# Amtrak route with least amount of support?



## railgeekteen (Apr 6, 2018)

Which Amtrak train's disappearance would cause the least amount of unhappy people? This would be route that has very little support from, well, anyone. I propose the Sunset Limited. Do any of the states along the route actually care about it?


----------



## JoeBas (Apr 6, 2018)

My vote is either the NEC north or Boston leg of the LSL. Maybe the Downeaster.


----------



## Steve4031 (Apr 6, 2018)

The city of New Orleans doesn't get much support.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 6, 2018)

JoeBas said:


> My vote is either the NEC north or Boston leg of the LSL. Maybe the Downeaster.


But Maine cares enough to support the Downeaster. Sure, NH does not give a crap about the route.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 6, 2018)

Gotta agree that the Sunset Ltd. Is #1 on the No Love list!

That's why a Daily Texas Eagle CHI-LAX with the proposed SAS-NOL stub train ( timed to connect with the Crescent and CONO) makes the most sense.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Apr 6, 2018)

This is kind of a silly endeavor. What do you mean by "least support?" Ridership? Political backing in the form of state subsidies? Groups that support the train? Railfans? I don't get the concept.


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 6, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> This is kind of a silly endeavor. What do you mean by "least support?" Ridership? Political backing in the form of state subsidies? Groups that support the train? Railfans? I don't get the concept.


Do people along the route care about the train? Do local politicians come out in support of the train?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 6, 2018)

Hard to care about a non daily train. However the other day I was talking to a random fuel desk clerk, and she knew were the train station was and the days & time the train visit. Yet never has been on the train. Seem to be a common issue. I have taken to bring up Amtrak during regular discussion, and find it surprising how many people are aware of the trains but yet to ride themselves.

Dont know what the point of this thread is. Ever community has a interest in there train. But limited funds and local politics will limited any measure of support. Any mayor who does know there a train station in town, probably should not be in office. At the very least the train travel across a community is a Emergency Manager Issue. Got to prepare for derailment and a extra 300 people in your community needed help at 2am.


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 6, 2018)

JoeBas said:


> My vote is either the NEC north or Boston leg of the LSL. Maybe the Downeaster.


You really don't like New England, do you?


----------



## cpotisch (Apr 7, 2018)

Bob Dylan said:


> Gotta agree that the Sunset Ltd. Is #1 on the No Love list!
> 
> That's why a Daily Texas Eagle CHI-LAX with the proposed SAS-NOL stub train ( timed to connect with the Crescent and CONO) makes the most sense.


I'm trying to remember: Would the stub train have through-cars onto the Eagle, or would passengers have to change trains?


----------



## west point (Apr 7, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I'm trying to remember: Would the stub train have through-cars onto the Eagle, or would passengers have to change trains?


Nothing set in stone. Once it became apparent that Nippon (NS ) delivery of bi-levels was not going to happen plans became uncertain. Originally a Daily Eagle to LAX with Super liners. A daily connecting train of single levels at SAS to NOL. Now Amtrak has absolutely no idea what long range plans to make. Once delivery and acceptances of Siemens cars is assured the plans not only for this service but who know what else national plans ? Politics are also the 800 pound bear as well.

If congress keeps the present level of funding for LD trains ( FY 2018 ) then all bets are off ?


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 9, 2018)

UP would not cooperate with a daily TE to LAX by demanding a massive amount of money up front.


----------



## dogbert617 (Aug 18, 2018)

MikefromCrete said:


> This is kind of a silly endeavor. What do you mean by "least support?" Ridership? Political backing in the form of state subsidies? Groups that support the train? Railfans? I don't get the concept.


I'm thinking the original poster meant the least ridership affected, were an Amtrak long distance train to go away. That said, I don't think the Sunset is THAT bad for ridership, and still gets some due to the fact it serves Phoenix(via Maricopa), Tucson, El Paso, and Alpine(for those going there, Marfa, or Big Bend National Park). It has both the issue of the fact it only runs 3 days a week, and the fact it was rerouted outside of downtown Phoenix, that hurts its ridership. The main issue with bringing Sunset service back to Phoenix, is that the Union Pacific tracks west of Phoenix would need to be restored

You honestly could make cases for other trains having lower ridership as well too, for various reasons. For example Silver Star being less since it goes through Columbia, SC late at night, and since sadly its dining car service was removed. Or the stretch between Grand Junction and Reno on CZ, due to the fact the Ca. Zephyr goes through that area late at night. And for Salt Lake City hurting ridership there, the arrival times aren't great(IIRC 11:10-30pm going west, and something like 3:30am going east). Let me make it extremely clear though, I am VERY OPPOSED to any Amtrak trains being eliminated because of low ridership!


