeral he was going to, at least he is 14 hours late on the Zephyr, not just boring old train number 5? I suspect it is only foamers that get really worked up over train names, the other passengers just don't care much.


Do you remember when Jaguar was at its absolute worst, under British Leyland ownership, when the Jaguar plant in Coventry was referred to as "Large Car Plant 2"? (Rover being LCP1) The workers turned out crap, and why shouldn't they? They had no pride in working for a great car company producing stunning automobiles- they were working for a large, mostly government owned conglomerate with no sense of identity.

Naming the trains gives them an identity. Perhaps not as much for the riders as the workers that serve them. It gives the company a sense of pride, the workers a sense of pride. It gives the trains an identity. I think if you took away the names, slowly service standards would decline and ridership would go with it.

Assuming the name created, though, is nice sounding it shouldn't have much effect beyond that.


----------



## Montanan (Dec 13, 2009)

Apologies for the _Texas Eagle_ gaffe ... that of course was the historic name. When I typed that I was thinking of a train just called _The Eagle,_ which I guess was an earlier St. Louis - Kansas City train.

But I still think the name needs to go.  It would be weird to have a train named after a midpoint location on its route ... kind of like having a Chicago-Emeryville train named the _Colorado Zephyr,_ or a Chicago - New Orleans run named the _City of Carbondale._

As for the various rail passenger advocacy groups, it would be interesting to know just how much influence any of them have on Amtrak in general, or on this decision in particular. My guess is, "not very much" -- at least not as much as they would like to think they do. Of course, there's no way to know for sure.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 13, 2009)

Some do, some don't. NARP is a paid Amtrak consultant, for one thing. It also depends on who is running it. Boardman is never a person to ignore a good suggestion. If a group came up with a good one, I doubt he wouldn't at least look into the idea. It also depends on the magnitude. If a group suggests, for instance, offering hot chocolate in the dining car it has a higher chance of being implemented then if they are asking for a train from Denver to El Paso when they live in El Paso and their parents live in Denver.


----------



## wayman (Dec 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Naming the trains gives them an identity. Perhaps not as much for the riders as the workers that serve them. It gives the company a sense of pride, the workers a sense of pride. It gives the trains an identity. I think if you took away the names, slowly service standards would decline and ridership would go with it.


And as a positive example, I'll point to the Crescent, which has recently had a lot of identity-strengthening: its own menus, dining car crews wearing Crescent-logo'd aprons and hats, Crescent-specific merchandise available in the cafe car. And the crews I've had over the past few months have really had a sense of pride in working on _the Crescent_, a sense of appreciation to Amtrak for giving their train that extra panache -- even if it doesn't come along with "service or amenity improvements" like the china on the Empire Builder -- and in turn, the crew have expressed and demonstrated a desire to provide passengers a better experience. Something as simple as brand-building has had some big positive effects which probably translate to increased customer satisfaction and ultimately, hopefully, through word of mouth advertising from satisfied passengers it may translate to increased revenue for relatively little financial investment.

But I agree with GML: ditch the name _Sunset_. There are other great legacy train names to draw from, and they don't have the tremendous negative baggage that Sunset carries with Congress. If you're changing the route and scheduling logistics, there's no better time to change the name to highlight and underscore those changes. Even if those changes are sort of accomplished through shuffling things around without necessarily changing the bottom-line finances. Heck, especially in that case. And then use the new name(s) heavily, tout their history, and tout their future, to create the sort of success that Amtrak has built from re-emphasizing the name _Crescent_.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Dec 13, 2009)

jphjaxfl said:


> Montanan said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and my proverbial two cents on train names.
> ...



I really enjoyed reading the above info. Only two things I would add to it. One, at times there was a through sleeper from STL to Mexico City; at other times it ran CHI to Mexico City. I also got a kick out of the silver slumbercoach (on a train largely blue) than ran from Baltimore to San Antone. Somehow that always seemed an odd city pair to me.

As to the present use of names, that leaves me in a complete quandry since I know and love most of the names. It was said it did not matter what it was called if it got you there too late to attend the wedding or funeral or whatever it was. No denying that. What you would call it then would not be printable, understood.

Many years ago my sister lived in Dallas so I, going from Chattanooga to Dallas via Memphis several times got quite familiar with the pre Amtrak TE. Once I came back via ST.Louis so I know what you are talking about about that long stretch without a stop. My mother and sister got familiar with it,too. It became a household name as each of us had neat experiences.

Then the Golden State Limited was a fine train. I just regret that I never even saw it, much less rode it.The secondary train on its route was the Imperial.

And you cannot deny the long years we have had the Sunset Limited name. What to do?? What to do??

I am glad that Amtrak has been reasonably faithful to retain the old train names. Yeah, I know, I did not care for San Francisco Zephyr either, for example.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 13, 2009)

I continue to be amazed that so many people have such strong feelings about "our" trains! It's a good sign to me, and I would hope,to others down this way! Although it's apparent I personaly have a sentimental reason for wanting to keep the Sunset name, it does'nt matter really, as long as the daily trains start and are properly scheduled. We all know politics is everything in WAS, but if the Cardinal can run, and the NEC favortism can continue, why not give the sunbelt/south some long needed help where the most growth has and will continue to be!

I think the new CHI-LAX train could/should be called "The City of Los Angeles", but that's just me, I like the City names.

The marketing of trains IS important, and the pride of the crew and passengers can't be dismissed, there's a reason the CS and the EB are held in high esteem by the riders and the crews!

Call the stub trains whatever you want, I don't like the Sunshine name, that should be used in Florida where someone said it's a great place to live if your'e an orange! :lol:

And GML, if you are correct, and I suspect you are in this case, thanks for the info! The names not everything but I still don't want to see "Ride #14 from LAX-SEA" or "Take #7 from CHI-SEA", hope this clarifies my thoughts, I don't want to offend any train lovers, the more the better and "to each his own" as Bob Dylan said!


----------



## wayman (Dec 13, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> The names not everything but I still don't want to see "Ride #14 from LAX-SEA" or "Take #7 from CHI-SEA",


And I certainly don't want to ride #97 from LYH-DAN!


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

Montanan said:


> Historic train names certainly matter far more to us than the average traveler ... but there's also no doubt that an evocative train name is a good marketing tool. Get on pretty much any long-distance Amtrak train and start talking to passengers, and they're all going to know the train name, but relatively few will know the train number.


Actually I've not found that to be true. Even here on the board over the years I've said to a first timer "get on "insert name here" train and ride it to XYZ." Only to have them come back and ask what train number is that?

You can't book the train by name, unless you're talking with an agent. No place on the ticket does the train's name appear. And VIA Rail after extensive studies and surveys, just eliminated all train names save one, the Canadian. VIA found that most people either didn't know the train's name or didn't care about it and used the train's number.

Even Amtrak has eliminated all named trains within its NEC service because people didn't use them.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

BlakeTyner said:


> As for what the services will be called, I'd have to point out the obvious--the "TE" in TEMPO. It's been acknowledged here and elsewhere that the group has a good bit of pull, and I assume that they will lobby hard to keep the Texas Eagle name intact.


Blake,

I wouldn't argue TEMPO's power or its success in Texas and with the Texas Eagle. But let's not forget that Amtrak choose to annouce this plan to the group in California that suggested it and has been pushing for daily service on the Cali section of the Sunset for years.

Amtrak didn't come to TEMPO or even Texas to announce this.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 13, 2009)

Still I'd think the name is good for marketing--


----------



## henryj (Dec 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Under the new plan, there would be no sleeper for us and Amtrak would have lost that revenue. Revenue that we know to be substantial.


Alan you keep saying this. It's just not factual. The current Sunset sleepers(four sets) sit around in New Orleans three days before they return doing nothing and earning no revenue. When this train goes daily, all the sleepers in the pool(I believe that will be around 9 or 10) will be busy all the time earning revenue except on each end when they are turned and serviced. There is no slack in the schedule like there is now. The SAS to NOL trains will offer business class. The schedule for them is 8am departure and 10pm arrival at the other end. No overnight. They will pass through Houston around noon eastbound and 5pm westbound. I don't know why you have to have your sleeper on this daylight section, but I'll talk to Boardman and see what I can do for you. lol.


----------



## Montanan (Dec 13, 2009)

I definitely agree that there's no real reason to name individual trains running in corridors that have more than a couple of daily services, with the same equipment and endpoints ... but any advertising guy will tell you that branding is extremely important, and Amtrak definitely recognizes that for its long distance services. Those handsome travel posters Amtrak has produced for its western routes wouldn't be anywhere near as cool (or effective) if, for example, they said "trains 7 and 8" instead of "Empire Builder."

In Canada, VIA also kept the "Ocean" train name, at least recognizing that the system's two most historic names are valuable marketing tools. VIA's other longer-distance services are very different from the Amtrak model, in that they are legally required to operate in order to serve isolated communities. So there's no competition between travel modes there, and though they have some seasonal tourist traffic in general they attract a different sort of traveler. Consequently, most of the VIA names on those trains never really caught on, and the routes are largely ones where the pre-VIA trains were never named.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> What Alan is saying is inaccurate. The convenience of no transfer made the Cardinal a more attractive option then it was relative to the Lake Shore Limited. If there were two trains serving NOL-LAX, one running through and one requiring a transfer, Alan would have a point and I'd concede it. But there isn't. There is but one train, and you can't get NOL-LAX with a one seat ride except by airplane. Greyhound does not offer a one seat ride, so there is no competition. Except the airlines. And if people were looking for fast, simple, service the airlines would have their business whether the train is one seat or two seats.


No, what I'm saying is quite accurate. You're making the mistake of assuming that all of the Cardinal's increased passenger load is coming from NYP. It's not. It's coming from Newark, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore. That same one seat ride concept is why NARP and other's have been pushing for years to get a Silver train extended to Boston. It's also why ridership just went back up on the Boston section of the LSL, since they resumed through service.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Lastly, I have it from very solid sources that there are currently five trains involved in this equation- Sunset East, Sunset West, the Texas Eagle, and the City of New Orleans.


Not trying to be a pain here, but I only count 4 trains. Where's the fifth? And frankly I don't see the Sunset as two trains, but I won't argue that.

At the end of the day, you will have three trains involved in the equation. The tentative names I have heard are _Golden State Limited_ (CHI-SAS-LAX), _Texas Sunrise_ (NOL-SAS) and _City of Miami_ (CHI-NOL-MIA). All will run daily, and can be run tightly with no additional equipment whatsoever. Plans call for an additional trainset to make the run more comfortable and allow for better scheduling when the whole thing comes online.



Green Maned Lion said:


> The City is already a decently performing train, and internal thoughts within Amtrak are that its performance will be hurt a little- but not much- by the extension.


The City is one of Amtrak's worst performing trains, ahead of only the Cardinal, the Palmetto, and the Sunset; both in terms of passenger counts and revenue. In terms of sleeper revenue, it outranks only the Cardinal.



Green Maned Lion said:


> The section of the Sunset's run from SAS to LAX has always been the best performing segment of the route, so the change is supposed to actually improve the performance of the CHI-SAS-LAX train.


Actually some groups have claimed that the best performing segment was Orlando to New Orleans. And the initial drop in revenue from just over $11 million pre-Katrina to just over $5 million post Katrina would seem to confirm that. Remember that for over 6 months, the Sunset terminated in San Antonio.



Green Maned Lion said:


> The Texas Sunrise is expected to be a money pit. But its a short, 573 mile money pit requiring only 2 conductors, 2 coach attendants, a chef, and an LSA, with coaches, money adding business class, and a cross country cafe. So even though it will have a bad fare box recovery, its cost per passenger should be much much smaller then the Sunsets, perhaps even under $150 a passenger.


Amtrak can't run a CCC with just an LSA and a cook.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Yes, the same money is going to likely be spent. Yes, the financial performance is not going to be hugely better- although there are some that disagree. But the fact is, the Sunsets $600+ a passenger loss will be a thing of the past. Because that loss will be spread over the three trains, two of them good performers, the losses will not be attributable to one single train. Word is there is pressure to simply discontinue the train altogether.


The Sunset's per passenger loss is only $437, not $600.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Naming the trains gives them an identity. Perhaps not as much for the riders as the workers that serve them. It gives the company a sense of pride, the workers a sense of pride. It gives the trains an identity. I think if you took away the names, slowly service standards would decline and ridership would go with it.


VIA Rail disagrees with you, as do their studies and surveys, which is why they have eliminated all train names except for the Canadian.


----------



## henryj (Dec 13, 2009)

Guest said:


> This is what I am sure will happen. Between Little Rock and San Antonio, all sleepers will be full going west of SAS. This leaves nothing forriders on the NOL-SAS. I think coach also will be extremely limited or sold out. We are talking the second largest state and one of the fastest growing
> 
> states all trying to squeeze onto 1 LD train. Houston, Dallas, Fort worth, Austin, New Orleans, Little Rock, San Antonio, and towns in between trying
> 
> ...


Again people are missing the idea of daily service. Running the train daily more than doubles capacity. So if the three times a week sleepers are full now you will have four more options each week than you do now. People get on and get off the train all along the route. I feel sure there will be seats for the SAS east passengers. There are also a couple of extra coaches and sleepers in the pool that could be added between SAS and LAX durning peak periods. With all the repairs going on and with TEMPO marketing the train, if the demand is there they will somehow find the equipment. They want this train to succeed. As we discussed elsewhere on here, there are sleepers and coaches laying over in SAS with the current schedule so I don't see any problem adding and dropping them off there in the future.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Dec 13, 2009)

wayman said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > The names not everything but I still don't want to see "Ride #14 from LAX-SEA" or "Take #7 from CHI-SEA",
> ...



