# Proposal for Extending Crescent to SAS & Improving TE schedule



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 11, 2015)

This is me brainstorming here:

Currently Amtrak has a SL going from NOL to LAX and a TE going from CHI to LAX. These trains merge/split in SAS. If you are going from anywhere between CHI and before SAS, you have a layover in SAS from 9:55pm to 2:45am waiting for the SL. The layover eastbound is shorter but right before dawn (4:50am to 7:00am). The SAS to LAX times are lousy (2:45am to 5:35am going west and 10:00pm to 4:50am going east).

My proposal which I'm sure others have thought of:

Run the Texas Eagle directly from CHI to LAX with a minimal stop in SAS.

Extend the Crescent from NOL to SAS along the SL route.

This would kill the SL in name but the entire current route is still being used (NOL to SAS along the Crescent and SAS to LAX along the Texas Eagle).

Some brainstorming on times:

Crescent 19 going south departs four hours later:

NYP 6:15pm, PHL 7:55pm, WAS 10:30pm, Charlotte 6:20/6:45am, ATL 12:13/12:38pm, NOL 11:32/midnight, HOU 9:18/9:55am, SAS 3:05pm

Texas Eagle 21 going south departs CHI at noon (1:45 earlier). The portion to LAX leaves SAS at 9:00pm (5:45 earlier).

CHI noon, STL 5:36/6:15pm, DAL 9:45/10:05am, SAS 8:10/9:00pm, El Paso 7:37/8:02am, Tucson 1:00/1:50pm , Maricopa 3:07/3:17pm, LAX 11:50pm

Passengers from NOL to SAS (including HOU) now have to change trains in SAS and there is about a 6 hour layover (3:05pm to 9:00pm) but the times are much better than the current layover in SAS for passengers coming from STL and DAL.

Texas Eagle 22 going east departs LAX at 11:00pm (1 hr later)

LAX 11:00pm, Maricopa 6:30/6:40am, Tucson 8:28/9:15am, El Paso 4:10/4:35pm, SAS 5:50am/7:00am (SAS to CHI times unchanged)

Crescent 20 going north departs SAS at 2:25pm (8 hrs after the SL does now)

SAS 2:25pm, HOU 7:10/8:10pm, NOL 5:40/7:00am (NOL to NYP times unchanged)

The layover in SAS is now 5:50am to 2:25pm (about 8.5 hrs). You can leave SAS earlier and get into NOL earlier but that would be the middle of the night.

The losers would clearly be anyone from NOL to SAS who wants to go west of SAS. But if this service is daily, that might be a gain. The layover going west isn't much longer than the one with the Texas Eagle now. Plus, they can now go to anywhere along the Crescent route without changing trains in NOL (and again, daily). So you can ask the people between NOL and SAS would they rather see the eastern part of the US or the western part?

The winners would be anyone along the Crescent route who now have a direct route to HOU and SAS. With the new schedule, you would leave PHL at 7:55pm and arrive in SAS at 3:05pm two days later. Right now, you'd have to leave much earlier and wouldn't get into SAS until 9:55pm, NYP to SAS would be 6:15pm to 3:05pm 2 days later instead of 3:40pm to 9:55pm 2 days later. WAS to SAS would be 10:30pm to 3:05 2 days later instead of 4:05pm to 9:55pm 2 days later. The Charlotte times going south are now early in the morning rather than in the middle of the night (although the northbound ones remain unchanged). Plus now you can go North Carolina or ATL to HOU and SAS and connect in SAS for Arizona and LAX (leave ATL 12:38pm, arrive in LAX 11:50pm 2 days later).

Also winning would be the southbound passengers going from north of SAS to Arizona and LAX who lose the 5.5 hr layover. Plus, I would think 11:50pm would be preferable to 5:35am getting into LAX.

The other problem is if Amtrak does it, it is basically saying the eastern part of the SL is never coming back. If they've made up their minds, maybe this is an improvement.

Thoughts?


----------



## CCC1007 (Oct 11, 2015)

The one problem that I know about is the extremely short platform at maricopa, which can't be expanded due to a major road and a minor road on either side of it. The train generates complaints from locals as is due to needing to block the road while they stop up to four separate times!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 11, 2015)

CCC1007 said:


> The one problem that I know about is the extremely short platform at maricopa, which can't be expanded due to a major road and a minor road on either side of it. The train generates complaints from locals as is due to needing to block the road while they stop up to four separate times!