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 18, 2018)

dogbert617 said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > This is kind of a silly endeavor. What do you mean by "least support?" Ridership? Political backing in the form of state subsidies? Groups that support the train? Railfans? I don't get the concept.
> ...


I agree with Mike. I think the OP was asking which train has the least political support and the fewest people that rely on it, along its route. I don't think he was asking which train has the fewest total people along the route, regardless of whether or not they rely on it and use it.


----------



## bretton88 (Aug 18, 2018)

If Amtrak had to start doing train offs tomorrow, I suspect the Sunset would be gone (Tri weekly, in a bunch of states that don't really care), followed by the Heartland Flyer. Oklahoma has always been on the fence about it and ridership is not very good. I think it beats the Cardinal only because West Virginia has historically been very protective of it's train, even tri weekly. So WV might try to save it again.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 18, 2018)

You're probably right. It's sad, because its New Orleans' only train west, with great crew and some great views, but being thrice-weekly, it never really had any chance.


----------



## neroden (Aug 21, 2018)

Politically, the Sunset Limited has by *far* the least support. Heartland Flyer is probably second-least. Southern half of the City of New Orleans (south of Carbondale, or maybe south of Memphis) is probably third.

Anderson's attacks on the Southwest Chief show that he's a fool who doesn't understand politics, since the Southwest Chief has fanatical political support, almost as much as the Empire Builder.


----------



## bretton88 (Aug 21, 2018)

neroden said:


> Politically, the Sunset Limited has by *far* the least support. Heartland Flyer is probably second-least. Southern half of the City of New Orleans (south of Carbondale, or maybe south of Memphis) is probably third.
> 
> Anderson's attacks on the Southwest Chief show that he's a fool who doesn't understand politics, since the Southwest Chief has fanatical political support, almost as much as the Empire Builder.


Not really, the SW Chief proposal wasn't an attempt to get rid of it, but an attempt to remake it. On the SW Chief, you have a daily train with a single (NMRX really doesn't count) cooperative host RR who would have been agreeable to most changes Amtrak wanted to make (on the current route). The non starter was always the bus bridge. Meanwhile with the SL, you have a tri weekly train, so it won't be a good corridor service regardless and a hostile host RR. So your only options with the SL are discontinuing or status quo. That's why Amtrak went after the Chief first.


----------



## cpotisch (Aug 21, 2018)

bretton88 said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Politically, the Sunset Limited has by *far* the least support. Heartland Flyer is probably second-least. Southern half of the City of New Orleans (south of Carbondale, or maybe south of Memphis) is probably third.
> ...


Chopping up a two night train into short train segments and a very long bus segment would have 100% destroyed the Chief. Virtually no one would have been willing to transfer to/from a bus two times for a trip that long. They weaponized the PTC mandate to justify what would have effectively been a train-off, without having to worry about the 180 day rule or anything like that.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 24, 2018)

JoeBas said:


> My vote is either the NEC north or Boston leg of the LSL. Maybe the Downeaster.


Considering that the NEC north carries over 50% of the combined rail/air passengers on this route, this making it one of the few places in the US where passenger rail is actually an important part of the transportation mix, I think not.


----------



## DesertDude (Oct 6, 2018)

I agree with Bob Dylan and Neroden that the Sunset Limited wins the "no love" contest, hands down. However, I was thinking just a week ago about how senseless the current state of the Sunset Limited is.

To paraphrase what I said on this forum a while back, the Sunset Limited from LAX to NOL would be a very successful train in any sane world (and I'm not even talking about restoring the train NOL-FL). If you count Phoenix, the SL serves 4 of the 7 largest cities in the U.S. The route also has many retirees who have more time for train travel. Some of the places the SL serves (like Tucson, El Paso, and Palm Springs) don't have the best flight options, making it easier for Amtrak to be a competitive alternative.