I "get it".

I should get it.. My mother sang it to me enough times.

When so much much later in life mother was able to be taken from ATL to NYC and back, her only trip to the big city, I reminded her of this. She was in the early stages of Parkinsons and losing her speech. But if she had been physically able, she would have sung that song all night.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

By the way, while dumping the Sunset Limited name would get rid of that black eye as it were for Amtrak, one of two things will happen. Either the new stub train will do so poorly as to take it's place or the Cardinal will take over as the hated train. The anti-Amtrak/anti-rail crowd will simply transfer their hate to whatever train is the worst performer. Changing the name won't solve the problem, it just transfers it elsewhere.


----------



## henryj (Dec 13, 2009)

Montanan said:


> Oh, and my proverbial two cents on train names.
> If I were the timetable king of Amtrak, I'd give the _Sunset_ name to the daily Chicago-LA train, and name the stub train _The Argonaut_ ... which was the name of the secondary train on the Sunset Route back in Southern Pacific days. It's a cool name, I think, and it would fit for the stub train.


Other historic trains on the route between SAS and NOL were the Alamo and the Acadian. The Argonaut was the secondary train between LAX and NOL. I actually kind of like the Alamo myself. What train number do you think they will use??? The Argonaut was 5&6 the Alamo was 7&8 and the Acadian was 3&4 but so was the Golden State. Will they keep 1&2 for the LAX to Chi train or use 21&22? I just hope this all comes off as planned. It's going to be interesting.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Dec 13, 2009)

If anybody wanders what the above is about, it refers to the song about of the wreck of old 97 between Lynchburg and Danville. A true life event.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 13, 2009)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Under the new plan, there would be no sleeper for us and Amtrak would have lost that revenue. Revenue that we know to be substantial.
> ...


Henry,

I'm sorry but it is true. If there had been no sleeper in NOL when the OTOL group boarded, Amtrak would have only earned coach fare from our group for that first day/night out of NOL. Instead they earned sleeper revenue for 1 bedroom and 5 roomettes, plus rail fare for 9 people for that first day/night.

While I wouldn't argue that it is possible that Amtrak may well be able to make up that loss by now having the equipment that does sit in NOL in service on the new "Eagle", that does nothing to help the new stub train's revenue. It may help Amtrak's bottom line, but it doesn't help the stubie's revenue numbers. And it's those numbers that will make or break that train and quite possibly cause what I fear to happen, that they ask Texas to pay for this train in the future.

And then there remains the question of, just how much better would the Sunset be doing if they just threw this current plan out the window and figured out how to get the Sunset to run daily NOL to LAX. It has to be possible to do this with all the wreck repairs coming out of BG. Remember that the Cardinal used to be Superliner, so that "extra" equipment has to be somewhere. That, plus the wrecks, plus the wasted nights in NOL has to be enough to go daily.

I don't believe that the current plan is indeed the best plan, although I'll be more than willing to admit that I'm wrong if things work out that way. But I'm betting that if this were being properly studied, that not only is it possible to get the Sunset to run daily, but that it would be better for Amtrak in terms of revenue to do so.

Which is why my big problems with all this remains, why is Amtrak doing this without any studies or surveys? And why are they rushing to do this?


----------



## henryj (Dec 13, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> If anybody wanders what the above is about, it refers to the song about of the wreck of old 97 between Lynchburg and Danville. A true life event.


"he was going down the grade makin 90 miles and hour when his whistle broke into a scream"


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Dec 13, 2009)

I wonder if there is not a generation gap as to how important the train name is. Older times there were more trains and a greater percentage of people rode the trains. Perhaps there was more interest back then, comparing one train wth another, etc.

Today's travelers have never known anything but numbers, so why should the train be any different?


----------



## Neil_M (Dec 13, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> I wonder if there is not a generation gap as to how important the train name is. Older times there were more trains and a greater percentage of people rode the trains. Perhaps there was more interest back then, comparing one train wth another, etc.
> Today's travelers have never known anything but numbers, so why should the train be any different?


Maybe it meant something back in the day when all the trains were different in what they offered, either facilities or a faster journey, but these days it is essentially all the same so apart from a spot of marketing there is no real difference to the travelling public.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 13, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> I wonder if there is not a generation gap as to how important the train name is. Older times there were more trains and a greater percentage of people rode the trains. Perhaps there was more interest back then, comparing one train wth another, etc.
> Today's travelers have never known anything but numbers, so why should the train be any different?


The only advantage to names I can see is if you have multiple trains to/from the same terminals-- when somebody asks me about the train from New York to Chicago comparing the Lake Shore Limited to the Cardinal is a lot easier than taking about the difference between 48/49 and 50/51... But since there are few LD trains that have the same terminals-- it makes it just another marketing spec.


----------



## Montanan (Dec 13, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> I wonder if there is not a generation gap as to how important the train name is. Older times there were more trains and a greater percentage of people rode the trains. Perhaps there was more interest back then, comparing one train wth another, etc.
> Today's travelers have never known anything but numbers, so why should the train be any different?


That might be some of it, but I think i depends more on what is being marketed. If you're primarily just marketing transportation -- like in a short-haul corridor -- than a number will suffice, but to get people on longer-haul trains (especially at premium fares), you need to market an _experience._ And that's where the train name comes into play. This explains why most busses don't have names, but cruise ships do.


----------



## wayman (Dec 13, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> If anybody wanders what the above is about, it refers to the song about of the wreck of old 97 between Lynchburg and Danville. A true life event.


I wonder if I'm the youngest person on this forum to have grown up listening to that song over and over and over again ... played on a _record_. Most of my childhood music was on cassette tapes, including several tapes of railroad songs, but I distinctly remember "The Wreck of the Old 97" was on a 45 record, bought at the old Roanoke Transportation Museum. Happy memories


----------



## varnish (Dec 13, 2009)

Hi,

Throughout all the ''dialogue'' I've read through ( very informative ) , I've not yet seen if there is, as part of the overall proposal AMK & UP are going to discuss, a proposed schedule NewOrleans-SanAntonio both ways.....I prsume it'll be a daytime operations based on a slightly ''better '' 13-14 hours window, but does anybody knows if the actual scheduling has even been put forwards yet ?

Connected with that, I would imagine TE's running times L.A to SanAntonio wold be massively affected, like a 23;00hr departure from L.A and a ( very very) early arrival and slight layover in SanAntonio.....and how would the WB run be affected ? If the stubie from NOL is in town already by ~~ 22;00hr, surely #21 would then leave towards L.A much earlier than the present 05;40hr...what does that do to its arrival time in L.A. ??

Tks

Cheers

Claude


----------



## henryj (Dec 13, 2009)

varnish said:


> Hi,Throughout all the ''dialogue'' I've read through ( very informative ) , I've not yet seen if there is, as part of the overall proposal AMK & UP are going to discuss, a proposed schedule NewOrleans-SanAntonio both ways.....I prsume it'll be a daytime operations based on a slightly ''better '' 13-14 hours window, but does anybody knows if the actual scheduling has even been put forwards yet ?
> 
> Connected with that, I would imagine TE's running times L.A to SanAntonio wold be massively affected, like a 23;00hr departure from L.A and a ( very very) early arrival and slight layover in SanAntonio.....and how would the WB run be affected ? If the stubie from NOL is in town already by ~~ 22;00hr, surely #21 would then leave towards L.A much earlier than the present 05;40hr...what does that do to its arrival time in L.A. ??
> 
> ...


Claude, the coach trains are to leave each end at 8am and arrive at the other end at 10pm. The Eagle/Sunset eastbound will revert to the original schedule from before Katrina with a late evening departure from LAX and an early morning arrival in San Antonio. I assume they will retain something like 90 minutes to two hour layover there just as padding. Eastbound, with both trains arriving around 10pm they can leave whenever they want, but I would guess around midnight. They will have ample time to get to LAX even with an early morning arrival there. Probably something like 6:30am. That's all I have heard so far. Will be interesting to see how they work it out.


----------



## henryj (Dec 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...



Alan you are just talking about revenue on the coach train. I was saying that overall, the equipment from the two trains will earn more revenue that it does now with the current schedules. We are talking apples and oranges here. As for the rest, I don't know if it's the best plan or the worst plan or whatever. I don't think they just jumped into this without looking at the numbers. I don't see how the board could approve something without numbers. They just didn't show the study to you. I hope it comes to pass. Daily service trumps all as far as I am concerned. It's long overdue.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 13, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Actually some groups have claimed that the best performing segment was Orlando to New Orleans. And the initial drop in revenue from just over $11 million pre-Katrina to just over $5 million post Katrina would seem to confirm that. Remember that for over 6 months, the Sunset terminated in San Antonio.


Of course they would claim this. They are attempting to get its operation restored. What are they going to say? "Restore this section! ITS PERFORMANCE SUCKED!"

The loss in revenue is more than adequately explained by the loss in destinations combined with the fact that due to the devastation in the area there is less desire to be in the vicinity of New Orleans.



> Amtrak can't run a CCC with just an LSA and a cook.


And why not? They can't offer waited service with just an LSA and a cook, but this isn't a long distance train. It doesn't need waited service.



> The Sunset's per passenger loss is only $437, not $600.


The Sunset has historically lost $600+. This year it is doing better. Why are we even discussing these semantics?



> VIA Rail disagrees with you, as do their studies and surveys, which is why they have eliminated all train names except for the Canadian.


Via Rails studies were aimed at the importance of the name to the passenger. I conceded it isn't particularly important to the passenger. VIA did not direct it to worker pride. In any case, besides their ability to provide hilariously overpriced first class service on their flagship train, VIA is a ludicrously inefficient enterprise. Suggesting that any management activities of their operation be copied by anyone is quixotic.



> By the way, while dumping the Sunset Limited name would get rid of that black eye as it were for Amtrak, one of two things will happen. Either the new stub train will do so poorly as to take it's place or the Cardinal will take over as the hated train. The anti-Amtrak/anti-rail crowd will simply transfer their hate to whatever train is the worst performer. Changing the name won't solve the problem, it just transfers it elsewhere.


Good. Much as I like the scenery on the Cardinal, eliminating the last of Harley Staggers legacy to the world will be a good thing for Amtrak. They can allocate their resources to more productive things then a train that winds to heck and back in search of a city reached much faster otherwise.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> > By the way, while dumping the Sunset Limited name would get rid of that black eye as it were for Amtrak, one of two things will happen. Either the new stub train will do so poorly as to take it's place or the Cardinal will take over as the hated train. The anti-Amtrak/anti-rail crowd will simply transfer their hate to whatever train is the worst performer. Changing the name won't solve the problem, it just transfers it elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Good. Much as I like the scenery on the Cardinal, eliminating the last of Harley Staggers legacy to the world will be a good thing for Amtrak. They can allocate their resources to more productive things then a train that winds to heck and back in search of a city reached much faster otherwise.


GML this made me laugh out loud! I don't completely agree with you, as I think the Cardinal serves some great cities that need more service, but not necesarily the way the Cardinal delivers it (Cincinatti in the middle of the night for example). However the visual in my mind of this little amtrak train wandering around "in search of a city" is very funny.


----------



## EmployeeWithConnections (Dec 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


No "studies or surveys"?? I don't know if you're aware of this (one would hope you would be with all the interest you take in my employer), but there are reams of statistics concerning both current and historic ridership on all of Amtrak's routes. While Amtrak does enjoy getting community input from those who live along routes where changes are proposed, ultimately it comes down to the numbers. And a 3-car train would serve the current SAS-NOL portion adequately most of the year, at FAR less cost than the current consist. There would be only a (relatively) short overnight for the equipment each night in NOL, and during holidays - or should ridership increase substantially with the new plan - additional cars could easily be brought in. BTW, there are a couple of "possible" additions for the more distant future. Management has talked about extending either the CNO or the Crescent AS the stub train to SAS - an interesting concept, but one which would require more significant schedule changes, so that's a bit further down the line. Also under discussion - if CSX ever bends (and it will probably require the FRA to step in and enforce longstanding agreements) - is the idea of having the stub train continue on through to JAX; yet another idea they're toying with is to extend the CNO to JAX. Amtrak is not in the business of providing land cruises; they are in the business of providing transportation. Just like commercial airlines, some people are willing to pay for extra amenities, but especially given that Amtrak is constantly under the microscope of Congress regarding spending, there are many places where it simply does not warrant carrying passengers in sleeper accommodations. I have worked the SL from LAX-NOL many, many times. Yes, occasionally there can be several sleeper rooms occupied; but more often than not (and revenue statistics for the sleepers bear this out), there are nearly-empty sleeper cars that have to remain fully staffed all the way into NOL. It makes no financial sense, and complaining about the lack of premium services like that does nothing to offset the massive losses that such services incur. IF - and that's still only IF - they do run a train from SAS-JAX, then it is possible that the sleepers would return. But for a trip currently projected to take just about 12 hours, all within normal "daylight" hours (nothing before 6 a.m or after 10 p.m.), you will not be seeing sleeper cars.