How do you get four separate times? It would just be the TE at different times than the SL currently runs.


----------



## TinCan782 (Oct 11, 2015)

I think he may be referring to the fact that the trains have to do multiple spots due to the short platform. During all these spots, the train blocks at least one road. I've sat in my sleeper and watched the traffic back up! Also, Maricopa is a crew change point which also adds time to the stop.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 11, 2015)

FrensicPic said:


> I think he may be referring to the fact that the trains have to do multiple spots due to the short platform. During all these spots, the train blocks at least one road. I've sat in my sleeper and watched the traffic back up! Also, Maricopa is a crew change point which also adds time to the stop.


But that's a problem already. I don't see how my proposal makes it worse.


----------



## TinCan782 (Oct 11, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> > I think he may be referring to the fact that the trains have to do multiple spots due to the short platform. During all these spots, the train blocks at least one road. I've sat in my sleeper and watched the traffic back up! Also, Maricopa is a crew change point which also adds time to the stop.
> ...


Exactly. I agree...that's why I made that comment.


----------



## west point (Oct 11, 2015)

Philly: Problem would be the need for 3 additional Crescent train sets. A new station at Atlanta is desperately needed to be able to drop surplus cars at Atlanta. How ridership would be west of NOL is anyone's guess so equipment needs there ? A decent layover at NOL is needed so car maintenance can fix any bad order items or substitute equipment. So until Amtrak gets reliable locos and whatever new Viewliner cars needed. 3 - 1/2 baggage, 10 coaches ( unless Horizons which are nearly verboten on the NEC, 3 - 1/2 diners, 9 sleepers.

Got some money ?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 11, 2015)

Well currently it is (to the best of my knowledge) ...

7 Viewliners from NYP to NOL

7 Superliners from CHI to SAS

3 Superliners from NOL to LAX

I am assuming on the 3 days the TE heads to LAX that the coach, sleeper, and baggage cars from the TE hook up with the SL at SAS. They wouldn't need an extra diner or lounge car.

Remember in my proposal the 3 Superliners from NOL to LAX aren't needed. You can use the same Viewliners between NOL and SAS and use the same Superliners from CHI to SAS through to LAX. There would be no hooking at SAS anymore.

I don't see how any new cars are necessary. You would need more staff for the extra four days over the current SL but Amtrak wants to make the SL daily anyway.

The ridership west of NOL on the Crescent would be the current SL passengers plus any carryover from east of NOL.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 11, 2015)

Unless you are going to chop off the top of the Superliners, you can't really treat them as interchangeable.

You plan would work if you truncated the train at WAS and could use Superliners. Just make it an easy transfer at WAS for anyone headed up the NEC, no big deal.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 11, 2015)

Ryan said:


> Unless you are going to chop off the top of the Superliners, you can't really treat them as interchangeable.
> 
> You plan would work if you truncated the train at WAS and could use Superliners. Just make it an easy transfer at WAS for anyone headed up the NEC, no big deal.


I am not planning on a through connection at SAS. If you are going from the Crescent to the Texas Eagle at SAS (including anywhere between NOL and SAS to anywhere west of SAS) you have to transfer. So the Viewliners are needed from NYP to SAS rather than NYP to NOL, no new Viewliners are needed. They would still use Superliners from SAS to LAX using the Texas Eagle trains minus any excess coaches and sleepers they don't need could be stored in SAS.


----------



## jis (Oct 12, 2015)

How many consists do you think the Crescent uses for its NYP - NOL service today?


----------



## afigg (Oct 12, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I am not planning on a through connection at SAS. If you are going from the Crescent to the Texas Eagle at SAS (including anywhere between NOL and SAS to anywhere west of SAS) you have to transfer. So the Viewliners are needed from NYP to SAS rather than NYP to NOL, no new Viewliners are needed. They would still use Superliners from SAS to LAX using the Texas Eagle trains minus any excess coaches and sleepers they don't need could be stored in SAS.


jis beat me to it in responding to your post. Anyway, the Crescent requires 4 consists to support its current NYP-NOL service. NOL to SAS is a circa 15 hour trip. I have not tried to figure out your schedule in depth with regard to equipment turnarounds, but an extension to SAS would probably require 6 Crescent consists. Which is a lot of additional single level equipment.
Your proposed change to the Crescent schedule changes the NYP/WAS to ATL overnight trip schedule for start of work day arrivals at ATL and end of work day departures from ATL that has been in place since before Amtrak. I don't see Amtrak messing with that traditional schedule in any significant way. That also goes for extending the Crescent west of NOL all the way to San Antonio.