Yet the Sunset Limited only runs 3 times a week, serves San Antonio at an ungodly hour, and annoyingly bypasses Phoenix and Las Cruces. If the UP was cooperative and Amtrak was aggressive about improving the SL, there's no doubt in my mind it could be the most wildly successful of the "transcontinental" routes. I'm talking you could easily get a solid ridership base for a twice-daily train, and I wouldn't say that about some of the other LD trains.

I'm afraid the wasted potential of the SL is just a microcosm of the wasted potential of the whole system.


----------



## railiner (Oct 6, 2018)

Besides all mentioned, the SL would also do better if it had at least one, same day connection at its eastern terminal, like the other trans-cons do. I suppose you could call the Eagle that...

Not that an overnight in New Orleans is bad....


----------



## cpotisch (Oct 7, 2018)

DesertDude said:


> I agree with Bob Dylan and Neroden that the Sunset Limited wins the "no love" contest, hands down. However, I was thinking just a week ago about how senseless the current state of the Sunset Limited is.
> 
> To paraphrase what I said on this forum a while back, the Sunset Limited from LAX to NOL would be a very successful train in any sane world (and I'm not even talking about restoring the train NOL-FL). If you count Phoenix, the SL serves 4 of the 7 largest cities in the U.S. The route also has many retirees who have more time for train travel. Some of the places the SL serves (like Tucson, El Paso, and Palm Springs) don't have the best flight options, making it easier for Amtrak to be a competitive alternative.
> 
> ...


Exactly! If Amtrak really tried, I think they really could turn things around for many of their unsuccessful LD trains. Remember, "Where there's a will, there's a way"


----------



## jis (Oct 9, 2018)

The problem faced by the Sunset Limited is a remarkable lack of local political support in almost every major urban area on its route.


----------



## west point (Oct 9, 2018)

jis said:


> The problem faced by the Sunset Limited is a remarkable lack of local political support in almost every major urban area on its route.


Wonder if there would be support if it ran daily or even better twice daily on mirror schedules?


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Oct 9, 2018)

west point said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The problem faced by the Sunset Limited is a remarkable lack of local political support in almost every major urban area on its route.
> ...


Everything would be more popular if there were more frequencies!


----------



## ehbowen (Oct 13, 2018)

ParanoidAndroid said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


In my snarkier moments, I believe that that's exactly what UP and Amtrak are afraid of....


----------



## jis (Oct 13, 2018)

ParanoidAndroid said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


That is precisely the Catch 22. There will not by higher frequency unless there is more political support, and without higher frequency it is unlikely that there will be more political support.


----------



## Pere Flyer (Oct 13, 2018)

As WoodyinNYC has said so often on this forum, “the cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak!”


----------



## jis (Oct 13, 2018)

Pere Flyer said:


> As WoodyinNYC has said so often on this forum, “the cure for Amtrak is more Amtrak!”


A relatively hard to operationalize slogan I am afraid.


----------



## neroden (Oct 24, 2018)

I'm actually thinking it's time to give up on the Sunset Limited. We all know that it lacks any meaningful political support west of Beaumont. There's no population between San Antonio and El Paso, the longest really depopulated gap on any of the routes I can think of. As for Louisiana...

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=b53e9dd7a85a44488466e1a38de87601

The track in Louisiana is going to be underwater.

Maybe a route from LA-Phoenix-Tucson-El Paso heading east through Midland and Odessa to Fort Worth would make more sense. It would help to actually stop in Phoenix.


----------



## cpotisch (Oct 24, 2018)

neroden said:


> I'm actually thinking it's time to give up on the Sunset Limited. We all know that it lacks any meaningful political support west of Beaumont. There's no population between San Antonio and El Paso, the longest really depopulated gap on any of the routes I can think of. As for Louisiana...
> 
> https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=b53e9dd7a85a44488466e1a38de87601
> 
> ...


Sad but probably true.