You should actually rejoice that travel times between LAX-NOL will be reduced by something like 5-6 hours both directions! It makes for a much more attractive proposition for the average traveler. Going, for example, from ELP to NOL would suddenly become reasonable, when you've knocked almost 30 percent of the travel time off!! For that, most travelers are willing to go through this "massive inconvenience" (my quote only, based upon the histrionics I keep reading) of walking 8 feet across a train platform around breakfast time...you know, sort of like they do when taking the SWC east and trying to transfer to the St. Louis train at KCY...

More trains and quicker travel times are a GOOD thing. American Orient Express and its ilk are constantly going under for a REASON! Keep your eyes and ears - and mind - open in the coming months for lots of announcements regarding new services and new equipment (anybody heard of the Superliner 3's they're designing right now?). Many less-populated areas of the midwest and southeast, in particular, are about to get a lot more travel options.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 14, 2009)

> they are in the business of providing transportation.


Something they are currently* failing *to provide East of NOL by the way... for what, four years now?

Essential service. If Amtrak cannot provide essential service to an area of this country it doesn't deserve to exist.

Nobody is advocating land cruises. You cannot call a Superliner roomette a cruise. It is spartan, nice, but spartan. There is no luxury besides some damn good coffee. We are advocating the spread of essential service to taxpayers. That doesn't mean Amtrak has to serve every city in every state, but it does mean they can't turn a blind eye when the demand for service is clearly there.

Six million in revenue is nothing to thumb your nose at... and that's what Sunset East was bringing in--


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 14, 2009)

Very interesting if true! We've had other imposters post rumours and inside scoop before, if you really are an employee with connections it's very good news about the future trains and equipment! I'm one who agrees that sleepers aren't necessary for the SAS-NOL train! If the Crescent or CONO is extended to SAS that would be different since they both carry sleepers, I tend to doubt however that the Crescent would be run all the way but stranger things have happened!Same thing with the City, a stub train is almost certain IMHO!The City to Florida makes all the sense in the world it says here!

I continue to be amazed that so much interest is being expressed by so many people over our two little trains but glad that Amtrak is finally doing something! Keep us posted please, we're all eyes and ears! :unsure:


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


Henry,

Agreed.

But remember, that the revenue for that coach train will be scruitinized. And if it's too low, that train either goes away or Texas/Louisiana get asked to pay for it. And you'll recall my stating early on that this is what I'm afraid of. I see Amtrak hoping that maybe this does work out well, but betting that if it doesn't, that they'll then look at the states and say "pony up or the train goes bye-bye."

As for numbers, I'm sure that they have cost numbers and it probably does look better on paper than what they currently have. But I don't believe for one minute that anyone has studied what could happen or how to get the equipment needed to just go daily. And again, I don't think that there has even been a study to survey how many would be willing to ride the new daylight train vs. how many might stop riding because of no sleepers. Amtrak displays every study done for everything else, if they had one for this, it would be on their website.

So again I suspect that the only numbers that the board is looking at, are the predictions on costs of the current vs. the proposed.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 14, 2009)

Alan, I dare you to get a copy of the DEIS for the ARC tunnel. Actually, if you get a copy of it, I'll pay you for a photo copy of it. You can't find it. I suspect it doesn't actually exist. Everyone from Lautenberg and Capon on down the line has attempted to get access to that study.

The reason they claim they aren't releasing it is it is an internal study and not intended for publication. Its a draft.

Amtrak puts a copy of every study they make for external consumption, yes. But this thing probably was only intended to inform people at the top about raw numbers. It lacks pretty pictures and needless charts, in all likelyhood. In otherwords, NJ Transit citing a DEIS is not truly proof that such a study exists in the form they describe it. Likewise, Amtrak not showing a study on this subject is not proof that it doesn't exist.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Actually some groups have claimed that the best performing segment was Orlando to New Orleans. And the initial drop in revenue from just over $11 million pre-Katrina to just over $5 million post Katrina would seem to confirm that. Remember that for over 6 months, the Sunset terminated in San Antonio.
> ...


They presented actual numbers to prove this. At that time I was unable to prove or disprove those numbers, and Amtrak hasn't done so either. Amtrak has claimed that they were wrong, but it hasn't provided proof to my knowledge.

As for the remainder, New Orleans has come back as a destination, that's why the Sunset's numbers have come back up. but they still fall short of where things were before, because the east did provide a substantial amount of passengers and revenue, even if it doesn't exceed the western section.



Green Maned Lion said:


> > Amtrak can't run a CCC with just an LSA and a cook.
> 
> 
> And why not? They can't offer waited service with just an LSA and a cook, but this isn't a long distance train. It doesn't need waited service.


If you're not going to offer waited service, then you don't need a CCC nor do you need a cook. If you are going to offer waited service, then the union will require at least one SA. Even if the union didn't require it, and I'm sure that they will, unless my worst fears are realized and the stub runs virtually empty, one LSA cannot handle both the cafe and the dining side by themselves.



Green Maned Lion said:


> > The Sunset's per passenger loss is only $437, not $600.
> 
> 
> The Sunset has historically lost $600+. This year it is doing better. Why are we even discussing these semantics?


Sorry, but no. In fact over the past 6 years the closest that it's come to $600 was in 2006 when the train spent half a year suspended and then of course New Orleans was still a major disaster. On the other hand, it had it's best performance when it was running east of NOL. Here's the rundown.

2003	$263.73

2004	$282.08

2005	$432.71

2006	$524.49

2007	$470.51

2008	$437.82

2009	$434.82 (11 months of data)



Green Maned Lion said:


> > By the way, while dumping the Sunset Limited name would get rid of that black eye as it were for Amtrak, one of two things will happen. Either the new stub train will do so poorly as to take it's place or the Cardinal will take over as the hated train. The anti-Amtrak/anti-rail crowd will simply transfer their hate to whatever train is the worst performer. Changing the name won't solve the problem, it just transfers it elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Good. Much as I like the scenery on the Cardinal, eliminating the last of Harley Staggers legacy to the world will be a good thing for Amtrak. They can allocate their resources to more productive things then a train that winds to heck and back in search of a city reached much faster otherwise.


Great, just what the National Passenger Rail Corp needs to do, cut service to still more towns and cities, including a few decent sized cities.

And then once both the Sunset and the Cardinal are gone, what's next? Maybe we can move onto the Zephyr or the Chief, both of which are currently loosing more than $50 million each.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

EmployeeWithConnections said:


> No "studies or surveys"?? I don't know if you're aware of this (one would hope you would be with all the interest you take in my employer), but there are reams of statistics concerning both current and historic ridership on all of Amtrak's routes.


EWC, not only am I aware of that, I've been busy posting numbers in this topic from those statistics. And quite frankly I don't see the evidence in those stats to prove that this proposal is a good idea. In fact, the Sunset's best numbers (which I just posted a few minutes ago) came when the Sunset ran full length LAX to Orlando.

So if these are the numbers that were presented to the board, then they are ignoring reality, unless there is a study that clearly shows that going daily without sleepers between NOL and SAS will see such a large increase in ridership as to offset the losses from dropping the sleepers.



EmployeeWithConnections said:


> And a 3-car train would serve the current SAS-NOL portion adequately most of the year, at FAR less cost than the current consist.


Actually we don't really know that this is true. While unfortunately we don't have many examples to work with, consider the following comparison to the Palmetto, which is about 200 miles longer than the revised Sunset SAS-NOL would be. The Palmetto generates only $4.9 million more in revenue than does the Sunset, yet it takes 2.5 times as many passengers for that small gain in revenue. And of course, it runs daily, unlike the Sunset. If the real Sunset were running daily, I've no doubt that its revenue would swell considerably and put the Palmetto to shame and quite possibly still not carrying more passengers.

Now the Palmetto's losses are less than the Sunset's, $11.8M to the Sunset's $31.4M; but then the Palmetto doesn't force passengers to transfer in order to reach 3 major markets. Additionally the Palmetto gets to share its expenses with the Silver Service trains, along with the corridor trains for the NEC. That reduces station overhead charges to the Palmetto's budget. And finally, at least part of the losses, and potentially more than half of the expenses charged to the Sunset come from west of San Antonio. So the losses east of SAS right now are probably not much worse than the Palmetto's.



EmployeeWithConnections said:


> BTW, there are a couple of "possible" additions for the more distant future. Management has talked about extending either the CNO or the Crescent AS the stub train to SAS - an interesting concept, but one which would require more significant schedule changes, so that's a bit further down the line.


Yes, we've all heard those ideas and discussed them.



EmployeeWithConnections said:


> Also under discussion - if CSX ever bends (and it will probably require the FRA to step in and enforce longstanding agreements) - is the idea of having the stub train continue on through to JAX; yet another idea they're toying with is to extend the CNO to JAX.


What CSX? Amtrak can restore service tomorrow to Orlando if it wants to, at least on a 3 day a week schedule. CSX gave them the go ahead more than 3 years ago. The only one preventing service to Orlando is Amtrak!

And if we're talking about extending the "stub' train through, well then fine Amtrak needs to work that out with CSX. However, now we're right back to needed a full service train with sleepers and a diner, so we've accomplished nothing if we're using the stub train. We could just make the current Sunset daily and be done with it. No need to force passengers to change in SAS, which would be providing a lesser service because of that transfer.

If we send the City east, we'll then that's a horse of a different color. However, now we're forcing people into a three seat ride if they want to go Orlando to LAX.



EmployeeWithConnections said:


> Amtrak is not in the business of providing land cruises; they are in the business of providing transportation. Just like commercial airlines, some people are willing to pay for extra amenities, but especially given that Amtrak is constantly under the microscope of Congress regarding spending, there are many places where it simply does not warrant carrying passengers in sleeper accommodations. I have worked the SL from LAX-NOL many, many times. Yes, occasionally there can be several sleeper rooms occupied; but more often than not (and revenue statistics for the sleepers bear this out), there are nearly-empty sleeper cars that have to remain fully staffed all the way into NOL. It makes no financial sense, and complaining about the lack of premium services like that does nothing to offset the massive losses that such services incur.


Sorry, but the revenue stats for the sleepers do not bear that out. In fact, if I take the sleeper ridership stats for the Sunset for 2008, divide by 3 to arrive at a daily total, then multiply by 7 to arrive at a potential number that can be compared to all other Amtrak services, the Sunset is selling more rooms than the Silver Star, the City, the Eagle, and the Crescent. And as I've already posted earlier, even running 3 days a week, the sleeper revenues are greater than the Cardinal and fall only $260K behind the City, despite carrying less than half the number of passengers. If I play the same trick of dividing by 3, and then multiplying by 7, the Sunset now exceeds the sleeper revenues of the Cardinal, Silver Star, Capitol Limited, the City, the Eagle, the Lake Shore, and the Crescent.

And if I go back and look at sleeper numbers from 2003 & 2004, pre-dating Katrina and the suspension of service west of NOL, things get really interesting. Back then passenger counts exceeded only the Cardinal and the Three Rivers. However, sleeper revenue exceeded the Cardinal, 3R's, the Silver Meteor, the Capitol Limited, the City of NOL, the Eagle, and the Crescent. And that was with 3 day a week service. Just imagine what this train could do with daily service.



EmployeeWithConnections said:


> You should actually rejoice that travel times between LAX-NOL will be reduced by something like 5-6 hours both directions! It makes for a much more attractive proposition for the average traveler.


This can be accomplished without changing the trains to the proposed plan, and in fact knocking 5 or 6 hours off the current schedules has nothing to do with the proposed changes and everything to do with better time keeping on the part of Union Pacific. Back in I believe between 2000 and 2002, Amtrak was forced to add 10-1/2 hours of padding to the Sunset's schedule because of the UP delays; 2 on the CSX side and 8-1/2 on the UP side. Amtrak is simply reclaiming part of that time because UP is doing better at getting the trains over the road. And they still aren't getting all that padding back.



EmployeeWithConnections said:


> More trains and quicker travel times are a GOOD thing. American Orient Express and its ilk are constantly going under for a REASON! Keep your eyes and ears - and mind - open in the coming months for lots of announcements regarding new services and new equipment (anybody heard of the Superliner 3's they're designing right now?). Many less-populated areas of the midwest and southeast, in particular, are about to get a lot more travel options.


I wouldn't argue that more trains and quicker travel times are a good thing. But we're not getting more trains out of this change, and the quicker times have nothing to do with the proposed changes.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Alan, I dare you to get a copy of the DEIS for the ARC tunnel. Actually, if you get a copy of it, I'll pay you for a photo copy of it. You can't find it. I suspect it doesn't actually exist. Everyone from Lautenberg and Capon on down the line has attempted to get access to that study.
> The reason they claim they aren't releasing it is it is an internal study and not intended for publication. Its a draft.
> 
> Amtrak puts a copy of every study they make for external consumption, yes. But this thing probably was only intended to inform people at the top about raw numbers. It lacks pretty pictures and needless charts, in all likelyhood. In otherwords, NJ Transit citing a DEIS is not truly proof that such a study exists in the form they describe it. Likewise, Amtrak not showing a study on this subject is not proof that it doesn't exist.


First, I strongly suspect that there is no comparison between these two things and entities.

