# Sunset East: Good news for a change?



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 7, 2010)

Check out this recent quote by Nick Martennilli, who's the passenger railroad aid of Corrine Brown, the chairperson of the Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials.

"Our subcommittee is planning a hearing on the Sunset Limited sometime this Spring in Jacksonville. We will have Amtrak, the Governors of the affected states and city and local officials including the Mayor of New Orleans to testify.* My boss' current intention is to put some type of restoration language in the Surface Transportation bill*." - Nick Martinelli, pax rr aid to the Honorable Corrine Brown.

Also, the New Orleans City Council is taking up the issue on passenger rail service east of New Orleans during its March 9th meeting. A couple of members of S.M.A.R.T are going to be speaking, as well.


----------



## daveyb99 (Mar 7, 2010)

Based on this synopsis

_Don't hold your breath waiting for the Florida leg of the Sunset Limited. _

from the Town Hall conference

AMTRAK ain't interested, no matter who holds what hearings or passed whatever resolutions.

This one is even more disturbing, given the amount of work KS, OK and TX have done to get service extended

_Extension of Heartland Flyer through Wichita KS to KC not really on radar of senior management_


----------



## MrEd (Mar 7, 2010)

That is great news, I can't wait to ride. Keep me posted on starting date.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 7, 2010)

Nothing's running east of New Orleans until somebody pays for it. At Saturday's railfan forum in Chicago, Boardman said action on the Sunset East is now up to Congress to fund it.


----------



## Larry H. (Mar 7, 2010)

I am confused. Evidently that service was approved by someone a long time ago and only stopped supposedly temporarily due to Katrina? How can they now say it has to be approved? Of course this is an endless story.. I would think someone could find the money in all the Stimulus Congress is holding for perks to fund this and many other lines!


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 7, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> Nothing's running east of New Orleans until somebody pays for it. At Saturday's railfan forum in Chicago, Boardman said action on the Sunset East is now up to Congress to fund it.


That seems like the generic answer for anything dealing with LD trains nowadays. It sure is an easy way to place blame on the states for something that wasn't state supported to begin with.


----------



## Steve4031 (Mar 7, 2010)

One additional cost that was mentioned as a barrier to sunset lmtd east service was the cost of implementing PTC on this route.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 7, 2010)

Larry H. said:


> I am confused. Evidently that service was approved by someone a long time ago and only stopped supposedly temporarily due to Katrina? How can they now say it has to be approved? Of course this is an endless story.. I would think someone could find the money in all the Stimulus Congress is holding for perks to fund this and many other lines!


Basically Amtrak has held the states hostage since Katrina, wanting them to pay for something that was already part of the national network. And it sucks that no one really called them on it. That's why I like the news of this JAX meeting. But of course, I'm not holding my breath....just wanted to post the latest news.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 7, 2010)

If something gets written into the Surface Transportation Bill, then with or without funding, Amtrak will have no choice to restore service east of NOL. Failure to do so would be a violation of law and could potentially see all Federal funding for Amtrak cut.

However, it won't be all that easy to get something written into that bill. Not impossible, but not easy either.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 7, 2010)

AlanB said:


> If something gets written into the Surface Transportation Bill, then with or without funding, Amtrak will have no choice to restore service east of NOL. Failure to do so would be a violation of law and could potentially see all Federal funding for Amtrak cut.
> However, it won't be all that easy to get something written into that bill. Not impossible, but not easy either.


IINM the members attending mentioned that Amtrak indicated that the City just had to make a left turn in NOL to run to Jacksonville which the last time I checked was in Florida!  That qualifies as an everyday LD train with all the needed amenities and equipment without Amtrak having to borrow from Peter to pay Paul so to speak. Some of us dont especially like losing the Sunset Ltd. but A DAILY TRAIN is the idea!(of course a stub train from SAS-HOS is not perfect but it is a train!)IINM this is a sensible,economically sound solution to the Sunset East problem, anyone else feel differently or have better ideas?  (BTW-Lame excuses about having to build expensive ADA accessible stations across the South @ a cost of millions don't cut it Joe, Amshaks seem to be the answer most other places, perhaps the locals can help fund this like they have and are doing so many other places!)


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Mar 7, 2010)

Boardman is no better then Kummant. we need someone to run Amtrak who likes trains and isn't a scrooge with his money.boardman wants something for nothing when it wasn't free in the first place.


----------



## the_traveler (Mar 7, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> this is a sensible, economically sound solution


You can't be talking about the US Government when you use those words! 

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## AlanB (Mar 7, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> Boardman is no better then Kummant. we need someone to run Amtrak who likes trains and isn't a scrooge with his money.boardman wants something for nothing when it wasn't free in the first place.


Mr. Boardman is far from being a Scrooge as it were. He's simply living within the means and constraints that Congress has imposed upon him. When Mr. Boardman was working for NY State as commissioner of DOT he worked very hard to get more trains running in NY. And while we may debate the wisdom of rebuilding the Turboliners from time to time, he was quite unhappy with Amtrak when they took the trains away to Delaware. He led the suit against Amtrak and David Gunn in fact.

Mr. Boardman has also served as the Federal Railroad Administrator, so I think that he likes trains. He's done quite a bit to help promote the use of trains in both NY State and this country. We may not like every decision he makes, especially as the railfans that we are, but I don't for one moment believe that Mr. Boardman dislikes trains or that he wants Amtrak to fail. He's doing the best he can under very trying and difficult circumstances and I suspect that there is a lot that we don't know and he does that has caused him to make some of the choices he has.

As most people here know by now, I'm not afraid to criticize Amtrak when I think it warranted. And again, I'm sure that there will be decisions that Mr. Boardman makes that I won't agree with. Heck, there are decisions my wife makes that I don't agree with. That's human nature.

But I don't for one minute believe that Mr. Boardman is doing anything but what he believes is the best for Amtrak under the rules, circumstances, and funding guidelines he's been given.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 7, 2010)

The only way Amtrak will take on a service without someone footing the bill for it is if they believe that service will be, in its entirety, profitable. Not just avoidable cost. All costs associated with that service. That's reasonable. They have a zero-sum game here, and they are not going to cut a route that they can reliably predict the fiscal characteristics of for one they can't. If someone chooses to fund it, they'll go for it. But funding has to be appropriated.

If they unleash an unfunded mandate to run the Sunset east of New Orleans, my friends, something else is going to be cut.


----------



## Hytec (Mar 7, 2010)

If Amtrak goes through with the concept of making the Sunset between San Antonio and New Orleans an all-coach (no sleeper) train, that will be more nails into the Sunset-east coffin. A 15 hour coach-only trip will lose whatever LD sleeper fares the Sunset currently has, meaning even less rider support to justify extending the train further east.


----------



## Jeremy (Mar 7, 2010)

For those of us who are still somewhat new to Amtrak and this board, when did Sunset Limited service stop the eastern portion between NOL and Florida and what happened to cause the disruption?

If Senset east were ever restored, it would be a great way for me to go visit my brother in Rat's Mouth, FL.

Jeremy


----------



## MrFSS (Mar 7, 2010)

Jeremy said:


> For those of us who are still somewhat new to Amtrak and this board, when did Sunset Limited service stop the eastern portion between NOL and Florida and what happened to cause the disruption?
> If Senset east were ever restored, it would be a great way for me to go visit my brother in Rat's Mouth, FL.
> 
> Jeremy


It stopped (was suspended) immediately after Katrina hit the area.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Mar 7, 2010)

i think boardman is being somewhat of a scrooge cause now he wants things for free. I understand wanting states to pay for there trains. Michigan funds the Michigan service trains but now he wants congress to fund the sunset east. Why is that now a problem. why didn't Amtrak say this 5 years before after the hurricane. CSX gave Amtrak permission to run it east again back before you required PTC ATC cab signals etc. there was no reason not to restore it.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Mar 7, 2010)

If the Capitol Limited were converted to single level and the equipment currently used for the Capitol Limited transferred to the Sunset Limited, would there be enough equipment for daily Florida to California service on the Sunset route?


----------



## willyvee (Mar 7, 2010)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If the Capitol Limited were converted to single level and the equipment currently used for the Capitol Limited transferred to the Sunset Limited, would there be enough equipment for daily Florida to California service on the Sunset route?


To my kowledge yes. I believe the current Sunset Limited runs with 4 sets of equipment as of now and the Capitol Limited with 3. A daily LAX-ORL Sunset would need 7.

I honestly think the above is a good idea, at least temporarily, until Amtrak gets some new Superliner (or other bilevel) equipment.


----------



## SunsetLimited01 (Mar 7, 2010)

willyvee said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > If the Capitol Limited were converted to single level and the equipment currently used for the Capitol Limited transferred to the Sunset Limited, would there be enough equipment for daily Florida to California service on the Sunset route?
> ...


I don't know if it will work since there is a shortage of single level equipment, but what do I know. It may or may not work.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 7, 2010)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If the Capitol Limited were converted to single level and the equipment currently used for the Capitol Limited transferred to the Sunset Limited, would there be enough equipment for daily Florida to California service on the Sunset route?


From what was presented at Saturday's meeting in Chicago, it looks like excess equipment (i.e. sleepers) that will result from the Texas Eagle/Sunset changes will be used to add more sleepers to the Capital. Service may be resumed along the Sunset East (once Congress funds it), but the coast to coast Sunset of the past will probably never return.


----------



## Hytec (Mar 7, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > If the Capitol Limited were converted to single level and the equipment currently used for the Capitol Limited transferred to the Sunset Limited, would there be enough equipment for daily Florida to California service on the Sunset route?
> ...


When are the Texas Eagle/Sunset changes scheduled to occur?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 7, 2010)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If the Capitol Limited were converted to single level and the equipment currently used for the Capitol Limited transferred to the Sunset Limited, would there be enough equipment for daily Florida to California service on the Sunset route?


Converted with... what equipment, Joel?

My understanding of what will happen with regards to this is, the Texas Eagle will go daily to LAX, a shuttle will go SAS-NOL daily, and then some time later, the CONO will be extended to Miami. At such time that equipment permits, through cars will be run either daily or tri-weekly at least to New Orleans, possibly to Miami, and possibly daily to New Orleans, tri-weekly to Miami.


----------



## henryj (Mar 8, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > If the Capitol Limited were converted to single level and the equipment currently used for the Capitol Limited transferred to the Sunset Limited, would there be enough equipment for daily Florida to California service on the Sunset route?
> ...


I don't know where this rumor comes from, but there is no excess equipment coming from the Eagle/Sunset changes. A daily Eagle to LAX takes 7 sets of equipment plus the stub trains between SAS and NOL. Currently, each train entails 4 sets of equipment. That doesn't yield any surplus the way I count it. If anything the route will be short sleepers and coaches. Increased capacity comes from having daily trains.


----------



## jis (Mar 8, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> why didn't Amtrak say this 5 years before after the hurricane. CSX gave Amtrak permission to run it east again back before you required PTC ATC cab signals etc. there was no reason not to restore it.


Because it chose to run something else instead. Afterall the books have to be balanced taking into account the total revenue and subsidy on one side and total burn rate on the other side. Now the tactics they used was somewhat, shall we say uncouth. But if you really want to know why they did what they did, the answer is to balance the books. 

BTW, GML is exactly right. If Congress serves an unfunded mandate to run Sunset East look for the Cardinal will be down to weekly or one of the other weaker trains to be reduced to less than daily service. Such has happened many times in the history of Amtrak and won't be out of the ordinary for it to happen again. Even the Empire Builder at one time was cut down to thrice a week beyond the Twin Cities. So I would not wish for such an unfunded mandate to come down from Congress. They should find the pitiful little extra money needed to run the train instead.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 8, 2010)

Does anyone want to guess what the expected consist for the stub train will be? 2 coaches and a CCC? I wonder what will become of the planned "business class coach"...refit of an existing coach to feature 2+1 seating, or just a coach car as is, with the added perk of free meals?

Also...I agree...if the stub train becomes a reality, the CONO to Florida will probably be the easiest way to go about resuming svc east of New Orleans.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2010)

Hytec said:


> If Amtrak goes through with the concept of making the Sunset between San Antonio and New Orleans an all-coach (no sleeper) train, that will be more nails into the Sunset-east coffin. A 15 hour coach-only trip will lose whatever LD sleeper fares the Sunset currently has, meaning even less rider support to justify extending the train further east.


A no sleeper train between NOL-SAS will lead to no train between SAS-NOL.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2010)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Does anyone want to guess what the expected consist for the stub train will be? 2 coaches and a CCC? I wonder what will become of the planned "business class coach"...refit of an existing coach to feature 2+1 seating, or just a coach car as is, with the added perk of free meals?
> Also...I agree...if the stub train becomes a reality, the CONO to Florida will probably be the easiest way to go about resuming svc east of New Orleans.


Someone needs to ask Amtrak who is going to ride business between SAS-HOU-NOL with Southwest Airlines and the very fast I-10 as alternatives.

So

the consist will be coach-CCC-empty coach.


----------



## Hytec (Mar 8, 2010)

Guest said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone want to guess what the expected consist for the stub train will be? 2 coaches and a CCC? I wonder what will become of the planned "business class coach"...refit of an existing coach to feature 2+1 seating, or just a coach car as is, with the added perk of free meals?
> ...


Back to my original question....does anyone have info (rumor?) as to when the Sunset/Eagle change may occur? I have sleeper reservations NOL-LAX westbound on 5/10 and eastbound on 5/16. The prospect of 15 hour coach trips NOL/SAS sucks, especially with a cross-platform transfers with the Eagle at SAS in the middle of the night.