----------



## railgeekteen (Nov 22, 2018)

neroden said:


> I'm actually thinking it's time to give up on the Sunset Limited. We all know that it lacks any meaningful political support west of Beaumont. There's no population between San Antonio and El Paso, the longest really depopulated gap on any of the routes I can think of. As for Louisiana...
> 
> https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=b53e9dd7a85a44488466e1a38de87601
> 
> ...


Sounds cool, but Houston would be left would no service, which would be insane.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 22, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> Sounds cool, but Houston would be left would no service, which would be insane.


I don't think he's saying that this would at all be ideal, just that poor circumstances and lack of political willpower might necessitate it. And it's also insane that Phoenix currently doesn't have any service, so...


----------



## neroden (Nov 27, 2018)

Service from Houston northwards would make  a lot more sense than the Sunset Limited.  A second "Chicago to Texas" train could be a hit, ideally via College Station.  Galveston - Houston - College Station - Bryan - Cleburne - Waco Airport - Fort Worth would probably be the best route.  Problem is Union Pacific, of course.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Nov 27, 2018)

I think a (big) problem with the Sunset is that it doesn’t offer a same day connection to the Crescent. Houston-Atlanta/Carolinas for example could be a large market. Plus it’d be much more convenient than taking the bus up to Longview and then having to catch two trains to WAS/NYC.

The only problem is, obviously, the schedule would have to be altered greatly. 

I also think overnight between HOS and NOL would be good. It’s a long slow journey so just hop on, go to sleep, and wake up in either city in the morning. 

Ideally you’d also adjust 19/20, have 19 run an hour earlier into NOL (630p arrival) and have 20 run an hour later (800a departure). 

Something like this...

Dp. LAX-700a
Dp. PSP- 940a
Dp MRC- 230p
Dp. SAS-300p
Dp. HOS-845p
Dp. NOL-615a

On the return...

Dp. NOL-900p
Dp. HOS-645a
Dp. SAS-1215p
Dp.MRC-905a
Dp.PSP-205p
Ar. LAX-535p

Downsides:

* No more connection with Starlight in LAX
* Eagle thru cars would be history (unless TE schedule drastically altered)

Upsides:

* Better times for SAS, PSP, MRC
* Easy access to/fr ATL/Carolinas and HOS/SAS/Southwest.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 27, 2018)

Good idea, but the plan is to make the Texas Eagle a Daily Train CHI-LAX with a Stub Train between SAS and NOL.( the negotiations with UP were sabotaged by Amtrak last time)

Perhaps this Stub Train ( maybe in our youngest members Lifetime?)could be scheduled to coordinate with the Crescent,City of New,Orleans and the long talked about Coast Train between NOL and Florida!


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Nov 27, 2018)

Yeah, I remember that proposal.

Initially I was against it because selfishly I’d lose my one-roomette ride to LAX ([emoji23]). But heck, it’s so hard to schedule a trip on 1/2 with its tri-weekly schedule that daily with a short connection in SAS wouldn’t be terrible.

I just think it’s wise to take advantage of NOLs geographic position somehow since it’s the only place in the nation besides CHI that can get you to both coasts.

But that probably won’t even happen in my lifetime.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 27, 2018)

I'm way more in favor of same day connections in New Orleans than Los Angeles to the CS (especially since PHL actually has daily one seat service to NOL and not to CHI).

Besides, the current SL schedule is horrible in San Antonio and the arrival time in LAX is too early.


----------



## railgeekteen (Nov 27, 2018)

Bob Dylan said:


> Good idea, but the plan is to make the Texas Eagle a Daily Train CHI-LAX with a Stub Train between SAS and NOL.( the negotiations with UP were sabotaged by Amtrak last time)
> 
> Perhaps this Stub Train ( maybe in our youngest members Lifetime?)could be scheduled to coordinate with the Crescent,City of New,Orleans and the long talked about Coast Train between NOL and Florida!


It would be sad to lose the only non Chicago transfer point though.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 27, 2018)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Yeah, I remember that proposal.
> 
> Initially I was against it because selfishly I’d lose my one-roomette ride to LAX (
> 
> ...


I thought the plan with the stub train idea was to have NOL-LAX through cars between it and the Eagle, with the TE being the “main train” between SAS and LAX?