However, if indeed a comparison can be drawn, then that only further serves to support my position, as if Amtrak is releasing everything else, then the only reason for not releasing this study would be because it proves that this is not the correct plan. And I don't need pretty charts and graphs, in fact, I never even look at them generally. I look that the numbers and raw data. Besides, one never goes to a board without pretty pictures and graphs.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> If you're not going to offer waited service, then you don't need a CCC nor do you need a cook. If you are going to offer waited service, then the union will require at least one SA. Even if the union didn't require it, and I'm sure that they will, unless my worst fears are realized and the stub runs virtually empty, one LSA cannot handle both the cafe and the dining side by themselves.


Ridiculous, some of your reasoning. A standard snack-car is inadequate for a 573-mile, 12 hour run. Amtrak has spare CCCs, as we all know- and they would be coming off of the Eagle anyway- it would get the Sunsets diners. The point for using a CCC is better meals with better throughput then a snack coach or sightseer. It doesn't have to offer the level of service provided elsewhere. Your thinking is symptomatic of the kind of unimaginative rubbish that has prevented Amtrak from making an operating profit over the past 40 years, something I personally believe it can do.



AlanB said:


> I wouldn't argue that more trains and quicker travel times are a good thing. But we're not getting more trains out of this change, and the quicker times have nothing to do with the proposed changes.


Again with the stuffy, in the box, silly thinking? Under the current arrangement, you get a total of 34 trains- 14 CONOs, 14 Texas Eagles, 6 Sunset Limiteds, a week. Under the new plan, you get a total of 42- 14 each of the Golden State Limited, Texas Sunrise, and City of Miami. You are getting 8 more trains there, dude, every week, 416 more trains a year, and the whole shebang served.



AlanB said:


> First, I strongly suspect that there is no comparison between these two things and entities.
> However, if indeed a comparison can be drawn, then that only further serves to support my position, as if Amtrak is releasing everything else, then the only reason for not releasing this study would be because it proves that this is not the correct plan. And I don't need pretty charts and graphs, in fact, I never even look at them generally. I look that the numbers and raw data. Besides, one never goes to a board without pretty pictures and graphs.


Please. I expect this kind of childish unsubstantiated unilateral dismissal out of a 16 year old newbie on a forum based around a video game. I hold you to a higher standard of thinking.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > If you're not going to offer waited service, then you don't need a CCC nor do you need a cook. If you are going to offer waited service, then the union will require at least one SA. Even if the union didn't require it, and I'm sure that they will, unless my worst fears are realized and the stub runs virtually empty, one LSA cannot handle both the cafe and the dining side by themselves.
> ...


First, a standard snack car has been considered adequate for similar runs for many years by Amtrak. We currrently have the Palmetto at over 800 miles, the Vermonter at 611 miles, and the Carolinian at 704 miles. If this were important to Amtrak, then these trains should be having this problem solved first. We don't need to downgrade the Sunset, only to provide better meals. Especially when we're already providing better meals and better service.

And you can't charge wait served prices if you're not providing wait service. And no, Amtrak doesn't have spare CCC's. If they did, then they'd already be running on the Empire Builder. There would be no need for Amtrak to get the diner's out of BG so that the CCC's can be taken off the Capitol.

But I simply don't think that you're going to get that one past the unions. And even if you do, it's not my thinking that's going to hold things back here, you're forgetting that this entire idea is for Amtrak to cut costs. They aren't going to put a cook on the CCC, unless they're going to do wait service. They won't think that the cost is justifiable otherwise. This isn't my thinking, this is their thinking.



Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't argue that more trains and quicker travel times are a good thing. But we're not getting more trains out of this change, and the quicker times have nothing to do with the proposed changes.
> ...


You're counting runs. I'm counting trains. And again, we can achieve the same results by just running the Sunset daily. No need to force customers to make 2 transfers to go coast to coast. That's silly thinking!



Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > First, I strongly suspect that there is no comparison between these two things and entities.
> ...


Please, you brought up and useless and baseless comparison. What NJT does or does not do has no bearing, comparison, or relationship to what Amtrak might do and it doesn't belong in this discussion. Sorry!


----------



## rrdude (Dec 14, 2009)

Keep it going guys, this is good reading!


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Dec 14, 2009)

GML, for the record, New Orleans, as Alan has said, has come back as a destination city. The convention business has returned and the airlines are consistently increasing service. Two, three years ago your opinion was accurate. If AMTRAK thinks that New Orleans is still lacking in the tourism department or what have you (which I somehow doubt they do), they are sadly mistaken. Also, the population has continued to increase, and the metro area is roughly 90% of what it was before the storm...and the catchment area for people using New Orleans as a transportation hub (air, rail, etc) is unchanged...perhaps even more than it was.


----------



## henryj (Dec 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Ridiculous, some of your reasoning. A standard snack-car is inadequate for a 573-mile, 12 hour run. Amtrak has spare CCCs, as we all know- and they would be coming off of the Eagle anyway- it would get the Sunsets diners. The point for using a CCC is better meals with better throughput then a snack coach or sightseer. It doesn't have to offer the level of service provided elsewhere. Your thinking is symptomatic of the kind of unimaginative rubbish that has prevented Amtrak from making an operating profit over the past 40 years, something I personally believe it can do.
> Please. I expect this kind of childish unsubstantiated unilateral dismissal out of a 16 year old newbie on a forum based around a video game. I hold you to a higher standard of thinking.


GML for once on here I agree with you. Alan is acting like a kid that has had his toys taken away and is pouting in the corner. I look at this as the first positive thing Amtrak has done for this route in decades. It may not be perfect or exactly what we want but it is progress finally. Daily service. I am estatic. We have next to nothing from Amtrak down here in Texas. This is a great leap forward for us. Lets get behind it and make it work. If it needs tweaking and improving in the future we can do that. Quit the bickering and sour grapes. I want this. Texas needs this. I just have my fingers crossed waiting to see if it really comes to pass. I plan to be at the depot to greet the first train. I am already planning a trip to New Orleans and San Antonio to sample the new service. Next summer I am going to the Garden Railway convention in Tacoma. Now I may have daily service to pick from when I make my reservations. Fantastic.


----------



## wayman (Dec 14, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> GML, for the record, New Orleans, as Alan has said, has come back as a destination city. The convention business has returned and the airlines are consistently increasing service. Two, three years ago your opinion was accurate. If AMTRAK thinks that New Orleans is still lacking in the tourism department or what have you (which I somehow doubt they do), they are sadly mistaken. Also, the population has continued to increase, and the metro area is roughly 90% of what it was before the storm...and the catchment area for people using New Orleans as a transportation hub (air, rail, etc) is unchanged...perhaps even more than it was.


NativeSon, I am _so glad_ to hear this! My first and only trip to New Orleans was in 2007, for a week of service work almost two years to the day after Katrina hit. And outside the French Quarter, the city was just not there. Sounds like it's time to start planning another trip. Is it too early to cast my vote for having the Gathering in New Orleans in 2010? Who knows what the heck trains will be serving the city by then, but we'll certainly have no shortage of things to talk about once we get there if half the folks arrive on the Sunrise/Sunset/sleeper/nosleeper/CityofNOL/CityofMIA. The very last official Gathering activity could be a ride from NOL to Slidell to bid farewell to TheTraveler as he embarks on a Loophole trip!


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Dec 14, 2009)

wayman said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > GML, for the record, New Orleans, as Alan has said, has come back as a destination city. The convention business has returned and the airlines are consistently increasing service. Two, three years ago your opinion was accurate. If AMTRAK thinks that New Orleans is still lacking in the tourism department or what have you (which I somehow doubt they do), they are sadly mistaken. Also, the population has continued to increase, and the metro area is roughly 90% of what it was before the storm...and the catchment area for people using New Orleans as a transportation hub (air, rail, etc) is unchanged...perhaps even more than it was.
> ...


wayman, come on down! If you need to know what's really going on in N.O, just ask me. Might as well get the info from the source instead of relying on what people hear in the national media, that's what I always say. Much has changed for the better since 2007...much needs to be done of course but I can see a vast difference between now and then in just about every area. 

And for the record, if the stub train HAS to happen, for the love of all that is holy do not call it the "Texas Sunrise". I couldn't possibly think of a worse name. I'd rather it not have a name if the T.S is all they can come up with. Come on Amtrak P.R/Marketing folks, work with me on this one, please! lol


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Dec 14, 2009)

wayman said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > GML, for the record, New Orleans, as Alan has said, has come back as a destination city. The convention business has returned and the airlines are consistently increasing service. Two, three years ago your opinion was accurate. If AMTRAK thinks that New Orleans is still lacking in the tourism department or what have you (which I somehow doubt they do), they are sadly mistaken. Also, the population has continued to increase, and the metro area is roughly 90% of what it was before the storm...and the catchment area for people using New Orleans as a transportation hub (air, rail, etc) is unchanged...perhaps even more than it was.
> ...



And the other half can arrive on the Crescent/Argonaut/GoldenState/Alamo/Accadian


----------



## Montanan (Dec 14, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> And for the record, if the stub train HAS to happen, for the love of all that is holy do not call it the "Texas Sunrise". I couldn't possibly think of a worse name. I'd rather it not have a name if the T.S is all they can come up with. Come on Amtrak P.R/Marketing folks, work with me on this one, please! lol


Agreed!!!!!


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 14, 2009)

I think my head is spinning... GML is making more sense then AlanB? What happened to the universe! haha.

Alan... what do you think Amtrak should do? I thought the deal was that they have no extra equipment, and this was worked out as an option becasue it requires no additional equipment... so how can they go daily with the Sunset, and the TE yet not use any additional equipment? If there is a way to do that... by all means I would be for that however if not... I like the changes as is... because I think daily service is better than tri-weekly service even if you have to make connections.

As for the CCC.... Alan, GML made it very clear that he was saying Amtrak WILL have extra CCC's for the Stub train because the Eagle will operate with the Sunset's Full Diner. I would bet that the stub train will get the CCC's from the TE however I make no guesses to how amtrak will operate them as far as staffing and the level of food service offered.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 14, 2009)

Montanan said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > And for the record, if the stub train HAS to happen, for the love of all that is holy do not call it the "Texas Sunrise". I couldn't possibly think of a worse name. I'd rather it not have a name if the T.S is all they can come up with. Come on Amtrak P.R/Marketing folks, work with me on this one, please! lol
> ...


Sounds like a weird sexual act that pops up in urbandictionary.com

"Dude, I gave my girl a Texas Sunrise last night!"

"Classic man, classic."


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Dec 14, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Montanan said:
> 
> 
> > NativeSon5859 said:
> ...


LOL!

Yeah, that, or some cheesy tourist drink they serve on the Riverwalk in SAT.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> I think my head is spinning... GML is making more sense then AlanB? What happened to the universe! haha.


Since when does in make sense to cut revenue and passenger services?



TVRM610 said:


> Alan... what do you think Amtrak should do? I thought the deal was that they have no extra equipment, and this was worked out as an option becasue it requires no additional equipment... so how can they go daily with the Sunset, and the TE yet not use any additional equipment? If there is a way to do that... by all means I would be for that however if not... I like the changes as is... because I think daily service is better than tri-weekly service even if you have to make connections.


People keep repeating this bit about no new equipment. I've never seen that promise and I don't believe that it's possible, note my comment on the diners below for example. This plan must get at least a few extra cars that are not currently in the equipment pool in order to work.

As for my plan, that's hard to do without all the numbers, like equipment availablity and the research that I'm saying is lacking. However, I for one continue to wonder what would be possible if instead of taking many of the wreckes to beef up the Empire Builder, we sent that equipment to the Sunset, made it daily, and made it the "southern Empire Builder" in terms of service and quality.

Consider my numbers posted earlier regarding sleeper revenue. Back in 2003/2004, the little 3 day a week Sunset was pulling in more revenue than 6 daily trains were. And if I play my little trick of extrapolating the 3 day revenue into 7 days, the Sunset's sleeper revenue would vault that train into 4th place, behind only the Auto Train, Zephyr, and the Southwest Chief in that order. It passes the Empire Builder's revenue! Now I will grant that the EB's sleeper revenue probably has increased since the revamping of the train, I didn't go compare that. But just think what could be done with the Sunset got many of the wreck repairs, went daily, and got a little marketing from TEMPO.



TVRM610 said:


> As for the CCC.... Alan, GML made it very clear that he was saying Amtrak WILL have extra CCC's for the Stub train because the Eagle will operate with the Sunset's Full Diner. I would bet that the stub train will get the CCC's from the TE however I make no guesses to how amtrak will operate them as far as staffing and the level of food service offered.


TVRM, please take note of exactly what GML said, as I've requoted him below and I've boldened the relevent part that invoked my response to him.



Green Maned Lion said:


> *Amtrak has spare CCCs, as we all know*- and they would be coming off of the Eagle anyway- it would get the Sunsets diners.


It should also be noted that the Sunset does not have enough dining cars to fully outfit an extended Texas Eagle. Additional dining cars will have to be found.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

henryj said:


> GML for once on here I agree with you. Alan is acting like a kid that has had his toys taken away and is pouting in the corner. I look at this as the first positive thing Amtrak has done for this route in decades. It may not be perfect or exactly what we want but it is progress finally. Daily service. I am estatic. We have next to nothing from Amtrak down here in Texas. This is a great leap forward for us. Lets get behind it and make it work. If it needs tweaking and improving in the future we can do that. Quit the bickering and sour grapes. I want this. Texas needs this. I just have my fingers crossed waiting to see if it really comes to pass. I plan to be at the depot to greet the first train. I am already planning a trip to New Orleans and San Antonio to sample the new service. Next summer I am going to the Garden Railway convention in Tacoma. Now I may have daily service to pick from when I make my reservations. Fantastic.