There are possibilities in revising the TE and SL schedules to trim trip times and cut costs as improvements come into play on segments of their routes. The CHI to STL corridor, TE move to the TRE tracks between Dallas and FTW; UP getting close to completing double tracking of the entire route between El Paso and Southern California. Bringing the Crescent into it just muddies the discussion.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Oct 12, 2015)

Let see, the most popular part of the Crescent is the overnight trip between Atlanta and Washington, as well as the rest of the NE corridor. Extending the train all the way to San Antonio means that more delays, sometimes extreme, are possible. What happens when that overnight train from Atlanta is 12 hours late because the train and a vehicle collided somewhere in Texas or weather conditions bring delays? Stretching out the length of long distance trains is not a good idea. Various proposals to stretch the Lynchburger further and further out into the deep south also work to diminish the original appeal of the train. Establishing a new train from New Orleans to San Antonio, making the Texas Chief a Chicago-West Coast train is not a bad idea because it's already a LD train not dependent on local traffic. Hey, establish a new train from Washington to San Antonio, but leave the NYC-Atlanta core of the Crescent alone. Don't mess with a successful operation because something looks good on a map.


----------



## afigg (Oct 12, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> > I think he may be referring to the fact that the trains have to do multiple spots due to the short platform. During all these spots, the train blocks at least one road. I've sat in my sleeper and watched the traffic back up! Also, Maricopa is a crew change point which also adds time to the stop.
> ...


The time of day matters when the Amtrak train blocks traffic in Maricopa. The current schedule times have the SL stopping there in the evening and before 6 AM, outside of peak rush hours. However, it looks as if the grade crossing at SR 347 may be separated in 5 to 6 years with a bridge over the UP tracks. The state of Arizona has received federal approval for a road bridge and AZ DOT has allocated $55 million for the bridge with $36 million for construction in FY2020. Law firm article(?): SR 347 bridge project in Pinal County gets approval from Feds.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 12, 2015)

MikefromCrete said:


> Let see, the most popular part of the Crescent is the overnight trip between Atlanta and Washington, as well as the rest of the NE corridor. Extending the train all the way to San Antonio means that more delays, sometimes extreme, are possible. What happens when that overnight train from Atlanta is 12 hours late because the train and a vehicle collided somewhere in Texas or weather conditions bring delays? Stretching out the length of long distance trains is not a good idea. Various proposals to stretch the Lynchburger further and further out into the deep south also work to diminish the original appeal of the train. Establishing a new train from New Orleans to San Antonio, making the Texas Chief a Chicago-West Coast train is not a bad idea because it's already a LD train not dependent on local traffic. Hey, establish a new train from Washington to San Antonio, but leave the NYC-Atlanta core of the Crescent alone. Don't mess with a successful operation because something looks good on a map.


Right now, the Texas Eagle merges with the Sunset Limited. You are proposing the other way around with the Sunset Limited (NOL-SAS) joining with the Texas Eagle which would go through CHI to LAX. Unfortunately NOL to SAS is only 573 miles so separating the NOL to SAS route requires state funding from Texas and Louisiana unless they actually extend the SL back to Florida.

Assuming the SL remains NOL to LAX you would like to have a decent transfer at NOL to the Crescent (a SL-CONO connection wouldn't help too many people I can think of) and a decent transfer at SAS to the Texas Eagle. Right now, even if you wanted to transfer from the Crescent to the SL you would have to do overnight in NOL both ways. In SAS, the layover is almost 6 hrs going from the TE to the SL and it is 9:55pm to 2:45am. The eastbound transfer from the SL to the TE is slightly better but still not ideal.

Assuming you keep the Crescent and TE the same, it is impossible to have a decent connection to the Crescent at NOL and a decent connection to the Texas Eagle at SAS. My assumption is the SAS connection is more valuable as you can get Dallas to LAX and most of the NEC would go one of the eastern routes to the SWC although a Crescent/SL connection at NOL could serve ATL to LAX (try doing that trip now).