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Nov 27, 2018)

From what I remember it was going to be a stub train with no sleepers featuring a cross platform connection in SAS. No thru cars. But I could be wrong.


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 27, 2018)

What say we extend the _Crescent _through NOL, arriving Houston (with sleepers) about breakfast time and in San Antonio by lunch; same day transfer to the _Texas Eagle_ to California? Need an expanded maintenance/crew base and maybe a commissary at SAS, but is that really a showstopper?

I'd also be willing to coordinate this with the never-realized _Crescent Star_ section from Meridian west to Shreveport and Dallas.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 27, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> What say we extend the _Crescent _through NOL, arriving Houston (with sleepers) about breakfast time and in San Antonio by lunch; same day transfer to the _Texas Eagle_ to California? Need an expanded maintenance/crew base and maybe a commissary at SAS, but is that really a showstopper?
> 
> I'd also be willing to coordinate this with the never-realized _Crescent Star_ section from Meridian west to Shreveport and Dallas.


I personally think the Crescent Star makes a lot more sense than an extension through New Orleans, as the former is significantly more direct. It would definitely be awesome to have a one seat ride to San Antonio, but I just think that if I had to go with one or the other, I'd choose the Crescent Star.


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 27, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I personally think the Crescent Star makes a lot more sense than an extension through New Orleans, as the former is significantly more direct. It would definitely be awesome to have a one seat ride to San Antonio, but I just think that if I had to go with one or the other, I'd choose the Crescent Star.


The two plans are compatible; the _Crescent Star_ was originally intended to be a section split off the _Crescent_ in Birmingham or Meridian heading west to Shreveport and Dallas. No reason we can't do that and still extend the main portion of the _Crescent_ west to Houston and San Antonio.

It does look as if it would be difficult to have reasonable arrival times in Dallas unless you built in substantial dwell time and padding along the way. It would probably be best to terminate that section in Fort Worth, actually, to take advantage of infrastructure there.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 27, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> The two plans are compatible; the _Crescent Star_ was originally intended to be a section split off the _Crescent_ in Birmingham or Meridian heading west to Shreveport and Dallas. No reason we can't do that and still extend the main portion of the _Crescent_ west to Houston and San Antonio.
> 
> It does look as if it would be difficult to have reasonable arrival times in Dallas unless you built in substantial dwell time and padding along the way. It would probably be best to terminate that section in Fort Worth, actually, to take advantage of infrastructure there.


I think the plan all along was to terminate in Fort Worth, not Dallas. And I understand that an extension past New Orleans would be compatible with the Crescent Star, however from a practical standpoint, it makes sense to think abotu which one would make the best use of equipment and most improve service.


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 27, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> I think the plan all along was to terminate in Fort Worth, not Dallas. And I understand that an extension past New Orleans would be compatible with the Crescent Star, however from a practical standpoint, it makes sense to think abotu which one would make the best use of equipment and most improve service.


If you tasked me with the detailed implementation of this plan, here's what I would propose:

Standard consist:


Bag-dorm (SAS) - Only carries bags to/from points west of Birmingham

Viewliner Sleeper (SAS)

Viewliner Diner (SAS)

Coach (SAS)

Coach (SAS)

Coach (FTW)

Coach (FTW)

Business/AmLounge (FTW)

Viewliner Sleeper (FTW)

Full Baggage - DAL/FTW bags and all bags east of Birmingham

Tracks diverge at Meridian, but operational split to occur in Birmingham as it is a staffed station with checked baggage and facilities. Timetable east of Birmingham essentially unchanged. Extra dwell time in Birmingham to make the split. Approximate timings to/from the west:

SAS Section WB: Dep. Birmingham 1230P; NOL 745P/845P; HOS 600A/645A; SAS 1145A

SAS Section EB: Dep SAS 400P; HOS 900P/930P; NOL 600A/700A; Arr Birmingham 200P

FTW Section WB: Dep Birmingham 100P; Meridian 400P/415P; Jackson 715P/730P (Connection from NB _CONO_); Monroe 1115P; Shreveport 215A; DAL 715A/730A; Arr FTW 900A

FTW Section EB: Dep FTW 530P; DAL 700P/715P; Shreveport 1215A; Monroe 315A; Jackson 700A/715A (Connection to SB _CONO_); Meridian 1015A/1030A; Arr Birmingham 130P

Large express items transferred to/from _Texas Eagle_ in FTW.