Henry,

Frankly I expected better from you than this.

The Sunset Limited means nothing to me. I've been on it twice in my lifetime, once JAX-NOL and just recently NOL-LAX, and frankly don't know if I'll ever be on it again. Not saying that I hated it, it's just not a convienent train for me to ride. So I'm not looking at this from a personel perspective. I don't care what kind of service runs for my own needs.

I care that my numbers show that a Daily Sunset Limited would do so much better than this proposed plan. And I continue to believe that a daily SL is possible with wreck repairs until someone can show me the numbers that make it impossible. And I care that this is being done without careful research and planning. Amtrak isn't looking at the alternatives, they are only looking at the plan.

Yes, Texas in some sense of the word will be doing better with a daily stub train than it is doing right now. But why isn't Amtrak looking to see if they can't do even better. It's obvious that the sleeper revenues are there if Amtrak will just take a deep breath and figure out how to make the SL daily.

I want daily service for Texas too, but I don't want it at the cost of decreased revenue. And I don't want it with the risk that the loss of the sleepers means that revenue dips even lower and Amtrak one day turns to Texas and says "pay up or loose the service." That's not to anyone's benefit, mine or anyone living along that route. Amtrak is rushing into this and at least from my perspective, without properly studying the alternatives, much less proper studying of the plan as it is.

Why?

I want to know.

I don't object to this plan on principle or fancy. I object to this plan because no one can prove that it won't make things worse or better. No one can prove that a daily Sunset can't be done and that it wouldn't be better than this plan. And finally because no one can prove that Amtrak has researched anything.


----------



## haolerider (Dec 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > GML for once on here I agree with you. Alan is acting like a kid that has had his toys taken away and is pouting in the corner. I look at this as the first positive thing Amtrak has done for this route in decades. It may not be perfect or exactly what we want but it is progress finally. Daily service. I am estatic. We have next to nothing from Amtrak down here in Texas. This is a great leap forward for us. Lets get behind it and make it work. If it needs tweaking and improving in the future we can do that. Quit the bickering and sour grapes. I want this. Texas needs this. I just have my fingers crossed waiting to see if it really comes to pass. I plan to be at the depot to greet the first train. I am already planning a trip to New Orleans and San Antonio to sample the new service. Next summer I am going to the Garden Railway convention in Tacoma. Now I may have daily service to pick from when I make my reservations. Fantastic.
> ...


Alan: I don't see where Amtrak is rushing into this, since the concept was developed by the 2009 RPI team, which began work on the Sunset/Eagle in early 2009 and involved every department in the company to analyze and examine all the alternatives. There was no "1st choice" in this work and it was done the same way all RPI work has been done for the past several years - a meeting with all departments present providing ideas, concepts, thoughts, suggestions, etc. All these ideas were prioritized and then each of them was carefully examined for correctness - crew costs, fuel costs, connection times, sleeper & diner allocations were all involved and the various Divisions had opportunities to weigh-in on each of the details. TEMPO has been involved as well and the positives seems to out weigh the negatives. This was not a commissioned study as has been done on other route studies, but a very involved internal examination of the idea. It has been tweaked, torn apart, put back together and approved all along the line of authority - up to and including the Executive Committee and the Board. It benefits the Coast Starlight and the Capitol Limted with better connection times and eliminates excessive dwell times along the route - as well as providing better arrival departure times in some of the larger cities along the route. Not everything is perfect, but it is a good plan that will benefit Amtrak and the route in general. Daily is always much better than three days per week.


----------



## nferr (Dec 14, 2009)

It's funny everyone is talking about revenue and nobody talks about expenses. The comparison of the Palmetto to the Sunset is ridiculous. Yes the Sunset with sleepers brings in more revenue per run. But you're adding on sleeper cars that cost $3 mill per. You're adding attendants to work those cars, you're adding dining service to serve those cars, etc., etc. The Palmetto has a couple of coach attendants and a lounge car. Let's get real here.


----------



## frequentflyer (Dec 14, 2009)

Montanan said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > And for the record, if the stub train HAS to happen, for the love of all that is holy do not call it the "Texas Sunrise". I couldn't possibly think of a worse name. I'd rather it not have a name if the T.S is all they can come up with. Come on Amtrak P.R/Marketing folks, work with me on this one, please! lol
> ...


I got an idea, "The Gulf Breeze", as a name.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

haolerider said:


> Alan: I don't see where Amtrak is rushing into this, since the concept was developed by the 2009 RPI team, which began work on the Sunset/Eagle in early 2009 and involved every department in the company to analyze and examine all the alternatives. There was no "1st choice" in this work and it was done the same way all RPI work has been done for the past several years - a meeting with all departments present providing ideas, concepts, thoughts, suggestions, etc. All these ideas were prioritized and then each of them was carefully examined for correctness - crew costs, fuel costs, connection times, sleeper & diner allocations were all involved and the various Divisions had opportunities to weigh-in on each of the details. TEMPO has been involved as well and the positives seems to out weigh the negatives. This was not a commissioned study as has been done on other route studies, but a very involved internal examination of the idea. It has been tweaked, torn apart, put back together and approved all along the line of authority - up to and including the Executive Committee and the Board. It benefits the Coast Starlight and the Capitol Limted with better connection times and eliminates excessive dwell times along the route - as well as providing better arrival departure times in some of the larger cities along the route. Not everything is perfect, but it is a good plan that will benefit Amtrak and the route in general. Daily is always much better than three days per week.


If Amtrak needs 2 to 3 years to consider and implimnet the other plans/commisioned studies, then going from early 2009 to early 2010 for implimentation is rushing things, as that's barely a year.

Regarding all the work done at Amtrak in the various departments, I do appreciate that. And I don't belittle it either. But I want to see it for myself. This shouldn't be a secret, especially not to TEMPO. Besides, if you'll forgive me, frankly since David Gunn's departure, Amtrak's record has been to cut expenses without regard to whether that makes sense or not in terms of what's being cut. I've seen too many things done where they only looked at the expense side without factoring in revenue changes because of those changes, nor what it means for the passenger.

As for the better connections/arrival times, that's a function of reducing the 10-1/2 hours of padding that Amtrak added to the Sunset route 8 to 9 years ago, not a function of this plan. Amtrak doesn't need to change anything, except the current schedules to improve those connections/arrival times. I'm not suggesting that it's not good to be improving those times, just that one doesn't need the demise of the Sunset Limited to do that.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 14, 2009)

nferr said:


> It's funny everyone is talking about revenue and nobody talks about expenses. The comparison of the Palmetto to the Sunset is ridiculous. Yes the Sunset with sleepers brings in more revenue per run. But you're adding on sleeper cars that cost $3 mill per. You're adding attendants to work those cars, you're adding dining service to serve those cars, etc., etc. The Palmetto has a couple of coach attendants and a lounge car. Let's get real here.


A mostly full sleeper brings in about $4,000 more than a completely full coach (using both Superliners). That's $4,000 more per day... 1.46 million dollars per year per car. Just two sleepers and you've increased revenue by just under 3 million. Now assume not all sleepers will be full ect ect and bring the number down by over 30% to 2 million even... we're still talking 2 million dollars a year.

I think that offsets the costs, don't you? 

This is the truth, the fact, the science since the Pullman days:

Sleepers. Make. Money.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

nferr said:


> It's funny everyone is talking about revenue and nobody talks about expenses. The comparison of the Palmetto to the Sunset is ridiculous. Yes the Sunset with sleepers brings in more revenue per run. But you're adding on sleeper cars that cost $3 mill per. You're adding attendants to work those cars, you're adding dining service to serve those cars, etc., etc. The Palmetto has a couple of coach attendants and a lounge car. Let's get real here.


First, with respect, I did compare expenses. And indeed the Palmetto's are lower. But then the Palmetto shares overhead expenses with many other trains, reducing it's share of those expenses.

Second, if we take your argument, then we should be pulling the sleepers off of every LD train. Remember, if I take the Sunset Limited's old sleeper dollars pre-Katrina and adjust for 7 day a week service, it would be taking in more revenue than the Empire Builder and most other LD trains. How can their expenses be lower than what the Sunset's would be for running daily.


----------



## lsa (Dec 14, 2009)

well do we know if they are going to be staff out of chicago or los angeles(because LA is getting ready to fourlough lot of people for 4 months)



henryj said:


> From Gene Poon at All Aboard All Aboard:
> The Amtrak Board of Directors has authorized negotiations with Union
> 
> Pacific for daily Amtrak service on the Los Angeles-New Orleans Sunset
> ...


----------



## henryj (Dec 14, 2009)

haolerider said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...



Alan the more I read from you the more convinced I am that you are just another one of those disgruntled Floridaites that have tried to torpedo anything and everything other than their precious one seat ride to LAX. I don't know why they seem to think that is their priveledge as no other population center in the East has a one seat ride to LAX. Much more important places than JAX, such as NY, Wash. DC, Philly, Atlanta, even St Loius all have to change trains to get to LAX. Then you want Amtrak to study this thing to death and of course furnish you personally with copies of the study so you can pass judgement. I believe your statement above "The Sunset Limited means nothing to me". It means a lot to those of us suffering down here with the bare bones that Amtrak throws at us. So these proposed changes are a breath of fresh air for Texas. This is a Godsend for us.


----------



## haolerider (Dec 14, 2009)

henryj said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I think you need to check some details. I don't believe Alan is from FL and if you go back and look at the history of his postings and strong participationt on this Forum, you will find your comments are way over the top!


----------



## Greg (Dec 14, 2009)

henryj said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...



As one of the "crying babies" as you refer, I am supportive of increasing frequency, level and quality of service anywhere we can get it in this country. I guess since the Sunset Limited was the only train we ever had from JAX to NOL (besides the Gulf Wind) that seems to be the main one we think about or desire bringing back the most. Some of this dialogue is becoming rather contentious.


----------



## Steve4031 (Dec 14, 2009)

I have observed Alan's posts over the years, and he has consistently provided balanced, objective posts. When he is stating an opinion, he clearly notes where his opinion begins. In fact, I have seen many posts that show evidence supporting daily service over less than daily service. A similar discussion has revolved around the operation of the Cardinal. I think it is unfair to characterize Alan as bitter or pouting. IMHO, it is fine to disagree, but I don't wee the point of attacking people because you disagree with their points of view about Amtrak operations.



henryj said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


----------



## BlakeTyner (Dec 14, 2009)

I fully admit that I've been highly involved in this topic, but if I may (and I realize I'm a newbie) make a suggestion--maybe we should take a breath and step back for a little bit. Regardless of what the Amtrak board did or didn't do, we know what we don't know:

Will UP even want to come to the table for the slots?

Will the stimulus Superliners be enough for both the Empire Builder and a daily Sunset/Eagle?

Will there be an order for Superliner 3's?

Will there be some public forum announcement of the service?

Until some of those answers start coming in, we're doing nothing but spitballing. Maybe at this point we should adopt a hurry-up-and-wait mentality?


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 14, 2009)

Alan is from New York City.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

henryj said:


> Alan the more I read from you the more convinced I am that you are just another one of those disgruntled Floridaites that have tried to torpedo anything and everything other than their precious one seat ride to LAX. I don't know why they seem to think that is their priveledge as no other population center in the East has a one seat ride to LAX. Much more important places than JAX, such as NY, Wash. DC, Philly, Atlanta, even St Loius all have to change trains to get to LAX. Then you want Amtrak to study this thing to death and of course furnish you personally with copies of the study so you can pass judgement. I believe your statement above "The Sunset Limited means nothing to me". It means a lot to those of us suffering down here with the bare bones that Amtrak throws at us. So these proposed changes are a breath of fresh air for Texas. This is a Godsend for us. Screw Florida and all the crying babies over there.


A lovely theory.

If only I was from Florida. But I'm not. I was born and raised in NJ, less then 30 miles from NYC where I have now lived for the past 20 years. And it is for that reason that the Sunset isn't particularly useful to me. I wish it were, but it's not. If I want to go west, it's far easier and faster for me to go through Chicago.

And frankly I don't understand your hostility. I'm not suggesting that Amtrak do nothing. I would never advocate for that. I'm simply advocating that not only is this perhaps not the best plan, but that Amtrak isn't taking the correct approach to ensure that other plans aren't more viable. I'm trying to advocate for even better service, you're taking the sloppy seconds and saying "mm, delicious." If someone from Amtrak wants to step up to the plate and guarantee that this plan will do bettter than what I'm suggesting (a daily, real Sunset Limited), guarantee that Amtrak won't look at Texas in 5 or 10 years and say "pay up" because the stubie isn't making it, then fine I'll be the first to step in line and support this plan.

But I'm not seeing anyone do that. All I see is Amtrak marching along with the current plan without providing any proof or guarantees, or even some studies, that this is the best that they can do. Remember, we're all ownwers of Amtrak, we're entitled to know and see why this is best for us.

I'm sorry if you don't like my advocating for better service than what you currently have and better service than what will be provided if this plan comes to fruition, but I'm going to continue to do what I think is right. And at present based upon everything that I see from the numbers available to me (and I have 6 years worth of Amtrak data at my disposal, I've saved every PDF file since they started doing monthly reports under David Gunn in Jan '04), I think that Amtrak can do better for Texas if they drop this plan, delay for a few more months until Beech Grove rolls out a majority of the wreck repairs and can then create a daily Sunset Limited with sleepers from NOL to LAX.