Any info would be appreciated, thanks.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 8, 2010)

henryj said:


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


It's not a rumor. It comes directly from the Amtrak marketing guy who spoke at Saturday's meeting in Chicago (Emmett, somebody, I don't have my notes with me). In talking about the committee that is studying each of the long distance routes over the next three years, he specifically said that there would be surplus sleepers created from the daily Texas EAgle/Sunset combo, primarily because the train sets would no longer be laying over for a day in New Orleans. The Capital Limited plans include adding additional sleepers, which he said would come from the

Texas Eagle/Sunset changes. I don't understand that details of the car shuffling, but this was part of Amtrak's official presentation and not some off the cuff remark regarding car shifts.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 8, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> It's not a rumor. It comes directly from the Amtrak marketing guy who spoke at Saturday's meeting in Chicago (Emmett, somebody, I don't have my notes with me).


The would most likely be Emmett Fremaux, VP of Marketing and Product Management.

Emmett is the man largely responsible for upgrading the food service on Acela after it sank to new lows following the brake issues that sidelined Acela for several months. Emmett was also the driving force behind getting people to board trains between Stamford & NY to pick up trash and freshen the bathrooms during the middle of the runs. I suspect that he's also been one who has pushed hard for upgrading the food in the dining cars in the last couple of years and restoring better service to the CS.

He's without a doubt one of the good guys working for Amtrak.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm still questioning as to whether or not it's wise to take the sleeping car from New Orleans. Even when the coaches aren't full, the lone sleeper on 1/2 is generally heavily occupied. I wish they could just operate NOL-SAS as 1 coach, 1 coach/baggage, 1 CCC, and 1 sleeper at the rear, which could be connected to the back of the Texas Eagle. They can make coach passengers do the cross platform transfer but keep it as a single ride for folks in the sleeper. Do they not have enough equipment to do this? Why just outright cancel the sleeper?


----------



## henryj (Mar 8, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > MikefromCrete said:
> ...


He either can't count or it's a smoke and mirrors thing. The Eagle when it gets to Chicago lays over for 24 hours so maybe that is what they are thinking of using. By the way, capital as in capital letters, Capitol as in the Capitol of a state or country. So it's the Capitol Limited. The Sunset equipment currently lays over for three days in NOL and a whole day or more in LAX. I presume they will turn the Eagle same day in LAX when the new schedule comes out. You can count it yourself. The Sunset is using four six car sets. Transition sleeper, sleeper, coach, coach, diner and ssl. The Eagle is basically the same except for a ccc in place of the diner. It may also have three coaches on some days. The thru sleeper may entail a couple more sleepers, but not more than that as it's only three times a week. For daily service you need seven sets plus some backups. Seven transition sleepers, 7+ sleepers, 14 - 21 coaches, 7 diners and 7 ssl's. Coach trains need at least two ccc's and 4-6 coaches. I think they might add a sleeper in SAS as the train has two from SAS to LAX. They might add a coach also. Who knows. Depends on demand maybe. You should have a spare ccc or two but you will need three extra diners. So you might have a spare sleeper and transition if they limit the train to one sleeper and one transition. I don't see any spare coaches. I don't know what Emmett is thinking, but I just don't see much equipment being freed up.

I have heard all the skeptcism about the coach trains, and certainly Amtrak has shorted Texas before in this way. Setting up a coach train to fail and then discontinuing it. On the other hand, daily service between SAS-HOU-NOL may actually pick up some passengers that would not currently use the spotty service running at odd hours. I know it's slow, but so is most of Amtrak's routes. If it's daily and run on time it might become a popular alternative to flying. The HOU to NOL is a designated HSR so they have some incentive to make it work. People in SAS will be able to schecule a day trip to Houston. That would be new. And Houston passengers would be able to schedule a trip to NOL any day of the week for a change. Who knows it might work. Among the rumors flying around is the desire to schedule a through coach and sleeper from NOL as soon as equipment becomes available. Living in Houston, I try to remain positive.


----------



## MattW (Mar 8, 2010)

If something west of New Orleans goes Daily (Sunset, Stub, whatever) it could mean more people on the Crescent out of NOL for the Northeast...


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 8, 2010)

henryj said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


The Eagle turns into the CONO in CHI. Super short layover there.


----------



## jis (Mar 8, 2010)

henryj said:


> He either can't count or it's a smoke and mirrors thing. The Eagle when it gets to Chicago lays over for 24 hours so maybe that is what they are thinking of using. By the way, capital as in capital letters, Capitol as in the Capitol of a state or country. So it's the Capitol Limited.


Just FYI the word for the city in which the principal seat of government of a state or country is located is *capital* not *Capitol*. *Capitol* is the name of a building in Washington DC and the train is named after said building. It is also the name of a temple and a hill in Rome, and the name of various buildings and housing estates in various other places.

Actually the Capitol Building in Washington DC got its name from its namesake in Rome. According to _Allen, William C. (2001). History of the United States Capitol - A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics. Government Printing Office. __http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/capitol/__._:



> Thomas Jefferson insisted the legislative building be called the "Capitol", rather than "Congress House". The word "Capitol" comes from Latin, meaning city on a hill and is associated with the Roman temple to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on Capitoline Hill.


Even as recently as in the 80's Ronald Reagan used the phrase "the city on a hill" to metaphorically refer to the United States. So one can surmise that this connection runs deep in the psyche of the nation.

Just in case one has difficulty believing me....

From Dictionary.com:



> cap·i·tal  _/ˈkæpɪtl/_ _[kap-i-tl] _–noun
> 
> 1. the city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc.: _Tokyo is the capital of Japan_.





> Cap·i·tol_ /ˈkæpɪtl/ [kap-i-tl] _–noun
> 
> 1. the building in Washington, D.C., used by the Congress of the U.S. for its sessions.
> 
> ...


So "Washington DC is the _*capital *_of the United States. The federal legislature of the United States transacts its business in the _*Capitol*_ in Washington DC".


----------



## henryj (Mar 8, 2010)

jis said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > He either can't count or it's a smoke and mirrors thing. The Eagle when it gets to Chicago lays over for 24 hours so maybe that is what they are thinking of using. By the way, capital as in capital letters, Capitol as in the Capitol of a state or country. So it's the Capitol Limited.
> ...


In any case the name of the train is the 'Capitol Limited'.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 8, 2010)

NativeSon5859 said:


> I'm still questioning as to whether or not it's wise to take the sleeping car from New Orleans. Even when the coaches aren't full, the lone sleeper on 1/2 is generally heavily occupied. I wish they could just operate NOL-SAS as 1 coach, 1 coach/baggage, 1 CCC, and 1 sleeper at the rear, which could be connected to the back of the Texas Eagle. They can make coach passengers do the cross platform transfer but keep it as a single ride for folks in the sleeper. Do they not have enough equipment to do this? Why just outright cancel the sleeper?


They do have the equipment to run this train daily under the stipulations listed for the service, and if they manage to improve their equipment utilization slightly, would have just enough to operate the City of New Orleans to Miami. (Although, that would cancel the EBs fourth sleeper).

The cost of daily service over the entirety of the Texas Eagle and Sunset West routes is the sleeper from NOL to SAS. I think, personally, that this is a bargain. I would expect, however, that in the winter after the Texas Eagle hits LA daily, a through sleeper to NOL will be attempted on at least a tri-weekly basis as a seasonal experiment. If a through sleeper proves to be more profitable then a second or third sleeper on some other train, it will come to pass, taken from that other train.

Amtrak isn't stupid. They aren't going to eschew a through sleeper if putting that through sleeper LAX to NOL or even MIA proves to be a more profitable venture than it operating elsewhere. Amtrak has decided, no matter how, that this reorganization maximizes prospective service many times over. I agree. If a through sleeper makes sense, it will eventually happen. But first, let us have daily service along the entirety of the Sunset Route (Sunset East does not run on the Sunset Route, by the way) for the first time since the Espee cut it to tri-weekly in October of 1970.

Then we can work towards operations over the Gulf Coast (probably not as part of the Sunset), and once that runs all the way to Florida, it would then make sense to consider through sleepers and coaches, which, I suspect, will eventually come to pass.

I have often said publicly that a fair acid test between a realistic transit advocate and a doe-eyed railfan is their stance on the issue of this reorganization. A railfan wants the Sunset running tri-weekly. The transit advocate recognizes the overall benefit of running the trains daily being more important than the one seat ride, the sleeper over the day trip between SAS and NOL, and the historic interest value of preserving the famed _Sunset Limited_ in a sort of time-capsule to times gone by.

Amtrak is, first and foremost (and for most!) a method of transportation. Most people riding the Sunset between stops in NOL and SAS or even points beyond, are riding for relatively short distances, and while the train is nicer than other options, they are doing it to go see grandma and grandpa, not to ride the train for the sheer hell of it. Those passengers, the very core of Amtrak's business, prefer to know the train is running daily as a concept to the romance of riding the _Sunset Limited_, a historic name giving the train some glamor, but of really no meaning to those core passengers.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 8, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still questioning as to whether or not it's wise to take the sleeping car from New Orleans. Even when the coaches aren't full, the lone sleeper on 1/2 is generally heavily occupied. I wish they could just operate NOL-SAS as 1 coach, 1 coach/baggage, 1 CCC, and 1 sleeper at the rear, which could be connected to the back of the Texas Eagle. They can make coach passengers do the cross platform transfer but keep it as a single ride for folks in the sleeper. Do they not have enough equipment to do this? Why just outright cancel the sleeper?
> ...


I agree with much of that, but what I proposed is far from unrealistic. Also I forgot to add Houston in my previous email. If run daily, there's no reason to assume that between Houston and New Orleans that a sleeping car couldn't be filled, and filled profitably, assuming good yield management practices are in place. I'm all for the option that provides the consumer with the most benefits. Without question, daily service is HUGE. But at the same time, the route will no longer be a viable option for people "going the distance", or "most of the distance", who previously used a sleeping car. Getting off in SAS at 11:00pm heading west or at around 6:30am heading east and having to wait either on the connecting train or in the station for over an hour isn't the end of the world, but it is certainly a huge inconvenience. In any case, it sounds like the decision has been made. I hope and pray that this will be a success....but considering how Amtrak has handled its affairs in the Gulf South over the past five years, you can see how one could have some doubts.

Also, this part of your post..."I have often said publicly that a fair acid test between a realistic transit advocate and a doe-eyed railfan is their stance on the issue of this reorganization. A railfan wants the Sunset running tri-weekly. The transit advocate recognizes the overall benefit of running the trains daily being more important than the one seat ride, the sleeper over the day trip between SAS and NOL, and the historic interest value of preserving the famed Sunset Limited in a sort of time-capsule to times gone by."...is a nice opinion, but I don't see it quite as cut and dry as that. To each his own.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 8, 2010)

To be completely frank, and pointed, I've seen so many tons of people changing trains in Chicago, I can't imagine a one-seat ride being a big deal. Alan's commentary about it is so invalid in my mind, I don't know where to begin. One is that the prospect of changing trains in a station like that of Washington D.C. is daunting enough to scare anyone not comfortable with navigating disorganized transit centers.

But in any case, if people want to go from LAX to NOL, and do not like taking the plane (lets be realistic, here, NativeSon, if you like taking the plane, you are using it between those too points!) they have two choices. A god-knows-how-many connection ride on the dog without any amenities, or riding the train to SAS and changing once to get to NOL. I think they'd do the latter. I don't think it will cut ridership much at all.

Edit, not from that market. I do envision a ridership cut between, lets say, Houston and Del Rio from certain people who don't want to change for a relatively short trip. But I think the people leaving for that reason will be fighting a stream of those willing to chose Amtrak because it is now predictably daily and probably more convenient as a schedule.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 8, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> To be completely frank, and pointed, I've seen so many tons of people changing trains in Chicago, I can't imagine a one-seat ride being a big deal. Alan's commentary about it is so invalid in my mind, I don't know where to begin. One is that the prospect of changing trains in a station like that of Washington D.C. is daunting enough to scare anyone not comfortable with navigating disorganized transit centers.
> But in any case, if people want to go from LAX to NOL, and do not like taking the plane (lets be realistic, here, NativeSon, if you like taking the plane, you are using it between those too points!) they have two choices. A god-knows-how-many connection ride on the dog without any amenities, or riding the train to SAS and changing once to get to NOL. I think they'd do the latter. I don't think it will cut ridership much at all.


It probably won't be a big deal for a lot of people...I think it will for the elderly and those traveling with kids...but I mean I'd do it. No one joins me on my train trips anyway. :lol: They will, however, have to market this well and promote the daily service aspect of it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 8, 2010)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Also, this part of your post..."I have often said publicly that a fair acid test between a realistic transit advocate and a doe-eyed railfan is their stance on the issue of this reorganization. A railfan wants the Sunset running tri-weekly. The transit advocate recognizes the overall benefit of running the trains daily being more important than the one seat ride, the sleeper over the day trip between SAS and NOL, and the historic interest value of preserving the famed Sunset Limited in a sort of time-capsule to times gone by."...is a nice opinion, but I don't see it quite as cut and dry as that. To each his own.


No, its not that cut and dry. I admit that publicly, too. But I, personally, have yet to see an example of the test not working on people whom I have already figured their stance on one side or the other.

Obviously, I am both a transit advocate and a rail fan. In terms of what I'd like to ride, I'm more of a rail-fan, I admit it. I will sincerely be sad that I will likely never get the chance to ride the Sunset Limited as it originally ran. But I can't let that feeling get in my way of my firm conviction that what we need is more transit, usable transit that makes sense. When it comes to what I want Amtrak to do, as is probably self-evident, I want to see them running trains that make sense both as transit and as financially sensible concepts.