Mini-commissary in SAS restocks _Texas Eagle_ en route as well as _Crescent_ upon termination.

Thoughts?

Edit To Add: Oh, yes; I'd also adjust the schedule of the through transcontinental _Texas Eagle_ both ways to achieve a reasonable layover for connecting passengers bound to/from the West Coast in San Antonio.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 28, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> If you tasked me with the detailed implementation of this plan, here's what I would propose:
> 
> Standard consist:
> 
> ...


Holy crap, well done! 

I don’t think it will happen, but if it did, this is almost certainly the best way to do it.


----------



## railiner (Nov 28, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> If you tasked me with the detailed implementation of this plan, here's what I would propose:
> 
> Standard consist:
> 
> ...


Nicely done...now how about extending the FTW section on to ELP via the former Texas Pacific route?   or as an alternate, to ABQ via the former Santa Fe?


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 28, 2018)

railiner said:


> Nicely done...now how about extending the FTW section on to ELP via the former Texas Pacific route?   or as an alternate, to ABQ via the former Santa Fe?


At that point you’re effectively turning an East Coast long distance train into a transcontinental behemoth, which I think is really unnecessary. Plus, I think we were talking about this with the idea that there would be a daily TE to LAX, in which case there would be *two* Fort Worth to El Paso trains, which I also think is pretty unnecessary.


----------



## jis (Nov 28, 2018)

Yeah, while we are at it I am also for extending the Coast Starlight all the way to Anchorage :lol: Yeah, it needs  the construction of a few miles of new railroad through virgin territory with hardly any traffic potential. But so what?


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 28, 2018)

jis, I do understand the concept of illustrating absurdity by being absurd. But I also think that there's a qualitative difference between what you (sarcastically) propose and the extension of daily direct through service from three drastically underserved metro areas of population 2.5M (San Antonio), 6.3M (Houston), and 6.8M (Dallas/Fort Worth) to Atlanta (metro pop 5.8M) and the Northeast over existing rail lines in good condition, many of which already carry passenger service (Longview-Fort Worth; New Orleans-San Antonio).


----------



## jis (Nov 28, 2018)

It is better to create trains that specifically address the missing pieces instead of coming up with Rube Goldberg schemes for extending existing services.


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 28, 2018)

Generally yes, but in this specific instance I disagree. I believe that a westward extension of the _Crescent_ providing overnight service to New Orleans and through service to Atlanta and points east would be better received than a "stub train" if the _Texas Eagle_ is to be made a daily through train via San Antonio to replace the transcontinental _Sunset Limited_. And the _Crescent Star_ proposal to Dallas/Fort Worth via the KCS "Meridian Speedway" was floated almost 20 years ago; although never implemented I do believe that the basic idea is sound.


----------



## jis (Nov 28, 2018)

Why would a connecting train that runs from Atlanta to Dallas be any less well received? Once you have a reliable service set up then we can consider some through cars. Remember that is how the successful through service on Pioneer and Desert Wind came about. Those trains were initially started as SLC - SEA and OGD - LAX independent trains with connecting schedules.

Crescent already has difficulty in maintaining reliable schedule to New Orleans and even to Atlanta. Now piling on yet another known unreliable segment will just make the service more unpredictable for everyone, and therefore less attractive.

One thing that was hammered into us over and over again when we were taught how to design reliable distributed systems was to reduce unbreakable dependencies between components/segments as much as possible, so that a failure in one corner of the system does not spread all across the board rapidly. The same principle applies in designing interconnected networks. Just because a connection is supposed to work does not mean it always wil;l. When equipment is tied irrevocably to the connection working the system is prone to more failures that spread quickly.

But of course, when we merely playing trains, probably such operational issues are not that important. So well, carry on...