The 2:45am SAS to 5:35am LAX sucks on both ends. The best I can do there while maintaining an evening arrival into SAS from CHI and DAL is 9:00pm SAS to 11:50pm LAX and that would require shifting the TE earlier which may not be ideal. Assuming either Texas/La fund a NOL to SAS leg or the SL is extended to Florida, then a train from NOL has to arrive in SAS around 7:00pm (maybe earlier) if I use the proposed 9:00pm SAS departure on the TE. 7:00pm into SAS would require a 4:00am departure from NOL which is never going to happen. If we do a midnight departure from NOL it would get into SAS around 3pm and then passengers from NOL to SAS would have to wait 6 hrs for the TE. Now this wait is a better time but the question is would you rather the passengers from DAL (and possibly STL) wait 6 hours in SAS or have the passengers from NOL/HOU wait 6 hours in SAS (although at better times)? Are there more passengers traveling to LAX from Dallas/St. Louis or Houston/New Orleans? If the answer is Dallas, maybe the shift would work and you can use my times except the Crescent would go back to the regular schedule and the SL would be NOL midnight, HOU 9:18/9:55am, SAS 3:05pm/9:00pm.

So the question is how do you arrange the SL to get a decent connection time in SAS with the Texas Eagle and/or in NOL with the Crescent while allowing for a better arrival time in LAX than 5:35am?


----------



## jis (Oct 13, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Well currently it is (to the best of my knowledge) ...
> 
> 7 Viewliners from NYP to NOL
> 
> ...


I do agree about your contention that the Superliner consist that is used between NOL and SAS can just be used from CHI instead beefing up the through consist to LAX, or to go into the equipment pool to make the TE daily all the say to LAX.

Currently the Crescent uses 4 consists to run the daily service not 7 (as you seem to imply). With your proposal with your proposed timing, the Crescent will need 5 consists. So basically the following equipment will need to be found from somewhere:

1 Viewliner II Baggage

2 Viewliner Sleepers

1 Amfleet II Cafe/Lounge

1 Viewliner II Diner

4 Amfleet II Coaches

2 P40/42s

One source for this may be to use these cars for this service instead of for the through running from the Pennsy to Cap. but I don't think that could be justified based on overall demand projections on the two competing proposals. I can't see where else you could find these cars from. The Coaches could be finagled by using Horizons I suppose as can the Amcafe. But the problem will be with Sleepers and possibly the Diner. I am assuming that the release of P40/42s from the midwest upon the arrival of Chargers there will provide enough leeway to find the engines.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 13, 2015)

jis said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Well currently it is (to the best of my knowledge) ...
> ...


When I said 7 and 3 above I meant 7 trains per week to distinguish from the Sunset Limited. The assumption here is the Crescent takes the place of the SL between NOL and SAS and the Texas Eagle replaces the SL between SAS and LAX. So there technically wouldn't be a Sunset Limited anymore although the route will still be served. Wouldn't those trains then be freed up? You would continue the Crescent trains and the Texas Eagle trains that are already running. I know it isn't as simple as I said so please fill in the details.


----------



## jis (Oct 14, 2015)

For Crescent equipment requirements I just did, in the message that you responded to.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Oct 16, 2015)

How about make the Crescent only NYP-ATL and have the Sunset Limited go ATL-SAS?

The PRIAA clearly stated the demand is higher north of ATL than south. If the split occurs, you can service the southbound train in ATL and send it back north to NYP the same day in the 12 hour span so no storage in ATL is necessary. Amtrak did discuss splitting the train at ATL ("connected corridors") and the loss of passengers and that certainly is a concern. But if you add service from ATL to Texas (HOU and SAS) you may gain passengers you lose from splitting. Plus, you can go from the East Coast to HOU and SAS by one connection (ATL) and it might be quicker than via CHI (right now NEC to HOU would require an overnight in NOL). Also, if the SAS connection is better to the TE, it could give service from ATL to LAX and Ariz in one stop.

If you use the NYP to ATL times (arriving 8:13am from NYP, leaving 8:04pm to NYP)...

The train heading west would have to arrive in NOL either before midnight or early the next day. You can shift the ATL to NOL portion of the Crescent four hours so it leaves ATL at 12:38pm and arrives in NOL at 11:32pm. Then it can continue to SAS using the times I suggested (NOL midnight, HOU 9:18/9:55am, SAS 3:05pm). At SOS, you connect with the extended Texas Eagle, leaving SAS around 9pm.

The train heading east would have to leave NOL before midnight to allow an adequate transfer at ATL. The train can use the SL times from SAS to NOL and then leave NOL around 11pm (eight hour shift) and arrive in ATL around 11:35am. The layover in ATL would be nine hours but any later arrival would force the train to arrive/leave NOL in the middle of the night. 