I'd love, LOVE, to ride a trans-continental dome-liner decked out like VIA's _Canadian_ across our beautiful country. But I also know that if Amtrak were to embark on an endeavor to run such a train, it would, within a short time, sound off Amtrak's death-knell, or at least that of the more sensible LD trains. If some entity were to attempt to contract with Amtrak to run such a train, sign me up to ride it, man.

I've spent enough time around the politics of running these things to know how things work to a decent degree. If a political opponent wants to get in, one way they can do so is find a poster child for how bad the previous guys are doing. Something as fiscally silly as a flagship train as described is a perfect item to select as such a poster child.

I want to put the long-term future of our LD trains, important transit links in this country for certain people, on solid ground. And I can't conceivably imagine doing that with something such as those dome-liners... or a tri-weekly Sunset Limited from LAX to NOL. Which was a flawed concept envisioned by an old and senile man. Who did a lot of good for Amtrak in his early years of service... but...


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 8, 2010)

AlanB said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a rumor. It comes directly from the Amtrak marketing guy who spoke at Saturday's meeting in Chicago (Emmett, somebody, I don't have my notes with me).
> ...


OK, I'm home now. Right, Alan, the long distance presenter was Fremaux. Presenting the fleet strategy plan was Chris Jagodzinski, senior director, system operations. Amtrak Police Chief John O'Connor presented the photo policy part of the program.

Also on hand were Tom Carper, of Macomb, IL., chairman of the Amtrak board, and a variety of people from the Amtrak public relations, government relations and Chicago area operations departments.

Jim Wrinn, editor of Trains, was there along with Kevin Keefe, publisher; Matt Van Hattem, senior editor; and Andy Cummings, associate editor.


----------



## henryj (Mar 8, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I think they'd do the latter. I don't think it will cut ridership much at all.
> But I think the people leaving for that reason will be fighting a stream of those willing to chose Amtrak because it is now predictably daily and probably more convenient as a schedule.


Well GML that is what I am thinking. The three times a week service through Houston in the wee hours of the morning(or late at night) hardly generates much local traffic. Once these daily trains are running reliably and at decent hours it should cause a pickup in intrastate traffic. We will finally have daily service between SAS and HOU and between HOU and NOL as well as the whole distance and points in between, something we have not had for at least 40 years. Many more people will choose to ride simply because it is a reliable alternate to flying and it is convenient. I don't see the transfer in SAS as being a burden as the proposal is for an across the platform transfer, not a wait for hours in the station. Even the elderly can just have a redcap transfer their baggage for them. It should not be a big deal. Eastbound the connecting train will be waiting there when the Eagle gets in so even early in the morning it should not be a big inconvenience. Westbound passengers should be able to stay on the train if the Eagle happens to be a little late. Of course if the Eagle experiences one of it's all too frequent catastrophic delays then I would assume the connecting passengers would have to detrain. Personally I am keeping positive that this will all work out as planned.


----------



## coxm50 (Mar 8, 2010)

henryj said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I think they'd do the latter. I don't think it will cut ridership much at all.
> ...


When is the stub train supposed to arrive and depart SAS, and the same for the Eagle? I had thought that there would be an overnight stay in SAS to connect at least in one direction.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 9, 2010)

coxm50 said:


> When is the stub train supposed to arrive and depart SAS, and the same for the Eagle? I had thought that there would be an overnight stay in SAS to connect at least in one direction.


No, not at all. They were planning on direct cross-platform transfer, with through cars a possibility as equipment allowed.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 9, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> To be completely frank, and pointed, I've seen so many tons of people changing trains in Chicago, I can't imagine a one-seat ride being a big deal. Alan's commentary about it is so invalid in my mind, I don't know where to begin.


With respect, you don't have to begin any where. You may not like it, but the data is there to support it. Ridership on the Cardinal soared when the transfer in DC was eliminated, and that was despite the down-grade in service. And transfers remain one of the top issues for people having to ride the trains.

Additionally while you're correct that many people do make the transfer in Chicago, you're missing part of the equation. Most, although not all I admit, are transferring trains within the same class of accommodation. That will not be possible with the Sunset plan. Someone who has been faithfully riding the Sunset east of San Antonio will no longer have that option with this plan.

Unless riders see some benefit to them, like reduced travel times or cheaper fares, they only tolerate transfers when given no other choice. Daily service isn't a benefit to someone who used to be able to sit in a dining car for dinner and then retire to their sleeper. On the other hand, the transfer at Secaucus Junction works because commuters see a reduced travel time, not to mention that they were still facing a transfer at Hoboken anyhow. So that was an easy transfer to sell. This isn't. Too many people are going to be seeing this as making their lives harder.

Convenient across the platform transfers, assuming that they ever happen in San Antonio (they don't happen elsewhere on Amtrak), aren't going to sell the current riders. Shorter run times might help some; however the biggest amounts of padding that will be removed are west of San Antonio and will have minimal impact on the stub train.

Yes daily service will help things, but I for one continue to fear that for every rider gained by that, we may lose one because of the other changes.

And even more now following the comments at the Town Hall meeting, where for the first time Amtrak publicly seemed to be stating that States would have to band together for new services (before this it was just a new service in one state that they wanted state funding), that within a few years the stub train will be on the chopping block unless Texas and Louisiana step up to fund the loss. The stub train is going to look just like every other state funded train and I continue to fear that is the ultimate plan even more so now.

Next as someone who does advocate for trains all over, the news forums are filled with posts from me, I don't think that I'm seeing this through Railfan eyes. I've seen no numbers from Amtrak to support any of the conclusions. And what numbers can be found seem to indicate that the loss of ridership east of San Antonio could be significant, despite gains from more riders attracted to the daily service. And without a doubt, revenue will plummet. It cannot do otherwise with the loss of the sleeper revenue and the lower coach prices that will have to be implemented to compensate people for the inconvenience of the San Antonio shuffle.

And now Emmett Fremaux has publicly stated that Amtrak will free up cars from this change, which brings me right back to the fact that Amtrak could accomplish daily running of the Sunset without needing to go to this Stub train plan if the couple in some of the wreck repairs.

Finally let me also remind you that this plan grew out of a suggestion from a bunch of LA Railfans with dreams of having daily service in California. They don't care a whit about what happens in Texas and Louisiana. They just want daily service for their state.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 9, 2010)

Alan, the Cardinal varies in several respects (run time of the short leg, the size of the station its transfering at, and so on) that I don't consider it more then, perhaps, back up support for your point. Pretending the Cardinal doesn't exist, what other information do you demonstrably have to prove your perspective? I haven't heard anything than conjectures, opinions, and speculation on your part on this subject.

Do you have any data to back this up besides the Cardinal?


----------



## DivMiler (Mar 9, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Convenient across the platform transfers, assuming that they ever happen in San Antonio (*they don't happen elsewhere on Amtrak*), aren't going to sell the current riders.


(Emphasis added)

Alan, what about the Capitol Limited-to-Pennsylvanian (and vice versa) in Pittsburgh, and the New Haven transfers between the shuttles and the Northeast Regional?

I've found the former deadly, and the latter quite reasonable.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 9, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> coxm50 said:
> 
> 
> > When is the stub train supposed to arrive and depart SAS, and the same for the Eagle? I had thought that there would be an overnight stay in SAS to connect at least in one direction.
> ...


I heard it was going to be an hour and a half connection time in SAS. So you're looking at roughly a 10:00pm to 11:30pm transfer heading to LAX, and a 6:30am to 8:00am transfer heading to NOL. That's all fine and dandy except when the Eagle arrives two hours late from Chicago, or late from LAX. Then you're looking at an extended connection in SAS, which has a very small station, and on the way back an arrival into NOL well after midnight, assuming the stub train will be held for the train coming in from LAX. So the "cross platform transfer" could be that in theory, but it could also end up being quite the ordeal.


----------



## wayman (Mar 9, 2010)

DivMiler said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Convenient across the platform transfers, assuming that they ever happen in San Antonio (*they don't happen elsewhere on Amtrak*), aren't going to sell the current riders.
> ...


My sense from having seen it in action once a few years ago was that the cross-platform transfer at Albany between the LSL and the Boston-stub had riders, and they weren't particularly grumpy. Now, I didn't talk to anyone who'd had a sleeper from Chicago to Albany and had to downgrade to coach at that point -- those folks might have been grumpy. I don't know.

Of course, now it's a join/split operation, and I would guess that no riders were disappointed by that change and many saw it as a big improvement. But it didn't appear to be a total failure when it was a cross-platform-transfer operation.


----------



## Chris J. (Mar 9, 2010)

wayman said:


> My sense from having seen it in action once a few years ago was that the cross-platform transfer at Albany between the LSL and the Boston-stub had riders, and they weren't particularly grumpy. Now, I didn't talk to anyone who'd had a sleeper from Chicago to Albany and had to downgrade to coach at that point -- those folks might have been grumpy. I don't know.
> Of course, now it's a join/split operation, and I would guess that no riders were disappointed by that change and many saw it as a big improvement. But it didn't appear to be a total failure when it was a cross-platform-transfer operation.


I didn't find it too bad; checked bags were transferred for you and and you didn't have to downgrade to coach as business class was available on the Albany - Boston train.


----------



## Hytec (Mar 9, 2010)

Chris J. said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > My sense from having seen it in action once a few years ago was that the cross-platform transfer at Albany between the LSL and the Boston-stub had riders, and they weren't particularly grumpy. Now, I didn't talk to anyone who'd had a sleeper from Chicago to Albany and had to downgrade to coach at that point -- those folks might have been grumpy. I don't know.
> ...


Chris, your experience with being downgraded to Business Class from Albany to Boston was only for a 5-1/2 hour trip, which would be reasonable, though not as pleasant as the sleeper segment. Whereas an ex-Sunset stub train between NOL and SAS will still be 15 hours regardless of schedule, with some being in the wee hours. Even if Amtrak offers a Business Class with the stub train, more than 6-8 hours in one seat with no privacy would be tiring, and 15 hours would be unacceptable. I have enjoyed Amtrak sleeper travel for business for the past 20 years and am looking forward to a NOL/LAX trip in May. However, if Amtrak makes the Sunset/Eagle change before June 1, I probably will cancel the train reservation and fly, or possibly drive, neither being enjoyable.


----------



## coxm50 (Mar 9, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> coxm50 said:
> 
> 
> > When is the stub train supposed to arrive and depart SAS, and the same for the Eagle? I had thought that there would be an overnight stay in SAS to connect at least in one direction.
> ...


Is the cross platform transfer only going to and from LAX to NOL or also NOL to FTW and CHI?


----------



## jis (Mar 9, 2010)

coxm50 said:


> Is the cross platform transfer only going to and from LAX to NOL or also NOL to FTW and CHI?


Only for LAX to points east of SAS, like NOL and Houston.


----------



## jis (Mar 9, 2010)

AlanB said:


> And now Emmett Fremaux has publicly stated that Amtrak will free up cars from this change, which brings me right back to the fact that Amtrak could accomplish daily running of the Sunset without needing to go to this Stub train plan if the couple in some of the wreck repairs.


Emmett Fremaux is a good guy and he is possibly one of the best things that happened to Amtrak in Kummant's era. It defies all logic why Gunn was unable to understand that his marketing department was completely broken and failed to get rid of the leadership there. But that is a separate discussion. I actually had a long chat with Emmett regarding increasing capacity on the NEC Regionals which back then were down to 5 to 6 cars. We talked at length about price elasticity and how increasing capacity would reduce cost of tickets which would increase ridership which would increase revenue faster than cost of ops thus creating a better result on the bottom line. He did follow through on that one, and the Regionals are now upto 7 to 9 cars.

Coming back to this discussion, I would like to see the arithmetic backing up this claim. I bet the additional new cars are assumed to be coming into the pool from TIGER refurbs. There are not enough freed cars to be had by rearranging these two trains to achieve full daily service to both NOL and CHI from LAX including Sleepers, and Diners.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 9, 2010)

AlanB said:


> If something gets written into the Surface Transportation Bill, then with or without funding, Amtrak will have no choice to restore service east of NOL. Failure to do so would be a violation of law and could potentially see all Federal funding for Amtrak cut.
> However, it won't be all that easy to get something written into that bill. Not impossible, but not easy either.


I know Corrine Brown...they can have all the Town Hall meetings they want; they can put derails on the CSXT track; they can drain the mules of diesel but if she says it will run... IT WILL RUN...end of story.  Only tree Amtrak can hide behind is that Positive Train Control must be in place by 2012; they'll be crying for money to fund it (don't think the CSXT is going to volunteer any bucks for a pax train) worst than somebody who doesn't have change for a pay toilet.


----------



## RailEngr08 (Mar 9, 2010)

I have read this entire topic thread and have just one question for you guys. In October when the sunset starts running daily out out NOL will this help or hurt the chances of sunset returning to the eastern portion?


----------



## MrEd (Mar 9, 2010)

I got some good news from new orleans, the city is pushing to get the sunset limited running to the east.

http://www.wdsu.com/news/22790347/detail.html

won't be long now

***********

However, since the storm, the part of the line that ran from New Orleans to Orlando is no longer in operation.

“I think the line needs to be established. It will definitely help out a lot with the communication and getting more people over there and getting people over to us,” Marks said.

The New Orleans City Council agrees, and is trying to change that. For the council, the battle to restore the line between the “Big Easy” and the “Happiest Place on Earth” has been a frustrating fight.

Councilman Arnie Fielkow said he thinks the battle lies in Washington.