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 28, 2018)

I do agree that the schedule reliability issues need to be addressed, independent of whatever decisions may be made concerning additional service.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Nov 28, 2018)

What about running the Texas Eagle Chicago-Ft.Worth-Abilene-El Paso-Los Angeles (seems like a quicker, more direct routing), have the Heartland Flyer run OKC-FTW-SAS (CHI-SAS connection in FTW), and like some have mentioned extend the Crescent overnight from NOL to HOS/SAS as to provide one-seat service to HOS/SAS from ATL and the Northeast.

Agree that Crescent’s current reliability is awful. 19 arrived in NOL at 0555 this morning, about 10 hours late.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Nov 28, 2018)

What would be more valuable for Houston and San Antonio, assuming it has to be one or the other:

1) a one-seat ride to Atlanta, Washington DC, NYC

2) a one-seat rode to El Paso, Tucson, Los Angeles


----------



## jis (Nov 28, 2018)

Let's consider Houston to Washington DC. How many people who travel from Houston to Washington DC today would start using the train instead of whatever they use today? How may of those that do not travel between those two points today, would start doing so when such a train becomes available. Let us assume for the moment a standard Amtrak LD train with average speed of 55mph or less, since even that seems somewhat iffy at present. I am just curious what people think are the ballpark numbers.

The scenario changes considerably if we get a European on Chinese style HSR with average speed in excess of 125mph, or perhaps even higher.


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 28, 2018)

NativeSon5859 said:


> What would be more valuable for Houston and San Antonio, assuming it has to be one or the other:
> 
> 1) a one-seat ride to Atlanta, Washington DC, NYC
> 
> 2) a one-seat rode to El Paso, Tucson, Los Angeles


As a Houston resident who has taken the _Sunset Limited_ to either bumper several times, my first preference would be a *daily *_Sunset Limited_ combined with a *daily*_ Texas Chief_. But that doesn't appear to be in the offing under anyone's proposed plans. I still say that a through long-distance train with overnight service to New Orleans, service to San Antonio during reasonable (mostly daylight) hours, same-day connections to the west in San Antonio, and through service to the East Coast would be more valuable than a "stub train" with no connections to speak of in New Orleans. Provided, as jis brought up, that the schedule reliability issues can be successfully dealt with.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 28, 2018)

NativeSon5859 said:


> What about running the Texas Eagle Chicago-Ft.Worth-Abilene-El Paso-Los Angeles (seems like a quicker, more direct routing), have the Heartland Flyer run OKC-FTW-SAS (CHI-SAS connection in FTW), and like some have mentioned extend the Crescent overnight from NOL to HOS/SAS as to provide one-seat service to HOS/SAS from ATL and the Northeast.
> 
> Agree that Crescent’s current reliability is awful. 19 arrived in NOL at 0555 this morning, about 10 hours late.


Way too much, dude. That’s just way too much.  hboy:


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 28, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> Generally yes, but in this specific instance I disagree. I believe that a westward extension of the _Crescent_ providing overnight service to New Orleans and through service to Atlanta and points east would be better received than a "stub train" if the _Texas Eagle_ is to be made a daily through train via San Antonio to replace the transcontinental _Sunset Limited_.


I agree. The only issue or disadvantage I see with having the Crescent extended to San Antonio as opposed to just a NOL-SAS stub strain, is the timekeeping. I think that through service from Texas to points all along the east coast really would have a big market, especially considering that you currently don’t just have to transfer in NOL, but have to spend a night there. I understand that the risk of delays is a big issue, but I think that one seat rides between all those points could really make it worth it.


----------



## jis (Nov 28, 2018)

Having multiple connecting trains is not per se antithetical to having one seat rides using through cars. The difference between having a whole train through vs having through and sectional cars is that on those occasions when something goes wrong with one segment of the the run, the entire service does not get screwed. Only the segment gets screwed and rest of the system runs as is.

The cons are that you need a few more protect cars to cover for those misconnected cars, and of course the misconnected passengers have to be handled.

If the system in US was even vaguely rational in the way freight and passenger railroads relate to each other, one could conceive of once off second short section to handle misconnects too, but that ain't gonna happen.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Nov 28, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Way too much, dude. That’s just way too much.


Just thinking way outside the box. [emoji16]


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 28, 2018)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Just thinking way outside the box.