----------



## tp49 (Dec 14, 2009)

henryj said:


> Screw Florida and all the crying babies over there.


By this statement alone you have lost all credibility.


----------



## Neil_M (Dec 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> nferr said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny everyone is talking about revenue and nobody talks about expenses. The comparison of the Palmetto to the Sunset is ridiculous. Yes the Sunset with sleepers brings in more revenue per run. But you're adding on sleeper cars that cost $3 mill per. You're adding attendants to work those cars, you're adding dining service to serve those cars, etc., etc. The Palmetto has a couple of coach attendants and a lounge car. Let's get real here.
> ...


That doesn't really follow though does it? The assumption you make is if xx number of passengers travel 3 times a week, then if it goes daily then it is xx number of passengers 7 times a week, maybe it could go the other way?

Maybe the 3 times a week amount of passengers is all the route will generate and you just get more trains but the passengers divided amongst them.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 14, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > nferr said:
> ...


Neil,

There certainly is that danger, however past experience for Amtrak has always been that ridership always went up substantially with any increased frequencies. It's been a while, and unfortunately the raw data isn't available to me (maybe it's out there and I haven't found it), but when the Eagle went from 3 day to 4 days per week, I seem to recall that it saw around a 30% to 40% increase in ridership. When it went daily, ridership I believe more than tripled.

Since we're discussing a train that once did better than several other LD's with only 3 days, I strongly suspect and history supports me, that it will only go up. Maybe it won't reach the levels that I calculated, but even a 25% increase in revenue would put the Sunset firmly in the middle of the pack of LD's for revenue.


----------



## zoltan (Dec 14, 2009)

It always seemed a great waste to me running two trains coupled together between San Antonio and Los Angeles, as I understand takes place. An immediate step, before getting together the significant resources required for daily service, would seem to be separating those out to get an every 1-2 day service from Texas to California. The step after that, with more resources becoming available, could be to get an every 1-2 day service out to NOL.

At this point, with the daily service to San Antonio and more frequent service to NOL, I would then be tempted to go for getting at least half of that enhanced Sunset service to continue to Florida.

If the Sunset were to be daily, I'd raise questions regarding the Texas Eagle. It would seem to me that only a third of passengers would end up going on the direct train, with a connection existing every day, and it would make sense to do the following:

- Curtail every eagle at San Antonio, and rely on connections at a not all to comfortable hour of the morning.

- Hook up a few carriages every day, though this might be logistically difficult.

- Change the timing of the Sunset to provide a comfortable daytime schedule for JAX to NOL (hence comfortable departures for the places along the way) if it were making that journey, and from Houston to San Antonio, and allow the Eagle to run separately. All subject, of course, to host railroads.

The latter option would become even more appealing if resources existed for a daily Eagle to LAX, providing two schedules daily from San Antonio to Los Angeles, which seems to be something of great benefit to the places along the route.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 14, 2009)

AlanB said:


> If Amtrak needs 2 to 3 years to consider and implimnet the other plans/commisioned studies, then going from early 2009 to early 2010 for implimentation is rushing things, as that's barely a year.
> Regarding all the work done at Amtrak in the various departments, I do appreciate that. And I don't belittle it either. But I want to see it for myself. This shouldn't be a secret, especially not to TEMPO. Besides, if you'll forgive me, frankly since David Gunn's departure, Amtrak's record has been to cut expenses without regard to whether that makes sense or not in terms of what's being cut. I've seen too many things done where they only looked at the expense side without factoring in revenue changes because of those changes, nor what it means for the passenger.
> 
> As for the better connections/arrival times, that's a function of reducing the 10-1/2 hours of padding that Amtrak added to the Sunset route 8 to 9 years ago, not a function of this plan. Amtrak doesn't need to change anything, except the current schedules to improve those connections/arrival times. I'm not suggesting that it's not good to be improving those times, just that one doesn't need the demise of the Sunset Limited to do that.


Amtrak gets all kinds of stupid mandates and requests for services that they will have to put money into and effort, which may be funded. But if it is funded, it won't be for long because they know the train makes no sense in the first place, and then they have to either eat the cost running it or eat the cost involved in discontinuing it. Like, say, a restored North Coast Hiawatha. So what do they do? They drag their heels. They do their best to not get involved in idiotic political requests when they can avoid it.

It is this policy that has kept Amtrak off security theatre for years.

But that does not mean that when Amtrak finds a good idea with enough internal information to back it up, they can not implement it quickly. You are confusing the speed of things with aversion tactics. They know the current Sunset set up is stupid and was stupid. If I recall, it was one of Claytors last acts- and by the end of his life, both personal and serving Amtrak, he was pretty senile.

With this train project, there is less prospect for delay, and the equipment is more efficiently utilized. We can restore service tri-weekly JAX to FLA. But this provides nothing more then was present before from a serious transit point of view.

You also are completely ignoring a cardinal point- pun intended. The Cardinal was extended from Washington to New York, and its ridership went up. Ok. Lets assume that all things being equal, a one seat ride will attract riders. I'd even agree with that. But this does not provide proof that expansion of all trains on that group of routes, and restoration of service to all cities previously served, will not improve ridership as much as reverting back to the previous set up.

In otherwords: all things being equal, a single seat ride would probably improve ridership. But this does not indicate that daily trains with a three seat ride would provide less of an improvement in ridership then a single seat ride theoretically would. We don't know that.

But we can guess. The Cardinal had improved ridership, and somewhat substantially, from its re-implementation of the single-seat ride. You also indicated that when the Texas Eagle went daily, its ridership exploded. Now tell me, Alan. Use your apparently impressive statistical resources. Percentagewise, which improved more from its operational change? The Texas Eagle or the Cardinal?



AlanB said:


> Second, if we take your argument, then we should be pulling the sleepers off of every LD train. Remember, if I take the Sunset Limited's old sleeper dollars pre-Katrina and adjust for 7 day a week service, it would be taking in more revenue than the Empire Builder and most other LD trains. How can their expenses be lower than what the Sunset's would be for running daily.


You know, I was gonna comment on this fallacious thinking (and a bunch of other things) but I thought I was poking enough holes in your theory for one night. If I run a factory, I can expand its capacity by 60%. I can also show sales figures that this is going to expand my sales 60%.

Go ask GM about how much more money they'd make if they doubled Chevy Impala or Cadillac DTS production.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 14, 2009)

Again... GML makes some great points.

As to the idea of an enhanced Sunset Limited becoming the "Empire Builder of the South" I don't think your being realistic.... the clientele that ride the Sunset are totally different then the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight type... and before anyone calls me out I was born in Louisiana and love visiting New Orleans, but lets be honest the Sunset Limited has a lower class of riders... yea i said it, even though Alan probably has some statistics that will prove me wrong : )

I think the Chief, Zephyr, or Capitol could do much more with "enhanced" services. But that is all just my opinion.

Has anyone shown us current rider statistics for the SL east of San Antonio? And for that matter... current sleeper occupancy?


----------



## GAT (Dec 14, 2009)

Wow! This is the fastest growing thread I've read! Every time I finish reading a page, another page has been added. I'v tried to absorb all the detail, but frankly, it's mind-boggling - especially to one who doesn't eat, sleep, and make love daily with Amtrak. :lol:

But I've started loving to ride Amtrak. Last summer I rediscovered the glories (yes!) of sleeper train travel, taking the Empire Builder, City of New Orleans, Sunset Limited, and Coast Starlight around the western two-thirds of this country. (And yes, I love describing the voyage by using the train names; it evokes a romantic, bygone era among my listeners.)

But reading this thread leaves me a little confused. I have one rather newbie question. This coming summer, I want to take a friend who will be visiting the USA for the first time, on another glorious trip - a gourmand's tour from San Francisco - Los Angeles - New Orleans - Atlanta - New York - Boston, with layovers in each of those cities. In view of what's being discussed here, are we going to be able to get a sleeper car all the way rhrough on the Sunset Limited? Or will there be a section west of New Orleans where we'll have to change cars? That would truly be a bummer for this long distance traveller.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 15, 2009)

George said:


> But reading this thread leaves me a little confused. I have one rather newbie question. This coming summer, I want to take a friend who will be visiting the USA for the first time, on another glorious trip - a gourmand's tour from San Francisco - Los Angeles - New Orleans - Atlanta - New York - Boston, with layovers in each of those cities. In view of what's being discussed here, are we going to be able to get a sleeper car all the way rhrough on the Sunset Limited? Or will there be a section west of New Orleans where we'll have to change cars? That would truly be a bummer for this long distance traveller.


George,

If indeed this plan is put into action and it happens with the April timetable as is being suggested, then you will indeed have to go New Orleans to San Antonio in coach and then change back to a sleeper in San Antonio.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 15, 2009)

Unless you want to go SAS-CHI-NOL ... but this defeats many points.

SL topic aside for a moment, George, if this goes as planned and you _need_ sleepers all the way then a simple tweaking of your schedule may allow you to do this all in sleepers.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 15, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > If Amtrak needs 2 to 3 years to consider and implimnet the other plans/commisioned studies, then going from early 2009 to early 2010 for implimentation is rushing things, as that's barely a year.
> ...


I think that you're confusing things here a bit. I'm not talking about Amtrak dragging it's feet at this point on the studies. Amtrak has put it in writing, that should interested parties wish to fund any of the projects studied, that once funding is secured it will take 2 to 3 years to impliment and hire crews.

Amtrak isn't going to enter into any agreements, unless forced by Congress, to start new services that they can't drop if the funding dries up. And remember, there is no funding for this change that we're currently talking about.



Green Maned Lion said:


> But that does not mean that when Amtrak finds a good idea with enough internal information to back it up, they can not implement it quickly. You are confusing the speed of things with aversion tactics. They know the current Sunset set up is stupid and was stupid. If I recall, it was one of Claytors last acts- and by the end of his life, both personal and serving Amtrak, he was pretty senile.


Claytor setup the run to Florida, not the Sunset itself. And I disagree that it was stupid. Amtrak's own numbers prove that the train lost far more money per passenger when it ran to Florida. It looses more now that it has been truncated.



Green Maned Lion said:


> With this train project, there is less prospect for delay, and the equipment is more efficiently utilized. We can restore service tri-weekly JAX to FLA. But this provides nothing more then was present before from a serious transit point of view.


Waiting for the wrecks to be done makes things no different than this current plan. One can still run the Sunset daily NOL-LAX, and send the City east of NOL. Drop the through cars off the Eagle and Amtrak might even be able to run the Sunset daily to Orlando without new cars.



Green Maned Lion said:


> You also are completely ignoring a cardinal point- pun intended. The Cardinal was extended from Washington to New York, and its ridership went up. Ok. Lets assume that all things being equal, a one seat ride will attract riders. I'd even agree with that. But this does not provide proof that expansion of all trains on that group of routes, and restoration of service to all cities previously served, will not improve ridership as much as reverting back to the previous set up.
> In otherwords: all things being equal, a single seat ride would probably improve ridership. But this does not indicate that daily trains with a three seat ride would provide less of an improvement in ridership then a single seat ride theoretically would. We don't know that.


Yes we do. Just look at the airlines. People are willing to pay a premium for a one seat ride.



Green Maned Lion said:


> But we can guess. The Cardinal had improved ridership, and somewhat substantially, from its re-implementation of the single-seat ride. You also indicated that when the Texas Eagle went daily, its ridership exploded. Now tell me, Alan. Use your apparently impressive statistical resources. Percentagewise, which improved more from its operational change? The Texas Eagle or the Cardinal?


Since I don't have the stats from those years I can't tell you. However, there is no point anyhow, since neither changed the level of services being offered, other than perhaps the Cardinal's dropping a family room and a real diner eventually. But the Eagle changed nothing but frequency. We're not talking about that here, we're talking about both a frequency and a service change. So no comparisons can be drawn. as you have two variables in play in this case.


----------



## GG-1 (Dec 15, 2009)

Aloha

As most know Florida is not my home state. We have A northern route cross Country, A central route cross country. Several North South routes forming a grid (almost). There are only 2 states that have unique situations preventing a rail alternative transportation. So why are are the South East States provided Sub Standard Service.

Shame on us but How many years will it take to truly unite this country.

I will get off the soapbox now

Mahalo

Eric


----------



## AlanB (Dec 15, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> As to the idea of an enhanced Sunset Limited becoming the "Empire Builder of the South" I don't think your being realistic.... the clientele that ride the Sunset are totally different then the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight type... and before anyone calls me out I was born in Louisiana and love visiting New Orleans, but lets be honest the Sunset Limited has a lower class of riders... yea i said it, even though Alan probably has some statistics that will prove me wrong : )


Ok, maybe I'm pushing things a bit far with that, but then it's not like the Empire Builder's service is really all that "enhanced". Really it just never got downgraded like the rest of the LD's, other than getting all the newly refurbed Superliner I sleepers.

But still, even if we use SDS instead of the EB type dining service, why are we settling for maybe having a CCC that may or may not function only as a cafe? Why isn't serious consideration being given to taking more wrecks and putting them into a daily Sunset, which 5 years ago used to pull more sleeper revenue than several other LD trains?



TVRM610 said:


> Has anyone shown us current rider statistics for the SL east of San Antonio? And for that matter... current sleeper occupancy?