************


----------



## SunsetLimited01 (Mar 9, 2010)

Hopefully they get something east of New Orleans. I could deal with Tri-weekly service any day until it comes time to upgrade to daily. Question how many sets would it require to run the line from Los Angeles to Orlando isn't it 7-8 sets or something like that?


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 9, 2010)

MrEd said:


> I got some good news from new orleans, the city is pushing to get the sunset limited running to the east.
> http://www.wdsu.com/news/22790347/detail.html
> 
> won't be long now
> ...


Todd Stennis of Amtrak was at the meeting and was supposed to talk. I wonder what he had to say. Probably "show us the money, we'll show you the train"? Come on Corrine Brown...it's time to play hardball...the Gulf South has been hoodwinked for the past five years...put the restoration resolution in and force them to restore it.


----------



## henryj (Mar 9, 2010)

Hytec said:


> Whereas an ex-Sunset stub train between NOL and SAS will still be 15 hours regardless of schedule, with some being in the wee hours. Even if Amtrak offers a Business Class with the stub train, more than 6-8 hours in one seat with no privacy would be tiring, and 15 hours would be unacceptable.



People keep throwing out this 15 hour number as if everyone that boards in San Antonio or New Orleans is going all the way. If you look at Amtrak's ridership numbers you see that the train makes many stops along the way and people get on and off at each one. So many passengers will not be riding for the full route and Houston, the largest city in Texas will be right in the middle. The schedule that has been talked about is for an 8am departure at each end and a 10pm arrival at the other end. That is not in the 'wee' hours as you alluded too. The current 3 times a week schedule is in the wee hours and thankfully that will be gone. Superliner seats are very comfortable whether business class or just coach so I don't see a problem with that at all. A through sleeper from NOL to LAX takes a least five cars. Please tell me where you are going to find five extra superliner sleepers. Finally, Amtrak has stated that they plan to put on a through sleeper as soon as extra equipment becomes available. Texas has not had daily service of any kind between SAS-HOU-NOL for over 40 years. Personally I am excited about this proposal and hope it is implemented as soon as possible. I think it will generate a lot of local intrastate traffic in addition to the through passengers. It will only be Texas' second corridor style train. The Heartland Flyer being the first.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 9, 2010)

henryj said:


> It will only be Texas' second corridor style train. The Heartland Flyer being the first.


And who pays for that train?

It's not Amtrak. It's Texas and Oklahoma.

And I was already afraid of that happening when we had a big topic on the proposed changes 6 months ago. Now with Mr. Boardman's response to someone wanting a Chicago to Florida train, "that it will only happen when the states pay for it", I'm even more worried.

Sorry!


----------



## AlanB (Mar 9, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Alan, the Cardinal varies in several respects (run time of the short leg, the size of the station its transfering at, and so on) that I don't consider it more then, perhaps, back up support for your point. Pretending the Cardinal doesn't exist, what other information do you demonstrably have to prove your perspective? I haven't heard anything than conjectures, opinions, and speculation on your part on this subject.
> Do you have any data to back this up besides the Cardinal?


So let me see if I understand the rules correctly. It's ok to use Chicago with its station size and transfers as a comparison to tiny San Antonio, but it's not ok to use DC because the size of that station is too big?

And it's funny, but my entire problem with this potential change is that I haven't seen any data from Amtrak or anyone that proves that this will be a good thing. Everyone acts like it will be a good thing, but I've not seen a single number or stat that shows that it will be a good thing.

However, since you don't like the Cardinal and since someone mentioned the Boston LSL, do some searches on OTOL. There have been a few stories, which may or may not still be available, that show that ridership dropped when they cut the through cars. Ridership is now back up with the restoration of the through cars.

And while I've no time to go looking for them, over the years I've seen many commuter surveys that have suggested that aside from on time performance, one of the biggest things commuters want is a one seat ride. This is why NJT built the Midtown Direct connection and why the LIRR is currently building the East Side Access.

I don't want to be Mr. Negative here, and part of me hopes that I'm indeed wrong. But again I've seen no numbers from Amtrak that show that this will indeed be a positive for the riders, frankly all signs point to this being a positive for Amtrak only. They get rid of the dreaded Sunset Limited name that everyone associates with failure, they get to start charging Texas for the stub train eventually, they save on some equipment, and they quiet a very vocal railfan group in California. If someone has numbers that show otherwise, I'll gladly shut up. But until then, I'll continue to say that I believe that this is a bad idea. And that's not nostalgia talking.


----------



## henryj (Mar 9, 2010)

AlanB said:


> But again I've seen no numbers from Amtrak that show that this will indeed be a positive for the riders, frankly all signs point to this being a positive for Amtrak only. They get rid of the dreaded Sunset Limited name that everyone associates with failure, they get to start charging Texas for the stub train eventually, they save on some equipment, and they quiet a very vocal railfan group in California. If someone has numbers that show otherwise, I'll gladly shut up. But until then, I'll continue to say that I believe that this is a bad idea. And that's not nostalgia talking.


Apparently the TEMPO people that manage the Eagle think this is a good idea and I gather people living in Texas think it's a good idea. You 'aren't from around here' as they say so you just don't and will never understand it. I don't think Amtrak is obligated to 'show you the numbers' just because you pontificate on here. I am sure TEMPO has plenty of numbers as they have been working on this for years. The 'dreaded Sunset Limited' has been limping along three times a week for way too long. It comes through Houston, the largest city in Texas at 4:40am and 9:13pm the few days it operates. Most people don't even know Houston has rail service. TXDOT has set up a rail orientated group to work on future studies and if Amtrak decides to make us pay then we will just have to find a way to do that. It isn't the first and won't be the last corridor train in Texas, but it certainly will start a positive trend for the future.


----------



## Hytec (Mar 9, 2010)

MrEd said:


> However, since the storm, the part of the line that ran from New Orleans to Orlando is no longer in operation.


The CSX ROW between New Orleans and Mobile, AL, damaged by hurricane Katrina, was returned to full operation by April, 2006, and is currently running approximately 24 trains each day. The segment of CSX trackage usually mentioned in Sunset-East discussions as prohibitive to re-establishment of the Sunset is the segment between Brewton, AL and Tallahassee, FL. The only reason this segment is mentioned is that it is Dark Territory, i.e. non-signalled. It is, and always has been dispatched by Track Warrant. Dark Territory has become a problem only because of the mandate by Congress that all trackage on which Amtrak trains operate shall be equipped with Positive Train Control by 2012. CSX has no need or desire to install PTC on the segment, so expects Amtrak to pay for the upgrade if the Sunset-East is to be re-established, which is only good business sense.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 9, 2010)

Hytec said:


> MrEd said:
> 
> 
> > However, since the storm, the part of the line that ran from New Orleans to Orlando is no longer in operation.
> ...


Let's say this one more time with feeling, because it seems that a lot of people think the Gulf coast rail line is still under water.

*New Orleans to Mobile, and on to Flomaton AL is back in full operation and has been since April 2006*

Some other portions of the route in the Pensacola vicinity were also knocked out by Katrina, but they were also put back in service about the same time.

The "dark territory" of the route is Flomaton AL - Pensacola FL - Tallahassee FL. Brewton AL is not on this line.


----------



## Rob_C (Mar 9, 2010)

I just want to know what Amtrak plans to do with all its money once the states are paying for practically every train in the system. Pay CEO's more perhaps? :blink:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Alan, the Cardinal varies in several respects (run time of the short leg, the size of the station its transfering at, and so on) that I don't consider it more then, perhaps, back up support for your point. Pretending the Cardinal doesn't exist, what other information do you demonstrably have to prove your perspective? I haven't heard anything than conjectures, opinions, and speculation on your part on this subject.
> ...


I don't despute that a single-seat ride is preferable to a transfer. But would you care to tell me which of the following produced a bigger increase: the Texas Eagle going daily or... the Cardinal being extended to NYC?


----------



## AlanB (Mar 10, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I don't despute that a single-seat ride is preferable to a transfer. But would you care to tell me which of the following produced a bigger increase: the Texas Eagle going daily or... the Cardinal being extended to NYC?


There is no point to answering this. First off simply because you already know the answer.

But mainly because it's not a valid and fair comparison. We're not talking about just extending one train or taking another train daily. We're talking about gutting the revenue earning potential of the Sunset Limited to extend the Eagle on a daily basis to LA.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Mar 10, 2010)

Rob_C said:


> I just want to know what Amtrak plans to do with all its money once the states are paying for practically every train in the system. Pay CEO's more perhaps? :blink:


send employees to customer service training no more rude as hell employees.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 10, 2010)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > But again I've seen no numbers from Amtrak that show that this will indeed be a positive for the riders, frankly all signs point to this being a positive for Amtrak only. They get rid of the dreaded Sunset Limited name that everyone associates with failure, they get to start charging Texas for the stub train eventually, they save on some equipment, and they quiet a very vocal railfan group in California. If someone has numbers that show otherwise, I'll gladly shut up. But until then, I'll continue to say that I believe that this is a bad idea. And that's not nostalgia talking.
> ...


I'm not asking Amtrak to personally show me the numbers. I'm asking Amtrak to show anyone and everyone the numbers. So far I've not seen anyone, TEMPO or anyone else, posting any numbers. I haven't even seen anyone even post that they have seen numbers from Amtrak. That's my problem with this whole thing. Amtrak just seems to be running around saying that this is a good idea and no one, not even TEMPO, has publicly said that they've seen numbers that suggest that it really is a good idea. Everyone just seems to be assuming that because it's daily, that will make everything perfect. And by the way TEMPO would only have had Texas numbers, not the numbers for the entire runs of both trains.

We are talking about loosing revenue, big time revenue on the Sunset Limited here when sleepers are cut. I'm just asking for anyone to show me that running daily coach service is going to attract enough ridership to cover that loss. I'm not convinced that it will be. And that has nothing to do with "where I'm from." I don't need to be from Texas to understand lost revenue! Not to mention that I'm not interested in what's best for Texas; I'm interested in what's best for Amtrak and all the states currently being served by the trains in question.

As for the calling times, that's not being fixed because Amtrak is creating a daily train. That's being fixed because Amtrak is cutting out the 8 hours of padding that UP insisted they add to the running time several years back. That can be cut out of the schedule without regard to whether we run things status quo, run a daily Sunset, or go with this plan under discussion.

And if the daily stub does fail to make enough money and Amtrak turns around and asks Texas to help pay for it, I'm pretty sure that the bulk of Texan's won't see that as a positive.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 10, 2010)

Alan, I suspect that what upsets you is that you're afraid you might have to ride the train from NOL to SAS at some point and be forced, against your snobish dignity, to do so in coach.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 10, 2010)

RailEngr08 said:


> In October when the sunset starts running daily out out NOL


I wouldn't bet a beat up worn out brake shoe on this one. I'm not from Missouri but I'm going to have to be at East Bridge on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday & Sunday to see it in order to be a believer. <_<


----------



## RailEngr08 (Mar 10, 2010)

had8ley said:


> RailEngr08 said:
> 
> 
> > In October when the sunset starts running daily out out NOL
> ...


Make your plans to be there and witness,


----------



## BlakeTyner (Mar 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> I'm not asking Amtrak to personally show me the numbers. I'm asking Amtrak to show anyone and everyone the numbers. So far I've not seen anyone, TEMPO or anyone else, posting any numbers. I haven't even seen anyone even post that they have seen numbers from Amtrak. That's my problem with this whole thing. Amtrak just seems to be running around saying that this is a good idea and no one, not even TEMPO, has publicly said that they've seen numbers that suggest that it really is a good idea. Everyone just seems to be assuming that because it's daily, that will make everything perfect. And by the way TEMPO would only have had Texas numbers, not the numbers for the entire runs of both trains.
> We are talking about loosing revenue, big time revenue on the Sunset Limited here when sleepers are cut. I'm just asking for anyone to show me that running daily coach service is going to attract enough ridership to cover that loss. I'm not convinced that it will be. And that has nothing to do with "where I'm from." I don't need to be from Texas to understand lost revenue! Not to mention that I'm not interested in what's best for Texas; I'm interested in what's best for Amtrak and all the states currently being served by the trains in question.
> 
> As for the calling times, that's not being fixed because Amtrak is creating a daily train. That's being fixed because Amtrak is cutting out the 8 hours of padding that UP insisted they add to the running time several years back. That can be cut out of the schedule without regard to whether we run things status quo, run a daily Sunset, or go with this plan under discussion.
> ...



The HF costs Texas what, a million bucks per year? And we're finally waking up--Texas DOT has a new position--Rail Director. If Amtrak wanted to transition the cost of the stub to the state, I don't think there'd be a ruckus against it.

Amtrak has publicly stated that they expect the daily Texas Eagle to LA to boost ridership by over 100,000 passengers. (First link in the "Inside Amtrak" section of their website--"Long Distance Trains Running Strong."

It's a good plan, IMO. The TE north of San Antonio benefits, too, from the upgrade to a full diner once again, staffed between AUS and SAS.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 10, 2010)

RailEngr08 said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > RailEngr08 said:
> ...


I'll be there with bells, whistles and a camera; hope it's not for naught. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## haolerider (Mar 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


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


Alan: I really don't think Amtrak has an obligation to show anyone the numbers. They are actually quite proprietary and are not "for public consumption". If Congress wants the numbers I can assure you they will get them, but they certainly will not be posted on a railfan website for everyone to pick apart - as only railfans can do. Calling times are actually being fixed based on a different departure time from LA and that change has gone into the calculation of the additional 100,000 passengers. We all want to see everything, almost as though railfans have to approve the actions of Amtrak. If that were the case, there would be even less accomplished, since everyone has their own opinion and/or agenga.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 10, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Alan, I suspect that what upsets you is that you're afraid you might have to ride the train from NOL to SAS at some point and be forced, against your snobish dignity, to do so in coach.