Did you intentionally make that emoji that big? Because I’m seeing huge emojis in a lot of posts and I’m wondering if it’s a bug or something...


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Nov 28, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Did you intentionally make that emoji that big? Because I’m seeing huge emojis in a lot of posts and I’m wondering if it’s a bug or something...


No it was just a normal iPhone emoji.


----------



## west point (Nov 28, 2018)

ehbowen said:


> If you tasked me with the detailed implementation of this plan, here's what I would propose:
> 
> Standard consist:
> 
> ...


At first blush we seemed to like the idea but the problems with NS delays LAU <> BHM and ATN <> ATL makes this a no starter until those problems are fixed. For example #20 had to leave NOL 3 + hours today because of the very late  #19 yesterday causing crew not to have required length of layover.  The layover problem could be mitigated if  Amtrak made NOL the crew base.   There is no way NS is going to allow another Amtrak train BHM <> Meridian.  Meridian should become manned again with all the additional FTW route passengers.  Amtrak is going to need car persons either BHM or Meridian  to facilitate the combining splitting of the train as at least a class 2 brake test will be needed for each section or the combined train .That however does not address some other concerns.

Starting with sleepers.  We would guess that 4 sleepers would be needed  2 each to the end points giving 4 for the high use ATL <>WASH passengers.  As well at least 1 -2 more coaches to each destination.  That requires 8 additional sleepers  from new V-2s additions and 12- 16 coaches.  There are no AM-2s so AM-1s which would decrease level of service.  No AM-1s until Brightline coaches are available to displace or use Brightliners. NOL can remain with a commissary for restocking. However NOL layover needs more dwell times for possible equipment substitutions that will happen at least 1 -2 times a week.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 29, 2018)

NativeSon5859 said:


> No it was just a normal iPhone emoji.


OK so there’s a bug.


----------



## cpotisch (Nov 29, 2018)

I just sort of realized that this discussion has gotten really far off from the topic “Amtrak Routes with Least Political Support”. Would it make sense for all this discussion about Crescent and TE extensions to be moved to its own thread?


----------



## jis (Nov 29, 2018)

Perhaps just move those posts to the Future Prognostication thread that already exists?


----------



## ehbowen (Nov 29, 2018)

Well, in my mind pretty much everyone had settled on the _Sunset Limited_ as the "route with the least political support." Rather than take a meat axe to my home town's last remaining passenger train, I wanted to come up with some ideas for revitalization and/or improvement.


----------



## railgeekteen (Nov 30, 2018)

The Cardinal is a candidate in the Ohio and Indiana parts.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 1, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> The Cardinal is a candidate in the Ohio and Indiana parts.


Or in other words the only worthwhile portion of that train.


----------



## cpotisch (Dec 1, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Or in other words the only worthwhile portion of that train.


You’ve made your point about the Cardinal and West Virginia, person who lives in a city served by four long distance Amtrak routes, six short and medium distance Amtrak routes, one NJ Transit route, and a solid 15+ SEPTA routes and services.


----------



## IndyLions (Dec 3, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Or in other words the only worthwhile portion of that train.


I live in Indy - so I’m very familiar with the Cardinal - and have ridden it many times - including many times to the east coast.

I’ll say this - West Virginia may not be very populated, but those folks are proud of their state - and they are proud of their 3 day a week train.

That comes across loud and clear almost every time I ride.


----------



## railgeekteen (Dec 10, 2018)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Or in other words the only worthwhile portion of that train.


West Virginia is not huge but the people there support the train, even though it only runs 3 times a week, which counts for something. See Empire Builder vs other long distance trains. I think that the whole route is worthwhile but really it needs to go daily.


----------



## William W. (Dec 10, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> West Virginia is not huge but the people there support the train, even though it only runs 3 times a week, which counts for something. See Empire Builder vs other long distance trains. I think that the whole route is worthwhile but really it needs to go daily.


And WV's Congressional delegation fights tooth and nail whenever someone tries to touch it. Manchin is the one who got station agents restored on the route. 

It still drives me insane that the route isn't daily. I thought the BBR was supposed to be improved by now. If it's equipment they need, hopefully the Viewliner sleepers get delivered soon.


----------