No. And I cannot, as Amtrak does not provide that level of detail in their public stats. I've no doubt that Amtrak could tell us if they choose to, but I've not seen that data released. Only conclusions can be drawn about how much revenue is generated east of SAS, by looking at the numbers from when Katrina afffected service. The worst lost occured during the 6 months that the Sunset terminated in SAS, because all revenue was lost from there to Orlando.

Once New Orleans was restored as an end point, the numbers did come back up, but not to pre-Katrina levels. That to me indicates that half the sleeper income was generated by Orlando to San Antonio, and perhaps 1/2 to 2/3rds was generated by the Orlando to New Orleans leg, with the remainder going to New Orleans - San Antonio.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 15, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Amtrak's own numbers prove that the train lost far more money per passenger when it ran to Florida.


Exactly the point I'm making. 



> Waiting for the wrecks to be done makes things no different than this current plan. One can still run the Sunset daily NOL-LAX, and send the City east of NOL. Drop the through cars off the Eagle 1and Amtrak might even be able to run the Sunset daily to Orlando without new cars.


Numbers clearly indicate that the through sleeper on the Texas Eagle is one of the most profitable cars in the entire system. Lets get rid of this to restore service to a white elephant. Brilliant idea there, Alan.



> > You also are completely ignoring a cardinal point- pun intended. The Cardinal was extended from Washington to New York, and its ridership went up. Ok. Lets assume that all things being equal, a one seat ride will attract riders. I'd even agree with that. But this does not provide proof that expansion of all trains on that group of routes, and restoration of service to all cities previously served, will not improve ridership as much as reverting back to the previous set up.
> > In otherwords: all things being equal, a single seat ride would probably improve ridership. But this does not indicate that daily trains with a three seat ride would provide less of an improvement in ridership then a single seat ride theoretically would. We don't know that.
> 
> 
> Yes we do. Just look at the airlines. People are willing to pay a premium for a one seat ride.


Are you even reading what I'm saying? We have no numbers to verify that maintaining a one seat ride provides more revenue then going daily. None whatsoever. This hasn't been done before.



AlanB said:


> Since I don't have the stats from those years I can't tell you. However, there is no point anyhow, since neither changed the level of services being offered, other than perhaps the Cardinal's dropping a family room and a real diner eventually. But the Eagle changed nothing but frequency. We're not talking about that here, we're talking about both a frequency and a service change. So no comparisons can be drawn. as you have two variables in play in this case.


You're avoiding the hard questions again. Enough of this, I'm seeing red from the puerile tomfoolery I am getting in response to my points.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 15, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak's own numbers prove that the train lost far more money per passenger when it ran to Florida.
> ...


My apologies it was late. 

Amtrak's own numbers prove that the train lost far *less* money per passenger when it ran to Florida.



Green Maned Lion said:


> > Waiting for the wrecks to be done makes things no different than this current plan. One can still run the Sunset daily NOL-LAX, and send the City east of NOL. Drop the through cars off the Eagle 1and Amtrak might even be able to run the Sunset daily to Orlando without new cars.
> 
> 
> Numbers clearly indicate that the through sleeper on the Texas Eagle is one of the most profitable cars in the entire system. Lets get rid of this to restore service to a white elephant. Brilliant idea there, Alan.


First, I've seen no such numbers.

Second, I wasn't saying that it was a good idea, just that it might make it possible to run the train daily all the way.



Green Maned Lion said:


> > > You also are completely ignoring a cardinal point- pun intended. The Cardinal was extended from Washington to New York, and its ridership went up. Ok. Lets assume that all things being equal, a one seat ride will attract riders. I'd even agree with that. But this does not provide proof that expansion of all trains on that group of routes, and restoration of service to all cities previously served, will not improve ridership as much as reverting back to the previous set up.
> > > In otherwords: all things being equal, a single seat ride would probably improve ridership. But this does not indicate that daily trains with a three seat ride would provide less of an improvement in ridership then a single seat ride theoretically would. We don't know that.
> >
> >
> ...


Are you even reading what I'm saying? If more people will ride because of a one seat ride and if more people will pay a premium because of a one seat ride, then it stands to reason that more revenue will be generated than just going daily. Especially when one is eliminating the very cars that produce the most revenue.



Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Since I don't have the stats from those years I can't tell you. However, there is no point anyhow, since neither changed the level of services being offered, other than perhaps the Cardinal's dropping a family room and a real diner eventually. But the Eagle changed nothing but frequency. We're not talking about that here, we're talking about both a frequency and a service change. So no comparisons can be drawn. as you have two variables in play in this case.
> ...


I'm not avoiding any questions, hard or otherwise. I'm not going to sit here and tell you which train saw a greater improvement when I don't know. The Eagles change occured before Amtrak started releasing stats, and IIRC, the Cardinal's change happened just as Amtrak started releasing stats. Would you prefer that I make something up and lie to you? Talk about tomfoolery!

Additionally the Eagle made the change in two steps, going from 3 to 4 days, then to 7.

And again, both of those trains change only one thing each. The plan that we're discussing will change two things, one of which has no comparison to either the Eagle's going daily or the Cardinal lengthening it's run to include a bigger market in a one seat ride package.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Dec 15, 2009)

Continuing my thought process here....

It's a shame that some people have made this such a divisive issue. Florida vs. Texas, from what it seems. IMO, the people in FLA have a right to be P.O'd, as they've had their only train serving the panhandle region taken away from them. And the charade over the past four years had probably not left a very good taste in the mouths of the communities along the former NOL-JAX route. So really, you can't blame them. I'm not from FLA yet I'm still in disbelief as to the fast one that Amtrak pulled on those communities. If the same thing was to happen to Texas, I'm sure some of the folks there would be a little agitated, and rightfully so. Sad part is, and I agree with Alan here, once the stub train gets going, it sure seems like it'd be a lot easier for that train to get the axe...and that would leave Houston, one hell of a large city, with no rail service. Of course it's not guaranteed that scenario would happen, but anything's possible with Amtrak.

The Sunset Limited has operated NOL-LAX since 1894. That's a one-seat ride since 1894. Pretty impressive when you think about it. The Florida extension was started with much fanfare in '93...and it was something that Amtrak was very proud of at the time. My how times have changed. It troubles me to some extent that no better option has been found than to chop up the route yet again. I noticed on a previous thread that many Amtrak managers don't have much in the way of secondary education...well, it sure shows, in this case. I'm just being honest, if the stub train is the best they can do, it doesn't say much for the people making the route planning decisions.

I suppose I better take one last ride on the REAL Sunset Limited before it becomes a shell of its former self.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 15, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> It's a shame that some people have made this such a divisive issue. Florida vs. Texas, from what it seems.


Even more interesting is that I'm not from Florida and I'm not trying to make this about Florida. Yes, I won't deny that it would be nice to see service restored to Florida. But my main point here is that I still believe that Amtrak can do better than this current plan, much better.

It may mean waiting another 6 or even 9 months, but I for one will continue to believe until someone can show me the numbers, that Texas doesn't have to settle for sloppy seconds. I think that the equipment would be there to run a daily Sunset Limited from New Orleans through to LAX without downgrading the service to coach only. And I firmly believe that Amtrak will produce far more revenue by running a daily, full service Sunset Limited instead of this shell.

Why anyone would want to settle for that is beyond me.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 15, 2009)

Equip. issues aside for the moment:

What about a daily Superliner from JAX/ORL/MIA to SAS? Wouldn't that fill both gaps?


----------



## AlanB (Dec 15, 2009)

Yes it would, but Amtrak doesn't have the equipment for that I'm pretty sure. That would require Superliner 3's in order to pull off.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Continuing my thought process here....
> It's a shame that some people have made this such a divisive issue. Florida vs. Texas, from what it seems. IMO, the people in FLA have a right to be P.O'd, as they've had their only train serving the panhandle region taken away from them. And the charade over the past four years had probably not left a very good taste in the mouths of the communities along the former NOL-JAX route. So really, you can't blame them. I'm not from FLA yet I'm still in disbelief as to the fast one that Amtrak pulled on those communities. If the same thing was to happen to Texas, I'm sure some of the folks there would be a little agitated, and rightfully so. Sad part is, and I agree with Alan here, once the stub train gets going, it sure seems like it'd be a lot easier for that train to get the axe...and that would leave Houston, one hell of a large city, with no rail service. Of course it's not guaranteed that scenario would happen, but anything's possible with Amtrak.
> 
> The Sunset Limited has operated NOL-LAX since 1894. That's a one-seat ride since 1894. Pretty impressive when you think about it. The Florida extension was started with much fanfare in '93...and it was something that Amtrak was very proud of at the time. My how times have changed. It troubles me to some extent that no better option has been found than to chop up the route yet again. I noticed on a previous thread that many Amtrak managers don't have much in the way of secondary education...well, it sure shows, in this case. I'm just being honest, if the stub train is the best they can do, it doesn't say much for the people making the route planning decisions.
> ...


The 4th largest state Florida lose's a LD train and second largest state Texas will drop from two LD trains to one. Yet many

here see that as progress.

And I also agree that the SA-NOL stub will get the axe after 3-4 years or a major wreck requiring superliner replacements.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 15, 2009)

AlanB said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > As to the idea of an enhanced Sunset Limited becoming the "Empire Builder of the South" I don't think your being realistic.... the clientele that ride the Sunset are totally different then the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight type... and before anyone calls me out I was born in Louisiana and love visiting New Orleans, but lets be honest the Sunset Limited has a lower class of riders... yea i said it, even though Alan probably has some statistics that will prove me wrong : )
> ...


Ok I agree with you on that, the Empire Builder is not exactly a luxury liner. Still there are many other day trains that operate even longer distances that don't have diner or sleeper service. While alot of talk has been about the Cardinal a more comparable example is the PENNSYLVANIAN which used to operate all the way to Chicago but now passengers have to change trains at a very non-convenient hour to the Capitol in Pittsburgh. I honestly don't know if the Pennsylvanian ever ran with sleepers or a diner.. but they certainly only have a cafe car now. At 10 hours, it is very comparable to this San Antonio Stub Train.

To be fair... I'm not sure if this is the BEST way to solve issues, but I think that a train going daily is a very good thing. While the Sunset portion East of San Antonio is losing a diner and sleepers, the Texas Eagle is GAINING a full Diner. I realize in a perfect world both trains could operate more independant of each other and both have full diners etc. but AMTRAK we all know is far from perfect.

NATIVE SON... that was a bit of a low blow to amtrak management, I don't think that College Education had anything to do with this decision.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 15, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> While alot of talk has been about the Cardinal a more comparable example is the PENNSYLVANIAN which used to operate all the way to Chicago but now passengers have to change trains at a very non-convenient hour to the Capitol in Pittsburgh. I honestly don't know if the Pennsylvanian ever ran with sleepers or a diner.. but they certainly only have a cafe car now. At 10 hours, it is very comparable to this San Antonio Stub Train.


No, the Pennsy never had sleepers and a diner. The Three Rivers did, but not the Pennsy. And actually it's run was more like 18 hours IIRC. It left NY around 6:00 AM or so and was scheduled into Chicago at like 11:30 PM. But then this train was never intended to actually be used by passengers going that distance. Amtrak extended the Pennsy to haul freight, and hoped that in the process maybe a few people might ride it between mid-point stations. And actually quite a few people did do just that.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Dec 15, 2009)

TVRM610 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > TVRM610 said:
> ...


I realize what I was saying and I stand by it. I just don't give them a whole lot of credit for coming up with something that's in my opinion, too shortsighted.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 15, 2009)

AlanB said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > While alot of talk has been about the Cardinal a more comparable example is the PENNSYLVANIAN which used to operate all the way to Chicago but now passengers have to change trains at a very non-convenient hour to the Capitol in Pittsburgh. I honestly don't know if the Pennsylvanian ever ran with sleepers or a diner.. but they certainly only have a cafe car now. At 10 hours, it is very comparable to this San Antonio Stub Train.
> ...


I meant the current run is around 10 hours.... or maybe closer to 9. NYP-Pittsburgh.


----------



## TVRM610 (Dec 15, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > NATIVE SON... that was a bit of a low blow to amtrak management, I don't think that College Education had anything to do with this decision.
> ...


Well that's the thing, we don't KNOW that is so shortsighted... it may be the beginning of a long ambitious plan that will eventually include through sleepers from LAX-MIA! We really don't know yet. I agree like Alan says maybe there should be a little bit more info about this out, but perhaps they are waiting until the January Equipment Announcement to make any more info known.

Now I agree that this decision COULD be shortsighted, but that is something we just don't know yet.


----------



## Heading North (Dec 15, 2009)

I don't recall the Three Rivers ever having a diner, although it did run with sleepers on occasion (some refurbished Heritage sleepers for a brief period, and maybe a Viewliner?)... when I rode it in coach in 2004, there was just half a cafe car available, and an announcement made that there were a handful of dinner seats for sleeper passengers "left over" that we could purchase for $16.

It was a no-frills train, but it still got me to Chicago...


----------



## haolerider (Dec 15, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Remember, what seems to be shortsighted to you may be just the perfect solution to someone else. I doubt if Amtrak management cares much about your secondary education comment and I don't know what kind of business you are in, but the one thing everyone needs to remember is that on forums such as this, all it takes is a computer, connection and the ability to hit a few keys and you can become an instant expert! Isn't technology great?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 15, 2009)

Guest said:


> The 4th largest state Florida lose's a LD train and second largest state Texas will drop from two LD trains to one. Yet manyhere see that as progress.
> 
> And I also agree that the SA-NOL stub will get the axe after 3-4 years or a major wreck requiring superliner replacements.