First, be careful I'm not going to take many more insults from people on this topic. Had you said that to anyone else on the forum, your post would already be gone. And unlike you, when I was a kid, my family couldn't afford to travel by train in any class, much less sleeper.

Second, while I won't deny that when I travel now I do tend to book the highest level of service that Amtrak offers on any given route. However, while I've never gone overnight in coach and don't want to, don't confuse that with wanting to avoid a train because it doesn't have sleeper class. Especially this train, which is one that the odds are good that I will never ride again, or at least for many years now. The Sunset due to geography is not a train that is all that useful to me, in any form. But I can and do ride trains for hours that don't have sleeper class. I've done the Maple Leaf several times, a ride that would be comparable to the proposed stub train.

Finally, my concern with the loss of the sleeper here is the nearly $4 billion in revenue that the Sunset sleepers took in last year. The single sleeping car, coupled with a few rooms sold in the Trans/Dorm provided almost half the entire revenue that the Sunset generated last year. That's a lot of dough for a cash strapped company, and a lot of revenue for one of the poorest performing trains in the system. If by taking the existing Sunset daily we achieved even a 25% increase in sleeper revenue, and the odds are we'd do much better than that, we're talking $5M in revenue.

I for one would like to see some evidence of a study that at least indicates that by running a daily stub train with cheaper coach tickets than are currently sold, that enough increased ridership will be forthcoming to not only offset that $4M loss but cover the added expenses of a daily train. I'm looking at real numbers here and seeing nothing from Amtrak that contradicts the simple conclusions that I've reached. So many others seem to be looking no further than the words "daily service" without looking at anything else.

I'm all for daily service when it makes sense. I've been advocating for a daily Cardinal and a daily Sunset for years. Ever since taking the Eagle daily showed what could happen. But I'm not for daily service when it results in a down grade in service, could lead to a train that is currently part of the National Network becoming a State sponsored train, and when at least so far no one can show the world that these changes won't reduce ridership and revenue.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 10, 2010)

BlakeTyner said:


> Amtrak has publicly stated that they expect the daily Texas Eagle to LA to boost ridership by over 100,000 passengers. (First link in the "Inside Amtrak" section of their website--"Long Distance Trains Running Strong."


Yes, I've seen that number thrown around too. But has anyone ever seen the study that produced that number?


----------



## AlanB (Mar 10, 2010)

haolerider said:


> Alan: I really don't think Amtrak has an obligation to show anyone the numbers. They are actually quite proprietary and are not "for public consumption". If Congress wants the numbers I can assure you they will get them, but they certainly will not be posted on a railfan website for everyone to pick apart - as only railfans can do. Calling times are actually being fixed based on a different departure time from LA and that change has gone into the calculation of the additional 100,000 passengers. We all want to see everything, almost as though railfans have to approve the actions of Amtrak. If that were the case, there would be even less accomplished, since everyone has their own opinion and/or agenga.


Let’s put aside the fact for a minute that we taxpayers are the owners of Amtrak and therefore technically entitled to the info, remember that the DOT holds the Amtrak stock in trust for Congress and the American people.

I for one can't imagine what's so proprietary about a study that shows potential ridership changes with these proposed route changes. Within the past year or so Amtrak has already released 5 other such studies for the Sunset East, the 3C's route, the Pioneer, the North Coast Hiawatha, and the Pennsylvania services study. So I can't imagine why the Texas Eagle/Sunset Study should be so confidential. Not to mention that with Texas and TEMPO being so active in promoting the Eagle and keeping said train going all these years, surely they are entitled to know how these changes will affect things.

Now I don't disagree that with such info public, we railfans would indeed be picking it apart. And I certainly don't believe that Amtrak needs the approval of the railfan base to do something. But if something is so good for Amtrak and all concerned, then surely at least some info could be released. It’s the lack of info that concerns me the most, especially when looking at other numbers that are public; there is doubt that this is the best thing for all concerned.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Alan, I suspect that what upsets you is that you're afraid you might have to ride the train from NOL to SAS at some point and be forced, against your snobish dignity, to do so in coach.
> ...


I'm afraid George Pullman would arise from the dead if one of his sleepers could pull in four Billion :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Alan, I suspect that what upsets you is that you're afraid you might have to ride the train from NOL to SAS at some point and be forced, against your snobish dignity, to do so in coach.
> ...


Alan, the truth of the matter is, your position on this subject, or more specifically, the way you have gone about justifying it has been steadfastly lowering my overall opinion of you. That is a statement, not an insult, by the way.

I have listed several situations that, in my opion, represent parallels that argue against your point. You have dimissed them with little more than "This is different," without a single item added that, in my opinion, qualifies as even the slightest justification that this is different. I have pointed out differences between this and the Cardinal and you say they don't matter. The only valid thing, in my mind, that you have said, and I admit it, is with regards to the size of Chicago versus Washington. I am steadfastly running out of any other thing I can think of for your feeling this way but the one I have specified.

Now, let me try again by specifying why I think this is different and will work.


As where in Chicago there is no way to get from, Say, New York to Kansas City without a transfer, there is no way under this plan to get from LA to New Orleans without transfer. Thus people will do it. With the Cardinal, there is the LSL without transfer from New York, and the Pennsylvanian (much faster with transfer) from points south. Passengers from points south of Philly would find the Capitol with transfer faster and cheaper then the Cardinal. Case in Point: There was no signifigant ridership increase as a result of the National Chief. 

The increase from the Texas Eagle going daily is more substantial than the Cardinal extending to New York.

The equipment this frees up will allow Amtrak to operate other trains with more cars, and the revenue from that can not be discounted.

The situation of this train, and Texas's attitude towards passenger rail, means that Amtrak is not going to be able to pull a Sunset fundingwise with the stub train. Otherwise, why didn't Amtrak just do that with the Lake Shore Limited?



Lastly, Alan, while you have not insulted me in words, you have done so with your attitude during this entire discussion. If you can insult me one way, I think I am fully justified doing it to you another way.


----------



## BlakeTyner (Mar 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Let’s put aside the fact for a minute that we taxpayers are the owners of Amtrak and therefore technically entitled to the info, remember that the DOT holds the Amtrak stock in trust for Congress and the American people.
> I for one can't imagine what's so proprietary about a study that shows potential ridership changes with these proposed route changes. Within the past year or so Amtrak has already released 5 other such studies for the Sunset East, the 3C's route, the Pioneer, the North Coast Hiawatha, and the Pennsylvania services study. So I can't imagine why the Texas Eagle/Sunset Study should be so confidential. Not to mention that with Texas and TEMPO being so active in promoting the Eagle and keeping said train going all these years, surely they are entitled to know how these changes will affect things.
> 
> Now I don't disagree that with such info public, we railfans would indeed be picking it apart.


Well, there's always information that even the 'owners' don't get to see--Coke stockholders don't get access to to delicious formula for the soft drink.

I think you probably hit on at least part of the answer with the last part that I quoted, there. Amtrak being a governmental corporation leads to all of the politics that goes along with such things. It can be as simple as a train running to a certain congressional district (The Hilltopper comes to mind) or as complex as states bickering over who pays for what in corridor service.

Let's say Amtrak released the study that provided the basis of that 100k figure. Maybe I'm showing my cynical side, but I have to think of Twain's quote about lies, damned lies, and statistics--not on Amtrak's part, but based upon the idea that some railfan groups would tout the study as the holy grail of their particular train, while others could use the very same numbers to rip Amtrak management apart for what's NOT included in the study, or how they were more pessimistic about another route, or any number of other things.

Were it me, and I'm the big dog at Amtrak, I'd release the absolute bare minimum of information. Truthfully, I would probably have even played the fleet plan close to the vest (which, according to the Trains Mag article, they did for years--I think the term used was "an internal wish list.") You have to figure that Boardman is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. Some of the idiotic questions from the Trains Town Hall Meeting proved that point.

You take the same sort of folks that are wondering about an all dome train, or an extra Superliner train stationed along the EB route, and give just a little bit of official information, and extrapolate what would happen. I'd love to see the study, too, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't matter. Heck, I'd love to see one of those $1,000 hammers from the Cold War, too. 

About the only thing we can infer given the current information is that a) such a study exists, and b) the bean counting was good enough to pass muster with the Amtrak board--the folks who do matter. Candidly, I believe that, handled correctly and with local revenue management, the new TE can best all 15 LD trains. The improved on-time performance has already proven that if you run it (relatively cleanly, with consistency, and on-time) they will come. They have come.

Just my .02.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 10, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I have listed several situations that, in my opion, represent parallels that argue against your point. You have dimissed them with little more than "This is different," without a single item added that, in my opinion, qualifies as even the slightest justification that this is different. I have pointed out differences between this and the Cardinal and you say they don't matter. The only valid thing, in my mind, that you have said, and I admit it, is with regards to the size of Chicago versus Washington. I am steadfastly running out of any other thing I can think of for your feeling this way but the one I have specified.


So are you saying that you don't understand my response below to your prior post and how it is different than the circumstances here?



AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I don't despute that a single-seat ride is preferable to a transfer. But would you care to tell me which of the following produced a bigger increase: the Texas Eagle going daily or... the Cardinal being extended to NYC?
> ...


You gave me an example and asked me to choose which produced a bigger revenue increase. We both know that the Eagle going daily created a bigger increase than the run through Cardinal. But with respect, so what?

Neither of those two examples also involved cutting service on one train for the betterment of another, so again as I said "it's not a fair comparison." Sorry! Yes, the daily Eagle west of San Antonio (SAS) will make more money than the 3 day a week Sunset does. But will that be enough to offset the loss of revenue from dropping a diner and sleepers east of SAS? I'm not sure and I haven't seen anything that suggests that it will.



Green Maned Lion said:


> As where in Chicago there is no way to get from, Say, New York to Kansas City without a transfer, there is no way under this plan to get from LA to New Orleans without transfer. Thus people will do it. With the Cardinal, there is the LSL without transfer from New York, and the Pennsylvanian (much faster with transfer) from points south. Passengers from points south of Philly would find the Capitol with transfer faster and cheaper then the Cardinal. Case in Point: There was no signifigant ridership increase as a result of the National Chief.


Agreed, people will do the shuffle because there is no other choice. The problem is that just like happened with the Boston section of the LSL, fewer people will do that shuffle. And we don't know if the increased ridership brought on by going daily will be enough to offset the loss due to the required shuffle.



Green Maned Lion said:


> The increase from the Texas Eagle going daily is more substantial than the Cardinal extending to New York.


Agreed. It will be true if for no other reason than you've got 7 days worth of ridership west of SAS as opposed to 3 days north of DC. But I do believe that we will see more ridership west of SAS no matter what. My concern is what happens to ridership east of SAS. That's the worry.



Green Maned Lion said:


> The equipment this frees up will allow Amtrak to operate other trains with more cars, and the revenue from that can not be discounted.


Actually we're not really sure about this. The original statements indicated that this plan would not free up any equipment, but the recent statements made at the Town Hall seem to contradict that. What it does do for sure is to allow the wreck repairs to go to other trains, instead of those cars possibly being needed for a daily Sunset and no changes to the Eagle.

And I do agree with you that the revenue from those cars cannot be discounted. But we also don't know for sure that those cars couldn't do as well revenue wise on a revamped, daily Sunset. Additionally while maximizing revenue is indeed important, we also shouldn't be discounting one of Amtrak's primary missions, which is to be the National Passenger Railroad.



Green Maned Lion said:


> The situation of this train, and Texas's attitude towards passenger rail, means that Amtrak is not going to be able to pull a Sunset fundingwise with the stub train. Otherwise, why didn't Amtrak just do that with the Lake Shore Limited?


There may be other reasons that I'm not even thinking of as to why Amtrak didn't try pulling the Boston LSL, but two that come to mind are:

1) The name of the train wasn't changed.

2) Amtrak doesn't want to risk Massachusetts retaliating by pulling Amtrak's control over the Mass owned NEC. Texas has no such leverage, nor does Louisiana.

Regarding Texas' attitude towards passenger rail, frankly I'd think their decision to help fund the Heartland Flyer might well give someone at Amtrak heart that they can get Texas to fund the stubie. Texas could have left Oklahoma holding the bag when Federal funding ran out, but they didn't. So what little history there is suggests that if Amtrak pulls funding for the stubie, that they can expect that Texas will step up to the plate.


----------



## henryj (Mar 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Finally, my concern with the loss of the sleeper here is the nearly $4 billion in revenue that the Sunset sleepers took in last year. The single sleeping car, coupled with a few rooms sold in the Trans/Dorm provided almost half the entire revenue that the Sunset generated last year. That's a lot of dough for a cash strapped company, and a lot of revenue for one of the poorest performing trains in the system. If by taking the existing Sunset daily we achieved even a 25% increase in sleeper revenue, and the odds are we'd do much better than that, we're talking $5M in revenue.


Alan, I have found over time it is folly to argue with you as you have your mind made up. But being an old 'bean counter' I just couldn't help but do some calculations. I calculated the revenue from a full coach(with downstairs sold also) vs a full sleeper between NOL and SAS and between NOL and LAX. I used fares far into the future to try and get a reasonable base fare. One thing I found is I need to make some reservations quick for my trip to Tacoma in August as the train is selling out fast. <_< Anyway, NOL to SAS a sleeper generates about $6,644 vs a coach generating $5,032. NOL to LAX a sleeper generates about $13,251 vs a coach $10,064. Those are daily numbers. So over a 365 day year the difference between an NOL to SAS sleeper vs coach would be about $588,380. Between NOL and LAX the difference is about $1,163,255. But really there are so many variables and what if's that these figures don't mean much. The Eagle of course will have sleepers between SAS and LAX so the large figure for the whole distance is moot. The only missing revenue is the $588k and that is assuming a full car of 40+ passengers which rarely happens and a daily schedule vs the current three times a week. For the current three times a week train you only loose 3/7ths of that or about 250k, It would not take that many extra coach passengers to make that up. And, if the schedule is for the stub train to run at normal hours vs the current abortion of a schedule it is questionable if that many passengers would opt for the very expensive sleeper for a day trip assuming the stub train carried a through sleeper when they could make the NOL to SAS portion of the trip for only $68. So my conclusion is that the missing revenue is not nearly as onerous as you make out. Certainly not anything like 4 billion or million or whatever you mean't. Oh, and it only takes about 10 additional coach passengers a day to make that up. Should be a no brainer.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> So are you saying that you don't understand my response below to your prior post and how it is different than the circumstances here?
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> ...


Sleeper cars carry their freight, yes. We know that. But... the low bucket between LAX and SAS is $190 or so, I believe. The lowest I've seen is $211, but I think there is a bucket below that. Lets use $190. It gives you the advantage the lower it goes, anyway.

Now, right now the low bucket between LAX and NOL is $236 according to the System Timetable. So if a person were travelling between LAX and NOL, what Amtrak has lost in revenue is... $46. But wait. They have discussed business class being on this train, a journey of 574 miles (which, by the way, is more than the minimum for Amtrak to be allowed to fund it themselves). The price of BC between NYP and Toronto is $28, between Baltimore and St. Albans (both fairly comparable distances, no?) is $37. So lets say Amtrak will charge $32 for BC. Figuring that 2/3rds of passengers will go for BC, the loss of revenue is $25 for a one person occupied room, $4 for one occupied by two.

In addition, the train will have a CCC which, in general, offers the possibility of a full meal. Which even the BC passengers will have to pay for. So, really, I could see the overall revenue going up just as easily as I could see it going down.



AlanB said:


> You gave me an example and asked me to choose which produced a bigger revenue increase. We both know that the Eagle going daily created a bigger increase than the run through Cardinal. But with respect, so what?
> Neither of those two examples also involved cutting service on one train for the betterment of another, so again as I said "it's not a fair comparison." Sorry! Yes, the daily Eagle west of San Antonio (SAS) will make more money than the 3 day a week Sunset does. But will that be enough to offset the loss of revenue from dropping a diner and sleepers east of SAS?  I'm not sure and I haven't seen anything that suggests that it will.


Assuming that there is a revenue drop, which I am not at all sure of, I'd be bloody astonished if it was more than the gain from the trains running daily.



AlanB said:


> Agreed, people will do the shuffle because there is no other choice. The problem is that just like happened with the Boston section of the LSL, fewer people will do that shuffle. And we don't know if the increased ridership brought on by going daily will be enough to offset the loss due to the required shuffle.


I think you'd have to agree, though, that its an odds-on bet that it will offset it.



AlanB said:


> Agreed. It will be true if for no other reason than you've got 7 days worth of ridership west of SAS as opposed to 3 days north of DC. But I do believe that we will see more ridership west of SAS no matter what. My concern is what happens to ridership east of SAS. That's the worry.


With the improved daily calling times at San Antonio, Houston, and even Del Rio, I'd think the ridership east of San Antonio will go up substantially.



AlanB said:


> Additionally while maximizing revenue is indeed important, we also shouldn't be discounting one of Amtrak's primary missions, which is to be the National Passenger Railroad.


Right. Naturally, providing daily service through this change is going to be a detriment to the mobility of Americans.



AlanB said:


> There may be other reasons that I'm not even thinking of as to why Amtrak didn't try pulling the Boston LSL, but two that come to mind are:
> 1) The name of the train wasn't changed.
> 
> 2) Amtrak doesn't want to risk Massachusetts retaliating by pulling Amtrak's control over the Mass owned NEC. Texas has no such leverage, nor does Louisiana.
> ...


We suspect that the Texas Eagle will have its name changed to something. We have no idea what the stub train will be called. I'd give an odds-on bet there will simply be a Chicago train and a name-sharing New Orleans stub.

Second, while Louisiana has a little political clout (not much), Mississippi and Alabama have none. Texas is a whole different can of worms. Texas has the political clout that Amtrak is not gonna screw with. At 573 miles, and part of the original system plan, Amtrak is obligated to operate that route. (The Sunset East was NOT part of the original system plan, so don't bring it up.)

Remember, Amtrak pays for the operation of some of the Pacific Surfliner for the same reason.

Maybe, it is possible, if the train fails and gets itself into a worse ridership position, Amtrak might play games. I honestly would be surprised, but it could happen. But Alan, if ridership doesn't head for outerspace after this change, I'll eat my shorts.


----------



## Zevzec (Mar 10, 2010)

jis said:


> Even as recently as in the 80's Ronald Reagan used the phrase "the city on a hill" to metaphorically refer to the United States. So one can surmise that this connection runs deep in the psyche of the nation.


It's a biblical reference... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill


----------



## henryj (Mar 11, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Sleeper cars carry their freight, yes. We know that. But... the low bucket between LAX and SAS is $190 or so, I believe. The lowest I've seen is $211, but I think there is a bucket below that. Lets use $190. It gives you the advantage the lower it goes, anyway.
> Now, right now the low bucket between LAX and NOL is $236 according to the System Timetable. So if a person were travelling between LAX and NOL, what Amtrak has lost in revenue is... $46. But wait. They have discussed business class being on this train, a journey of 574 miles (which, by the way, is more than the minimum for Amtrak to be allowed to fund it themselves). The price of BC between NYP and Toronto is $28, between Baltimore and St. Albans (both fairly comparable distances, no?) is $37. So lets say Amtrak will charge $32 for BC. Figuring that 2/3rds of passengers will go for BC, the loss of revenue is $25 for a one person occupied room, $4 for one occupied by two.
> 
> Maybe, it is possible, if the train fails and gets itself into a worse ridership position, Amtrak might play games. I honestly would be surprised, but it could happen. But Alan, if ridership doesn't head for outerspace after this change, I'll eat my shorts.


GML I used $136 as the coach fare between NOL and LAX as that is what comes up on the Amtrak site. Round trip is $272. Coach fare between NOL and SAS is $68. Room charges were all over the place so I went out to October to get the lowest. Fares btween NOL and SAS and between NOL and LAX were.....Roomette $105 & $241, Bedroom $311 & $522 and family room $452 and $1,033. Just rechecked this and discovered tomorrow's train is sold out for the whole distance. Amazing. Must be for spring break. It wouldn't be such a 'poor performing' train if they had enough equipment to handle the demand.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Maybe, it is possible, if the train fails and gets itself into a worse ridership position, Amtrak might play games. I honestly would be surprised, but it could happen. But Alan, if ridership doesn't head for outerspace after this change, I'll eat my shorts.


Start looking up recipes for shorts. SAS-HOU-NOL stub will have awful numbers. I predict 3 years after this plan Houston will be the largest city

without Amtrak service.


----------



## jis (Mar 11, 2010)

Guest said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe, it is possible, if the train fails and gets itself into a worse ridership position, Amtrak might play games. I honestly would be surprised, but it could happen. But Alan, if ridership doesn't head for outerspace after this change, I'll eat my shorts.
> ...


What basis are your beliefs about projected ridership number grounded on? Inquiring minds want to know. 

Of course GML eating his shorts would be an interesting event in and of itself :lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2010)

jis said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


No time to go into details right now, but I'll make a quick list.

SAS-HOU-NOL stub train will not work because;

1. I-10 HOU-NOL by I-10 4.8 hours Amtrak 9 hours

2. Southwest Airlines

3. transfer if going west of SAS

4. transfer if going beyong NOL

5. Amtrak can sale a LD trip on a train in this region, but not an intra-regional trip unless it is HSR or a tourist type train with a steam engine on point.

6. Only a LD or HSR can work along this route.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 11, 2010)

There has been lots of talk about Texas benefiting from the stub train plan/daily TE....I'm much more concerned about NOL and Louisiana traffic. While daily service might drum up some additional short haul ridership, I guarantee you that it will KILL long distance ridership to points west of SAS from points in Louisiana, without through cars. Even a 10:00pm to 11:30pm stub train connection in SAS heading west, and a 6:30am to 8:00am connection heading east (assuming both are dead on time), won't really be all that convenient. Think about a family with kids, all sound asleep, heading from LAX to HOS...oops, sorry, it's 6:15am, time to start packing up all the car seats and bags and prepare to de-train. Or a tour group of elderly passengers, who are going to NOL to catch a cruise, sleeping soundly in their sleeping car...then having to de-train, wait over an hour, and board up again, in coach, for the trip east. This is what will happen on a daily basis. And for as many new passengers who will use the new daily service, there will be just as many put off by the transfer and, if they usually go sleeper, by the coach stub train. If the train could operate on a MUCH faster schedule between NOL and HOS, I'd say it'd get a lot of new riders. But even Greyhound is faster...and going by car will still be much, much faster...not even close. This benefits Chicago-Dallas-San Antonio-Los Angeles passengers by and large. Houston and New Orleans get daily service and new departure/arrival times, but since the train's schedule really can't be speeded up much if any, coupled with the loss of on board amenities, chances are slim that that segment...SAS-HOS-NOL...will gain any meaningful ridership.


----------



## Greg (Mar 11, 2010)

Interesting observation here in tallahassee....for the past 3-4 months, I would see no train activity on the CSX line running through here on my way to or from work. In the past week, I have seen 5 trains. Just wondering if CSX has shifted some or all of their traffic back through here from southern georgia and why?


----------



## el Guapo (Mar 11, 2010)

I've seen the question out there 2 or 3 times but haven't noticed a response.

When are the SAS stub changes going to take place or are they just an idea at this point?

I also have thru-sleeper reservations on #2 in late June and the thought of having to roust my family at 11pm just suuuuuckss...


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 11, 2010)

el Guapo said:


> I've seen the question out there 2 or 3 times but haven't noticed a response.
> When are the SAS stub changes going to take place or are they just an idea at this point?
> 
> I also have thru-sleeper reservations on #2 in late June and the thought of having to roust my family at 11pm just suuuuuckss...


Sept. 30 seems to be the target date, but everything is subject to reaching an agreement with Union Pacific, depending on UP's mood, talks could drag on past that date, nothing's written in stone.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 11, 2010)

el Guapo,

That hasn't been determined yet.

Many were hoping originally that the change would have already happened with this past fall's new timetable. Clearly that didn't happen. Then focus shifted to the change occurring with this spring's TT in April/May. We're getting rather close to the point where it will soon be too late for the change to happen with the spring TT. And comments made at the Town Hall meeting recently seemed to indicate that Amtrak has already given up on this spring and is looking to the fall to make the change.

But the simple answer is that no one really knows for sure, not even Amtrak. They are currently in negotiations with Union Pacific both to change the schedule on which the trains runs, and of course to obtain permission for running on the other 4 days that they currently don't run trains. Until those negotiations are completed, no one can really know or provide a realistic start date.

Amtrak can't even start hiring the extra operating crews it will need for daily service, until a deal is done. And those crews will then need training, more obs personnel will need to be hired, and a bunch of other little things before the service can run.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 11, 2010)

Greg said:


> Interesting observation here in tallahassee....for the past 3-4 months, I would see no train activity on the CSX line running through here on my way to or from work. In the past week, I have seen 5 trains. Just wondering if CSX has shifted some or all of their traffic back through here from southern georgia and why?


In January, Fred Frailey reported on Trains News Wire that CSX has rerouted two through freight trains in both directions between New Orleans and Waycross, Ga., off the Sunset East route to a more northerly route through Manchester, Ga, leaving only local freight on the Sunset East route. Frailey reported that this move could both hurt and help any plans to restore the Sunset East. On one hand, CSX couldn't demand that Amtrak pay for improvements to expand capacity on the route, but on the other Amtrak might have to pay to have the route maintained to passenger train speeds. With only local freight on the route, CSX could reduce the maintenance needed for even through freight speeds.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 11, 2010)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, my concern with the loss of the sleeper here is the nearly $4 billion in revenue that the Sunset sleepers took in last year. The single sleeping car, coupled with a few rooms sold in the Trans/Dorm provided almost half the entire revenue that the Sunset generated last year. That's a lot of dough for a cash strapped company, and a lot of revenue for one of the poorest performing trains in the system. If by taking the existing Sunset daily we achieved even a 25% increase in sleeper revenue, and the odds are we'd do much better than that, we're talking $5M in revenue.
> ...


No, my mind isn't made up. I'm just not seeing anything that says that this is the best and only alternative available.



henryj said:


> But being an old 'bean counter' I just couldn't help but do some calculations. I calculated the revenue from a full coach(with downstairs sold also) vs a full sleeper between NOL and SAS and between NOL and LAX. I used fares far into the future to try and get a reasonable base fare. One thing I found is I need to make some reservations quick for my trip to Tacoma in August as the train is selling out fast. <_< Anyway, NOL to SAS a sleeper generates about $6,644 vs a coach generating $5,032. NOL to LAX a sleeper generates about $13,251 vs a coach $10,064. Those are daily numbers. So over a 365 day year the difference between an NOL to SAS sleeper vs coach would be about $588,380. Between NOL and LAX the difference is about $1,163,255. But really there are so many variables and what if's that these figures don't mean much. The Eagle of course will have sleepers between SAS and LAX so the large figure for the whole distance is moot. The only missing revenue is the $588k and that is assuming a full car of 40+ passengers which rarely happens and a daily schedule vs the current three times a week. For the current three times a week train you only loose 3/7ths of that or about 250k, It would not take that many extra coach passengers to make that up. And, if the schedule is for the stub train to run at normal hours vs the current abortion of a schedule it is questionable if that many passengers would opt for the very expensive sleeper for a day trip assuming the stub train carried a through sleeper when they could make the NOL to SAS portion of the trip for only $68. So my conclusion is that the missing revenue is not nearly as onerous as you make out. Certainly not anything like 4 billion or million or whatever you mean't. Oh, and it only takes about 10 additional coach passengers a day to make that up. Should be a no brainer.