You're paying no attention to the overall plan. First of all, the "Texas Sunrise" is a long-distance train and should have a CCC. So Texas isn't losing anything- it is gaining an additional train 4 days a week. The second phase of this plan, which would happen 6 months to a year after this, is the extension of the City of New Orleans to either Orlando or Miami. So Florida gets its train back, as well.

What I haven't been discussing is Amtraks intention either order some Superliner 3 cars or to order long-distance diner/lounge, coach, and sleeper cars based on the midwest corridor cars. It was indicated to me that one of those sleepers (which is not a Superliner, and may be all roomette with a single H-room) and perhaps a coach will become a through operation connecting to the Texas Sunrise and eventually the City of Miami, should they be delivered.

You guys are concentrating on losing the Sunset Limited. What Amtrak is doing is entirely reconfiguring its midwestern long distance trains and its southern transcon route. This is a huge operation, and it is going to take time. The first stage of this plan, which as I said, is not a foregone conclusion, is extending the Texas Eagle to LAX daily and replacing the Sunset with a day train between San Antonio and New Orleans. Stage two, which if this does happen has about an 85% chance of happening, is the extension of the City of New Orleans to Florida. Stage three, which if both state one and state two happen has about a 50% chance of happening, is the implementation of through cars.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Dec 15, 2009)

haolerider said:


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


I know they could care less about what I have to say (hence the nil response to numerous letters over the past few years to various people within the company regarding the whole Sunset East issue), so it's no skin off my back to say what I think...just like what everyone else is doing here. Heck I could be dead wrong...I've been wrong before. I'm not too proud to admit that. I'm in the transportation business, for the record, and my area of expertise, for what it's worth, is the New Orleans/Gulf Coast region. And yes technology is great!


----------



## Rail Freak (Dec 15, 2009)

rrdude said:


> Keep it going guys, this is good reading!



DITTO :lol: !!!

RF


----------



## wayman (Dec 15, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> What I haven't been discussing is Amtraks intention either order some Superliner 3 cars or to order long-distance diner/lounge, coach, and sleeper cars based on the midwest corridor cars. It was indicated to me that one of those sleepers (which is not a Superliner, and may be all roomette with a single H-room) and perhaps a coach will become a through operation connecting to the Texas Sunrise and eventually the City of Miami, should they be delivered.
> You guys are concentrating on losing the Sunset Limited. What Amtrak is doing is entirely reconfiguring its midwestern long distance trains and its southern transcon route. This is a huge operation, and it is going to take time. The first stage of this plan, which as I said, is not a foregone conclusion, is extending the Texas Eagle to LAX daily and replacing the Sunset with a day train between San Antonio and New Orleans. Stage two, which if this does happen has about an 85% chance of happening, is the extension of the City of New Orleans to Florida. Stage three, which if both state one and state two happen has about a 50% chance of happening, is the implementation of through cars.


I share GML's hope that there is a multi-stage plan which will ultimately incorporate through-cars (and specifically, a through-sleeper).

I share AlanB's concern that Amtrak has not been very good about explaining their rationale for the plans we've heard about their upcoming production of Fiddler On The Roof ("Sunrise, Sunset"...), which means I'm probably not as optimistic about the through-sleeper's chances as GML (who already points out it's far from a sure thing).

Perhaps the "big announcement in January" will give us news about this.

Or perhaps not.

But until then, all we can do is continue to speculate, which while fascinating doesn't actually lead to us having more information than we did before.

Still, I've got to say, this Sunset thread has been a lot more informative and, by-and-large, non-inflammatory than many previous ones. Go us!


----------



## tp49 (Dec 15, 2009)

If for nothing else related to this plan the one positive (or potentially positive) thing I see is that with the extension of the CONO to Florida there would be a direct connection for the first time in a long time between Florida and Chicago.


----------



## tp49 (Dec 15, 2009)

haolerider said:


> The one thing everyone needs to remember is that on forums such as this, all it takes is a computer, connection and the ability to hit a few keys and you can become an instant expert! Isn't technology great?


Quoted for truth, I'm going to sig this one This caused me to give my monitor a Coca-Cola shower. Note to self, don't take sip of drink when reading things.


----------



## saxman (Dec 15, 2009)

Wow, I can't even keep up with this thread. And for the record I'm not going to take sides.

I'm going by memory here, but it was stated by Amtrak personnel at the TEMPO meeting in June that all options were studied: weather it be existing equipment go daily on the Sunset route. This option however (I think) would break the two through cars from the Eagle in SAS. In other words if you come from the Texas Eagle to SAS, you'll have to change in SAS. If anyone wants to sit down and figure out the movement of cars, they can do that.

I believe the current Sunset overnights in NOL for 3 nights actually. (The amount of time it took to go to ORL and back) And I even think the trainset stays in LAX for two days, but I'm not sure. I think the Sunset uses 4 trainsets. The Texas Eagle uses 3 sets. The key was to make daily service along the route without adding equipment. The proposal as it stands now, would require 7 sets of equipment. We have that.

By my count you'd need 5 sets to run daily NOL-LAX, with it overnighting in NOL and turning same day in LAX. Currently the Sunset uses 4 sets of equipment, so we need to find one more from somewhere else. Still not sure if there would be enough to keep through cars from the Eagle.

Ok I lied. I agree with Alan. And I live in Texas too. I think revenue is important to Amtrak and keeping sleepers on the SAS to NOL is important. Sleepers make money. If anyone has the list of cars in BG that are getting repaired, it'd be appreciated. When I sat down a few months ago, I think I determined that there would be enough to make a daily Sunset NOL-LAX (with or without thru cars?) AND have an extra Portland sleeper on the Builder. But I through away my list, and now I wish I hadn't.


----------



## saxman (Dec 15, 2009)

Ok I did some research and according to this website there are 20 Superliner Cars to be rebuilt. (7 sleepers, 4 diners, 4 lounges, 3 coaches, and 2 dorms) So assuming you need 5 sleepers to go to the Portland section of the Empire Builder, that leaves 1 or 2 sleepers that can go to the extra Sunset trainset needed.

So Dorm, Sleeper, Diner, Lounge, 3 Coaches for the extra Sunset consist needed to go daily, NOL-LAX. Now I have to figure out if there's enough cars for the Eagle to provide its two through cars on a daily basis....tbd


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Dec 15, 2009)

saxman said:


> Ok I did some research and according to this website there are 20 Superliner Cars to be rebuilt. (7 sleepers, 4 diners, 4 lounges, 3 coaches, and 2 dorms) So assuming you need 5 sleepers to go to the Portland section of the Empire Builder, that leaves 1 or 2 sleepers that can go to the extra Sunset trainset needed.
> So Dorm, Sleeper, Diner, Lounge, 3 Coaches for the extra Sunset consist needed to go daily, NOL-LAX. Now I have to figure out if there's enough cars for the Eagle to provide its two through cars on a daily basis....tbd


Those EB sleepers will be put on the SEA section and the PDX section gets the CCCs which will be replaced by the diners.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Dec 16, 2009)

Actually, Micah, I was pretty sure the sleepers are bound for the Portland section, not the Seattle section.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 16, 2009)

Last I heard, one was bound for Portland and possibly one was bound for the Seattle section. They weren't sure if they could do both, but were hoping to do one for each section.


----------



## VentureForth (Dec 17, 2009)

Very interesting thread, and even more so is the very heartfelt opinions. Here's my thought. I'm in favor of the new changes. A daily run from CHI to LAX via SAS is great. I don't think it'll pull passengers off the SWC. Of course, and I don't think anyone will disagree, full service into downtown Phoenix is a very big must, and if it can be done, it will only help.

There is currently no "four points" service in the Amtrak system. It's more like a big triangle between Seattle, New York and LA with through services in Chicago, New Orleans, Washington DC, and Emeryville (from a geographic standpoint, not a service standpoint). A "trip around the system" misses thousands of miles in the SE. As the traffic flow patterns in this country are typically SW to/from NE, there is very limited, if any, SE to NW routes. The reason for that is simply economics - the demand isn't as high. Not "there is no demand", but it is not as high.

Currently Miamians MUST travel to WAS to get to LA, and even then it's still a three seat ride. It can't even be booked through NOL as there is an overnight layover. The first choice that comes up actually takes the rider to NYC then CHI to get to LAX!!

I think that if an overnighter can be had between SAS and MIA could be done in 21 hours, it would be awesome. Everyone else north of DC can make it to LA in two seats, so that would make it a real ride from MIA to LAX if it could be done along the old Sunset route. 1 seat from LAX to MIA is NOT necessary, and will only exasberate timekeeping - which, in my opinion, is what REALLY killed the SSL. After all, no one in NY or WAS can get to LA in 1 seat, either.

Both MIA and SAS are suitable for turnaround service and crew bases. This will solve 95% of the current routing problems and will not have to extent the CONO to JAX (they could eventually, that'd just be a bonus for all), and for that matter any of the solutions from NOL to the South.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Very interesting thread, and even more so is the very heartfelt opinions. Here's my thought. I'm in favor of the new changes. A daily run from CHI to LAX via SAS is great. I don't think it'll pull passengers off the SWC. Of course, and I don't think anyone will disagree, full service into downtown Phoenix is a very big must, and if it can be done, it will only help.
> There is currently no "four points" service in the Amtrak system. It's more like a big triangle between Seattle, New York and LA with through services in Chicago, New Orleans, Washington DC, and Emeryville (from a geographic standpoint, not a service standpoint). A "trip around the system" misses thousands of miles in the SE. As the traffic flow patterns in this country are typically SW to/from NE, there is very limited, if any, SE to NW routes. The reason for that is simply economics - the demand isn't as high. Not "there is no demand", but it is not as high.
> 
> Currently Miamians MUST travel to WAS to get to LA, and even then it's still a three seat ride. It can't even be booked through NOL as there is an overnight layover. The first choice that comes up actually takes the rider to NYC then CHI to get to LAX!!
> ...


What you and many suporters of this plan keep ignoring is the SAS-NOL section. A train out of Chicago going to LA will pass stop in several large metro's;Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, Little Rock. etc etc. This train will be full with no room for anyone from the SAS-NOL train go west. This will result in a close loop train to the west resulting in poor ridership numbers. 47% of Houston riders currently travel west of SAS.


----------



## MattW (Dec 17, 2009)

Are you forgetting that this will be a reserved train? It's not like the people will walk up to the vestibule and the conductor will say "Sorry, no more room."


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2009)

MattW said:


> Are you forgetting that this will be a reserved train? It's not like the people will walk up to the vestibule and the conductor will say "Sorry, no more room."


Lets say there will be 3 sleepers and 3 coaches on each daily CHI-SAS-LAX. There is 8 million people along SAS-NOL route, counting SAS.

About three times as many between SAS-CHI, counting CHI. Then you must count those west of SAS wanting to go west.

What kind of chance does anyone have in makiing a reservation with this many people on a limited capacity train?

reservations will be 5 years long. And walk on's can forget it. This will look good on paper for Amtrak, but Amtrak will

lose a lot of customers/supporters. Why support Amtrak when you can't book a ride without waiting years.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 17, 2009)

I'd think that most folks close to CHI will ride the SWC to LAX instead of the Eagle/Sunset. There's really no chance the train will be sold out of sleeper space all the time, I ride this train pretty often and it might be full a few weeks a year,

of course I'll grant you there will be times that the SAS-LAX and vice versa will be sold out, that happens now with the thrice weekly service but not even the Western trains sell out every day! It'll be interesting to see what finally happens,

I favor daily trains but till we see I'll say that I think Alan may be correct!


----------



## henryj (Dec 18, 2009)

Guest said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Are you forgetting that this will be a reserved train? It's not like the people will walk up to the vestibule and the conductor will say "Sorry, no more room."
> ...


All this exists now and the train is three times a week west of SAS. So what's your point? The train only has two sleepers and three coaches west of SAS now and the Eagle only carries one sleeper and two coaches. A more accurate consist would be one sleeper, one trans dorm, two coaches and the lounge and diner for the entire route. But with daily operation this still increases capacity around 50% on the route west of SAS. They may add capacity in SAS for the route west, who knows. The trains are all reserved space so there will not be people showing up from Houston with no seat west of SAS. People get on and get off all along the route. Your logic is somewhat flawed.


----------



## saxman (Dec 18, 2009)

Guest said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Are you forgetting that this will be a reserved train? It's not like the people will walk up to the vestibule and the conductor will say "Sorry, no more room."
> ...


This is a moot point. Unless a whole bunch of people book a reservation from Little Rock to El Paso and sell out the train, this won't be a problem. What's to stop a whole bunch of people from booking Houston to LAX and they sell out that part of the train keeping the Little Rock people from booking their trip. It doesn't matter either way. They're reserved seats and rooms. Based on this logic people won't be able to transfer from the Empire Builder to the Coast Starlight because the the CS is sold out from people coming from Seattle and points north of Portland. Same thing can be said for any connection. People aren't going sell out the Sunset/Eagle west of SAS and prevent a connecting passenger from boarding. If a seat is available, it's going to be available. Sure if you book your trip the same day of travel on the day before Thanksgiving, you might have a problem, but you'd have a problem with that anywhere in the system.


----------