And now please go do the calculations that show what could be acheived simply by running the Sunset daily as is between NOL & LA.

The Sunset currently has 5 trainsets allocated to it. With the revised schedules out of LA, Amtrak only need find one more trainset to run the train daily. With 2 Trans/Dorms coming out of Beech Grove and 6 sleepers, that's easy to do. Heck, if they felt that they wanted the cushion, they could even find 7 trainsets.

So why are we accepting sloppy seconds when real improvements could be made by simply running the existing service as is daily? Why are we rolling the dice and hoping that people will accept a stub train?

Ps. Sorry about the typo of Billion vs. Million.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 11, 2010)

Guest said:


> No time to go into details right now, but I'll make a quick list.
> SAS-HOU-NOL stub train will not work because;
> 
> 1. I-10 HOU-NOL by I-10 4.8 hours Amtrak 9 hours
> ...


Houston - New Orleans in 4.8 hours? Taht is truly road warrior style. According to Mapquest, the distance is 349 miles and the driving time 5 hours 37 minutes. Even that is 62 mph, which, given potential congestion at several points along the way seems unrealisitic and excludes any stops. (I tend to refer to Mapquest driving tims as the 3:00am to 5:am times.) But 4.8 hours? That is an *average* start to stop speed of 73 mph. I think we all know that we can drive Houston to New Orleans is considerably less time than the Sunset takes to cover the distance, but let's at least use realistic numbers. Give a gas stop, a couple of potty breaks and a meal stop, 7 hours is probably a more realistic end to end driving time.

Rule one in all these things: Just because you don't think you would do it, does not mean that nobody would do it. There are plenty of people out there that will take a train that is slower than realisitic drive time because they:

1. Don't like long drives

2. No longer feel capable of making long drives

3. Enjoy the chance to read, relax, and eat along the way as they travel

4. Hate the thought of driving I-10

5. Have the need to stop and move around to the point that driving would take as long as the train.

6. Hate the thought of dealing with a kid spending 6 hours in a car seat.

5. Etc., etc.


----------



## el Guapo (Mar 11, 2010)

Thanks to those who replied.

I don't necessarily mind what they're trying to accomplish. I just would like to have know that information before I booked my tickets.

Thanks again.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 11, 2010)

Greg said:


> Interesting observation here in tallahassee....for the past 3-4 months, I would see no train activity on the CSX line running through here on my way to or from work. In the past week, I have seen 5 trains. Just wondering if CSX has shifted some or all of their traffic back through here from southern georgia and why?


Flood waters north of you might have a big effect on detours. The Crescents have fallen way behind so I'm guessing they don't want to chance trains hung up with rails under water.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 11, 2010)

henryj said:


> GML I used $136 as the coach fare between NOL and LAX as that is what comes up on the Amtrak site. Round trip is $272. Coach fare between NOL and SAS is $68. Room charges were all over the place so I went out to October to get the lowest. Fares btween NOL and SAS and between NOL and LAX were.....Roomette $105 & $241, Bedroom $311 & $522 and family room $452 and $1,033. Just rechecked this and discovered tomorrow's train is sold out for the whole distance. Amazing. Must be for spring break. It wouldn't be such a 'poor performing' train if they had enough equipment to handle the demand.


I didn't consider coach fares at all. Alan was talking about the revenue from sleepers and diners. The CCC is a half-diner with similar meals availible, especially price wise, so that point is invalid, and the loss due to the sleepers would be, on average, about $30 a person. The Sunset currently runs with 24 sleeper rooms, say an average of 36 people. You'd need, in my estimation, 50 more coach passengers a day (25 per train) to cover that revenue loss. I think that is easily achievable, as that works out to only 18,250 more riders a year, and Amtrak has pretty much talked about 5 times that many.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 11, 2010)

Guest said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > This benefits Chicago-Dallas-San Antonio-Los Angeles passengers by and large. Houston and New Orleans get daily service and new departure/arrival times, but since the train's schedule really can't be speeded up much if any, coupled with the loss of on board amenities, chances are slim that that segment...SAS-HOS-NOL...will gain any meaningful ridership.
> ...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 11, 2010)

el Guapo said:


> Thanks to those who replied.
> I don't necessarily mind what they're trying to accomplish. I just would like to have know that information before I booked my tickets.
> 
> Thanks again.


Since they do not know if this will ever happen, let alone when, and all destinations will be served, they would have it in their best interest to keep selling you tickets as if nothing happened, and then inform you in plenty of time if it does.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 11, 2010)

> We have consistently seen that going daily for any given train boosts its ridership considerably. Not just long-distance ridership, all ridership. In fact, its primarily the short-distance riders that benefit. If I want to get from any point A to any point B on this route, I have 4 basic choice: Drive, fly, bus, or train. Flying is increasingly unpleasnt, many people don't like driving long distance, and the amenities on the train, downgraded though they may be, are vastly more than when you ride that little grey dog.


Well, we'll see. Problem is, I don't think there are many short distance riders to begin with on this train. You'd think NOL-HOS would be a natural route, but the travel time turns people off. Plus Southwest and Continental combined offer 24 nonstops a day with a 45 minute flying time. There's not really a market for intra-Louisiana travel...very minimal at best. Schreiver and New Iberia in LA and Beaumont in TX provide almost no ridership regardless, so you might as well take those off the list...those cities won't contribute much at all. Perhaps HOS-SAS could see some more riders, but it's only once a day, and it'd be arriving HOS from SAS at around 1:00pm and returning at around 5:00pm....so who do you market that after? Amtrak's never been well know in Houston, and that's a shame, so they better market the heck out of this. This isn't like a route in the Northeast...you're talking about a 15-hour route with only six en-route stops and the cities along the way have been used to tri-weekly service for decades. So my point is, if they were truly concerned with these markets, why take the half a$$ed approach by offering a downgraded product and increasing in the inconvenience for anyone needing to go west of SAS?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 11, 2010)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Well, we'll see. Problem is, I don't think there are many short distance riders to begin with on this train.


Of course not. That's because short-distance travellers aren't going somewhere for 3 days, 5 days, most of the time. They want to leave this morning, get there that afternoon, spend a day or two there, and then head home. You can't predict that safely with a tri-weekly. So people don't try. Send it through daily, and the short distance ridership hits the roof.

By the way, its not a 45 minute flight from NOL to HOS. It takes about 30 minutes to get from NOL proper to NOL airport, (Versus about 5 to the train station), 2 hours for security to be on the safe side, about 25 minutes to get from HOS to houston proper, and about 15-30 minutes (call it 20) to get out of HOS. So figure 4 hours.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Mar 11, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, we'll see. Problem is, I don't think there are many short distance riders to begin with on this train.
> ...



I agree in principle about short distance ridership increasing by a large margin on most routes, but I have my doubts on this one, due to the reasons I mentioned above. If this was a corridor train in some other part of the country or if it was timed to take advantage of same-day business traffic (realistically, no city pairs on this route are a good example to use based on trip time), I'd agree that daily would work better for this route. But in this specific case I think the more cities that you can reach on the same train while not alienating the passengers who pay a premium to ride in the sleeper is the better alternative. Amtrak doesn't agree with me. C'est la vie, right?

Re: the flight...yeah, adding in total trip time, if you're going downtown-to-downtown, you're probably really close. Still, it's by far the easiest way to travel between the two cities. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.


----------



## henryj (Mar 11, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I didn't consider coach fares at all. Alan was talking about the revenue from sleepers and diners. The CCC is a half-diner with similar meals availible, especially price wise, so that point is invalid, and the loss due to the sleepers would be, on average, about $30 a person. The Sunset currently runs with 24 sleeper rooms, say an average of 36 people. You'd need, in my estimation, 50 more coach passengers a day (25 per train) to cover that revenue loss. I think that is easily achievable, as that works out to only 18,250 more riders a year, and Amtrak has pretty much talked about 5 times that many.


I was comparing a full coach vs a full sleeper. A sleeper fare is the coach fare plus the room charge. If someone wants to calculate it themselves go for it. I believe my numbers are correct. I did not complicate it by worrying about business class, diner revenue, or percent of occupancy. Why bother. So worst case scenario, it takes about 10 additional coach passengers to make up the missing revenue from a three times a week sleeper which is all you have now. It takes about 25 additional coach passengers to make up for a missing sleeper daily. I don't see that as much of a problem. Certainly not 4 million dollars or whatever Alan was thinking.


----------



## henryj (Mar 11, 2010)

AlanB said:


> No, my mind isn't made up. I'm just not seeing anything that says that this is the best and only alternative available.
> And now please go do the calculations that show what could be acheived simply by running the Sunset daily as is between NOL & LA.
> 
> The Sunset currently has 5 trainsets allocated to it. With the revised schedules out of LA, Amtrak only need find one more trainset to run the train daily. With 2 Trans/Dorms coming out of Beech Grove and 6 sleepers, that's easy to do. Heck, if they felt that they wanted the cushion, they could even find 7 trainsets.
> ...


I never said it was the best alternative. But apparently it is what we are going to get. The Sunset has 4 trainsets allocated to it, not five. It takes five train sets plus spares to run daily service between NOL and LAX if you turn the train same day in LAX and overnight in NOL which the SP never had a trouble doing. But as you stated, it would only take one more train set to do it. The answer to your last question is we are doing this because that is what TEMPO and Amtrak want to do. The current schedule, particularly eastbound is an abomination and three times a week isn't 'service' so I just wish they would get on with it and do something.............anything.


----------



## henryj (Mar 11, 2010)

Guest said:


> No time to go into details right now, but I'll make a quick list.
> SAS-HOU-NOL stub train will not work because;
> 
> 1. I-10 HOU-NOL by I-10 4.8 hours Amtrak 9 hours
> ...


I drive to New Orleans every year. It always takes around 6+ hours with fuel and meal stops. Louisiana speed limits are 70mph and every local yocal along the way plus the highway patrol is on the lookout to make a little money. To fly, it's two hours before you leave, an hour flying time and another hour to get downtown. About 4 hours. Houston to NOL by rail is 363 miles. The fastest the SP ever ran it was around 8 hours. the Mopac route through Baton Rouge was always around 9 hours. Amtrak schedules 9 hours for the route but the Sunset has been arriving over an hour early at times so obviously it could be speeded up. The route is also a designated HSR corridor so it will be getting more attention as time goes on. Outside of the NEC virtually every Amtrak route is slower than driving so I don't see that as an issue. So I disagree with your option 6 as the only two things that can work. I do think that 9 hours on the train is excruciatingly slow, but people don't seem to mind it. If the train runs on time and on the schedule they have proposed I think it will be popular and a success. Daily service will make the difference, not the speed.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 11, 2010)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > No, my mind isn't made up. I'm just not seeing anything that says that this is the best and only alternative available.
> ...


Ths Sunset still has 5 trainsets allocated to it because they've never undone things from when it ran through to Orlando. And back then with the delays at that time, they needed 5 trainsets.

This is why if you pick the correct day to visit NOL, you'll find 2 Sunset Limited trainsets sitting in the yard.

Regarding your answer to my question, all the more reason to start making some noise and do things the right way instead of the wrong way.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 11, 2010)

My experience, Alan, is what will happen if you try to get them to do it the right way, as you put it, is derail the whole thing.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 12, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> My experience, Alan, is what will happen if you try to get them to do it the right way, as you put it, is derail the whole thing.


Sadly, you’re probably quite correct sir!

However, frankly at least with what I'm seeing presently in terms of numbers, I think that Texas would be better off with no change compared to what I fear will happen if the currently proposed changes do happen. Something just smells wrong to me with this deal and I truly believe that the only winner here is Amtrak; Texas, Louisiana, and the riding public will wind up the losers.

While I mean no insult to anyone, I think that everyone is just being blinded by the idea of daily service.


----------



## MrEd (Mar 12, 2010)

I would be happy with service 3 times a week if it went to Mobile, AL.

I think I agree with Alan.


----------



## henryj (Mar 12, 2010)

AlanB said:


> The Sunset currently has 5 trainsets allocated to it. Ths Sunset still has 5 trainsets allocated to it because they've never undone things from when it ran through to Orlando. And back then with the delays at that time, they needed 5 trainsets.
> This is why if you pick the correct day to visit NOL, you'll find 2 Sunset Limited trainsets sitting in the yard.


Alan you can delete my posts all you want as you are the administrator and it's your 'toy', but it's still four sets.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2010)

henryj said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > No time to go into details right now, but I'll make a quick list.
> ...


Well yeah, meal stops takes a good 45 minutes. Try it without stopping. The police won't stop you below 77 mph in a 70 mph zone.

6 lanes for 1/3 of the route. If there is no wrecks or no rush hour traffic in Beaumont and Baton Rouge, 4.8 hours. I did it last year at 70 mph.

1 quick gas stop near Lafayette.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 12, 2010)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The Sunset currently has 5 trainsets allocated to it. Ths Sunset still has 5 trainsets allocated to it because they've never undone things from when it ran through to Orlando. And back then with the delays at that time, they needed 5 trainsets.
> ...


Your post didn't get deleted because I disagree with the 4 sets, it got deleted because of the personal attack in the post.

Keep the personal attacks out of your posts and they won't go away, even if I disagree with what you've stated.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 15, 2010)

Just my two pennies in Alan's defense...if I see an article on the Sunset daily or east or supposed SAS-NOL stub train it immediately catches my eye. Now if a NE regional is tied up on the main line I tend to skip over it since it is not in my territory or even close. I know how many seats are in the Magnolia Room in NOL but could care less how many there are in the Acela Lounge in NYP. It all comes down to one's back yard and I think Alan has done a good job of tolerating each and every ranting or negative review about Amtrak service on a national basis. I will add that since the Gatherings started there seems to be more understanding of what our admins face from those that attended.


----------



## DKpartyguy (Mar 15, 2010)

I am finding thie discussion of Amtrak service between Houston and New Orleans very interesting. I travel to Houston every once in a while and I like to swing through New Orleans if I have a chance, where I often get the Crescent back to New York.

I don't ever take Amtrak from Houston to NOLA because, iirc, it leaves Houston around 6:30am, and well, as I am not a morning person this is not an attractive option.

I usually take a Greyhound bus from downtown Houston to NOLA, which takes about 6 hours or so.

Every time I have taken Greyhound to NOLA, the busses have been completely full.

I would think that some of these passengers would gladly take Amtrak instead if Amtrak ran daily from Houston at a reasonable hour. I think that the passengers are potentially there for a daily train, but Amtrak will have to do it the right way.

If I take the Crescent going down, I do get the westbound Sunset to Houston the following morning.

I don't really mind the length of this trip per se, but I wish it got into Houston a little earlier.

As for the Crescent, I don't like the 7:30 am departure time, but I finally figured out a way to make that work for me.

I stay out on Bourbon Street all night the night before and don't sleep!

Last time, I left Bourbon Street around 6am, went to my hotel, got packed and got a cab just in time to get the Crescent.

I got right to bed in my roomette, and woke around 1pm for lunch.

Also, it is very difficult to generalize about the type of passengers who would take this train.

I am sure that there are many like myself, who just hate the thought to driving to NOLA.

There would be tourists, college kids, businessmen/women, weekenders, etc.

I don't think that Amtrak has any real clue about the ridership potential out of Houston.

It is the largest city in Texas, yet doesn't have any daily train service.

Go figure.....

David


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2010)

Everyone agrees that daily service between SAS and NOL is needed. Many believe a daily Sunset is the answer not a daily stub train.

Amtrak claims not to have the coaches for a daily Sunset while planning new routes.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 15, 2010)

Guest said:


> Amtrak claims not to have the coaches for a daily Sunset while planning new routes.


Actually all the new studies for train service include monies to buy the train cars that will be needed for said service. Short of the planned extension of one more Regional to Richmond, VA. thinking quickly I'm not aware of any other extensions/new services that are being planned that don't include the required funding for new cars.


----------



## dlagrua (Mar 15, 2010)

I don't understand the big deal here. The tracks are still in place and being used by CSX for freight. The only problem appears to be that the signaling needs to be fixed to enable passenger service. They need not reinvent the wheel to get the Sunset Limited running. Some necessary signaling repair work and they should be able to run. At least that's the way I understand it.


----------



## Hytec (Mar 15, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> I don't understand the big deal here......Some necessary signaling repair work and they should be able to run.


Unfortunately, there are NO signals to repair between Flomaton, AL and Tallahassee, FL. The entire ~250 miles is Dark (no signal) Territory dispatched by Track Warrant.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 15, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> I don't understand the big deal here. The tracks are still in place and being used by CSX for freight. The only problem appears to be that the signaling needs to be fixed to enable passenger service. They need not reinvent the wheel to get the Sunset Limited running. Some necessary signaling repair work and they should be able to run. At least that's the way I understand it.


The unsignaled areas have NEVER been signaled. Since Katrina, the rules have changed, and hence the new expense.


----------



## saxman (Mar 16, 2010)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The Sunset currently has 5 trainsets allocated to it. Ths Sunset still has 5 trainsets allocated to it because they've never undone things from when it ran through to Orlando. And back then with the delays at that time, they needed 5 trainsets.
> ...


I can't remember if it's four or five sets, but I think I sat down once to figure out if the set overnights in LAX. I think it does actually for two nights.

I also had list written down of the number of sleeping cars and coaches being repaired in Beach Grove. There are enough sleeping cars to make the Sunset Limited daily from NOL to LAX, and still have enough left over to add one sleeper to the PDX section of the Empire Builder. However I do not think there are enough to keep a through car from the Texas Eagle to go west from SAS, if the Sunset ran daily, NOL to LAX. Now I'm not sure which is better-force people off from in SAS from the Eagle to go west or force people off from the stub train to go west.

For the record, this was not TEMPO's plan. The only thing TEMPO endorses is keeping the Texas Eagle name. I'm not really sure what TEMPO's exact stance on this issue is either.

And my own opinion is that Amtrak will indeed come to Texas and ask for them to help pay for this train. With the cutting of the Sunset east, and now this plan, it only makes sense to me now that this was kind of their plan all along- to push off operating costs to the states. It's really a shame they want to do this with the Sunset Limited. This route runs through some of the fastest growing areas of the country, and I bet if Amtrak "revamped" this route as a premiere train like the EB and CS, the Sunset Limited will have ridership and revenue through the roof.

At first I was all for this plan, and believe me. I will look forward to daily service from Dallas to LAX with a real dining car. And I think many more local trips will be gained from the daily stub train too. And perhaps one day have the equipment to have daily ORL-LAX service with through cars from the Eagle (and perhaps even the CONO to go to Florida) But it's this requirement that Amtrak push all corridor trains costs off to the states, that has me against this plan.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 16, 2010)

Amtrak is only required to do this if it is a Corridor train (more than one daily frequency, definitionally), AND that train runs a distance under 500 miles. The NOL-SAS train meets neither item. I don't think this is part of Amtrak's plan. Truthfully, only two trains are really affected by this- the Wolverines and the Empire Service trains. And a lot of people don't disagree that Michigan and New York should, respectively, be paying for them.


----------



## saxman (Mar 16, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak is only required to do this if it is a Corridor train (more than one daily frequency, definitionally), AND that train runs a distance under 500 miles. The NOL-SAS train meets neither item. I don't think this is part of Amtrak's plan. Truthfully, only two trains are really affected by this- the Wolverines and the Empire Service trains. And a lot of people don't disagree that Michigan and New York should, respectively, be paying for them.


I'm not sure where it says two or more trains a day means its a corridor train. Are the Heartland Flyer, Pere Marquette, Blue Water, and the Pennsy not considered corridor trains?

And I'm pretty sure the requirement is for trains under 750 miles.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2010)

It is insane to me. Texas is the second largest state and fastest growing state. Texas will gain 4

House representives. Yet Amtrak feels the need to screw the state out of a LD train. If anything,

the TE should extended to Brownsville via Corpus Christi/Padre Islands. Sunset should be coast to coast daily.

Ofcourse when equipment becomes available.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 16, 2010)

saxman said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak is only required to do this if it is a Corridor train (more than one daily frequency, definitionally), AND that train runs a distance under 500 miles. The NOL-SAS train meets neither item. I don't think this is part of Amtrak's plan. Truthfully, only two trains are really affected by this- the Wolverines and the Empire Service trains. And a lot of people don't disagree that Michigan and New York should, respectively, be paying for them.
> ...


The Heartland Flyer, Pere Marqutte, and Blue Water are certainly not. The Pennsy might be because it is part of the Keystone, but I don't think so. Those three are state supported, but not Corridor. Of course, all currently state supported trains remain so.

But if the requirement was under 750, then... the Northeast Corridor would have to become state funded. Which isn't going to happen.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 16, 2010)

Guest said:


> It is insane to me. Texas is the second largest state and fastest growing state. Texas will gain 4House representives. Yet Amtrak feels the need to screw the state out of a LD train. If anything,
> 
> the TE should extended to Brownsville via Corpus Christi/Padre Islands. Sunset should be coast to coast daily.
> 
> Ofcourse when equipment becomes available.


Naturally, the Super Chief and 20th Century Limited should also be restored as extra-fare, all-sleeper, extra-fast trains, monetary loss be damned.


----------



## jis (Mar 16, 2010)

Guest said:


> It is insane to me. Texas is the second largest state and fastest growing state. Texas will gain 4House representives. Yet Amtrak feels the need to screw the state out of a LD train. If anything,
> 
> the TE should extended to Brownsville via Corpus Christi/Padre Islands. Sunset should be coast to coast daily.
> 
> Ofcourse when equipment becomes available.


I f you are really serious go and join TEMPO and share your ideas with them and convince them of their viability. They are the ones that pretty much define and influence the political destiny of the Texas Eagle.


----------



## jis (Mar 16, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The Heartland Flyer, Pere Marqutte, and Blue Water are certainly not. The Pennsy might be because it is part of the Keystone, but I don't think so. Those three are state supported, but not Corridor.


The Pennsy is an Amtrak system train, and is not funded out of the Keystone Program by Pennsylvania. It historically dates back to the original network on Amtrak Day in 1971. Look it up in the 1971 timetable. Its name is different, but it is there.


----------



## had8ley (Mar 16, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> I don't understand the big deal here. The tracks are still in place and being used by CSX for freight. The only problem appears to be that the signaling needs to be fixed to enable passenger service. They need not reinvent the wheel to get the Sunset Limited running. Some necessary signaling repair work and they should be able to run. At least that's the way I understand it.


The only "signaling" that needs to be added is installation of Positive Train Control and that is not required to be completed, according to the FRA, until 2012. I do not know the correlation between track signals and PTC; if signals are needed then the CSXT is really going to dip into Amtrak's pocket IF the Sunset ever goes east again. (250 miles of track signaling is a very expensive venture.)


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > It is insane to me. Texas is the second largest state and fastest growing state. Texas will gain 4House representives. Yet Amtrak feels the need to screw the state out of a LD train. If anything,
> ...


Well if we are counting nickels and dimes, then all Amtrak and Commuter trains should be killed. We

don't want to damn monetary losses.


----------



## jis (Mar 16, 2010)

Guest said:


> Well if we are counting nickels and dimes, then all Amtrak and Commuter trains should be killed. Wedon't want to damn monetary losses.


And shut down all the roads too while you are at it. Afterall they are also a major sink for money. Just stuff all that money in mattresses and bounce along on them :lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2010)

jis said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Well if we are counting nickels and dimes, then all Amtrak and Commuter trains should be killed. Wedon't want to damn monetary losses.
> ...


Shut down the whole government. lol


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 16, 2010)

jis said:


> The Pennsy is an Amtrak system train, and is not funded out of the Keystone Program by Pennsylvania. It historically dates back to the original network on Amtrak Day in 1971. Look it up in the 1971 timetable. Its name is different, but it is there.


I know that, but I'm not sure what it would qualify as under the new legislation. I'd tend to suspect you're right, though.



Guest said:


> Well if we are counting nickels and dimes, then all Amtrak and Commuter trains should be killed. Wedon't want to damn monetary losses.


The key here, as anywhere, is "reasonable." Amtrak must aim for the highest financial efficiency versus passenger load possible. What you are looking for here doesn't seem to fit that.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 16, 2010)

jis said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Well if we are counting nickels and dimes, then all Amtrak and Commuter trains should be killed. Wedon't want to damn monetary losses.
> ...


In fact, what the Fed spent last year on highways would have paid to run every transit system in the country with money to spare; $30 billion to spare in fact when taking into account the revenue collected. And the definition of transit system is any system that runs buses, trains, ferries, senior/handicapped service, monorail, or any combination thereof.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The Pennsy is an Amtrak system train, and is not funded out of the Keystone Program by Pennsylvania. It historically dates back to the original network on Amtrak Day in 1971. Look it up in the 1971 timetable. Its name is different, but it is there.
> ...


You or Amtrak do not know if it doesn't fit. Amtrak started out giving Texas crappy passenger train service then scratched their heads to why

the numbers weren't great. Amtrak was FORCED to upgrade the TE resulting in a much improved train and numbers. How about doing the same

to the Sunset? Nope, Amtrak is planning to do the opposite. Downgrade the Sunset to a daily stub which will result in a crappier train and worse

numbers.


----------



## NE933 (Mar 17, 2010)

> Amtrak was FORCED to upgrade the TE resulting in a much improved train and numbers. How about doing the sameto the Sunset? Nope, Amtrak is planning to do the opposite. Downgrade the Sunset to a daily stub which will result in a crappier train and worse numbers.


Could it be me and da guest agree on something? Well, let's see: yes the Texas Eagle was 'born' after Sen. Hutchinson forced Amtrak to do it; it's a shame that one must rely on such techniques, yet will gladly use them if provoked enough.

Now as for the Sunset, I'd love to see it go to Florida again. But here we must pick between the lesser of two evils, and if making this train daily is the result, then that might be a good trade-off. However, if i were holding the cards, would require that within 6 months the daily train by whatever name is kept, and, some incarnation of pre-Katrina service run between Orlando and New Orleans. Make it tri-weekly, make it a coach train if it must be, but run something. Then, within 1 yr from that, either make the Gulf section daily, carry sleepers and dining cars, or both.

Sorry to tweak your nerves, but this is what I was getting at before with Boardman's sometimes malaise. Not only does he not talk about restoring the Sunset back to the Gulf Coast, but he forcefully avoids the issue and changes the subject when queried. If I'm wrong, then someone please cite an example to the contrary. Thanks.


----------