Of course these changes would depend a lot on an improved station in ATL. I imagine it wouldn't be pleasant spending 4-9 hrs. in ATL's current station.

I remember someone saying they wanted to try the NOL connection from east to west as traveling along the southern routes is less prone to snow delays which may happen if connecting in CHI. Right now between the Crescent and Sunset Limited, that's an overnight in NOL on your own dime. Is there a way to improve the connection?

Also the idea of running the Texas Eagle CHI-LAX with the Sunset Limited connecting at SAS rather than the other way around would require either state funding by Texas and Louisiana for a NOL-SAS route or extending the NOL-SAS further east. Of course the best choice would be to Florida. But if that's not possible, perhaps ATL would be a second choice.


----------



## neroden (Oct 23, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> This is me brainstorming here:
> 
> Currently Amtrak has a SL going from NOL to LAX and a TE going from CHI to LAX. These trains merge/split in SAS. If you are going from anywhere between CHI and before SAS, you have a layover in SAS from 9:55pm to 2:45am waiting for the SL. The layover eastbound is shorter but right before dawn (4:50am to 7:00am). The SAS to LAX times are lousy (2:45am to 5:35am going west and 10:00pm to 4:50am going east).
> 
> ...


This actually makes sense to me. The major problem is this: It would increase delays on the Crescent.

The Crescent has very few hosts. It's Amtrak (New Orleans) to NS to CSX (Alexandria-Union Station) to Amtrak.

This would add UP (San Antonio-Lake Charles), BNSF (Lake Charles-New Orleans), CN (New Orleans), and New Orleans Public Belt (New Orleans). In addition, it would add a lot of runtime to generate delays. This is a recipe for delays.

The minor problems: it would require more Viewliners; it would have a crummy transfer at SAS; there is nowhere to drop cars at Atlanta.

If Atlanta somehow, miracle of miracles, got a new station, I wouldn't mind a Crescent from Atlanta to NY and a separate "Gulf & Western" from Atlanta-New Orleans-San Antonio, but the "Gulf & Western" would still have the problem of six host railroads.

FWIW there is no legal problem with running a daily Texas Eagle LAX-SAS-CHI and a set of coaches from SAS to NOL funded as part of the national system; just declare the SAS-NOL train be a section of the Texas Eagle, like the Boston and New York sections of the LSL. Even though right now everyone has to get off the train from Boston at Albany, it's still officially part of the LSL, so it doesn't trigger the PRIIA state funding requirements.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 24, 2015)

The shift of the endpoint of the Crescent/SL from NOL to ATL isn't a half bad idea. As you mention, it would need a better station, it would also need some track space to turn the trains.

IIRC, the Superliners that would do this currently sit in NOL for that time period, so it wouldn't increase the equipment needs, and would free up some Viewliners because of the quicker turn.

Aren't there some tunnels between ATL and NOL? Can they clear a Superliner?


----------



## Anderson (Oct 24, 2015)

I don't think there are any tunnels down there, and I _strongly_ suspect that the whole route is cleared for double-stack trains. Frankly, with all the talk of "doubling up" WAS-ATL it might well make sense to have a Superliner train go NOL-WAS and Viewliner service BOS/NYP-ATL.

(Mind you, I say this as someone who would in the long run advocate for moving as much as possible to Viewliners since a Viewliner order can serve everyone while the presently split fleet creates _all sorts_ of political problems).


----------



## Lonestar648 (Nov 5, 2015)

There hasn't been an discussion about those riding the TE to LAX to connect with the Coast Starlight. The same connection going east in LAX, so arrival times into LAX need to make the Coast Starlight connections as well as connections to San Diego. With the direct opportunity for WAS - SAS - LAX the ridership on the Crescent would most likely increase unless the timing of the CL/SWC is better. Big question is will the Host RRs cooperate with the time changes?


----------



## west point (Nov 5, 2015)

The problem of thru cars going through New Orleans, Memphis, St. Louis- Indianapolis or Chicago is equipment reliability and servicing. 48+ hours for the West coast - Mississippi river trains can cause the cars to get very ripe. It might be better to make on platform transfers to connecting train cars instead. Even our autos get trashy after a several day's trip.

Maybe there could be enough slop in connecting schedules so a heavy cleaning crew could board the cars and any mechanical problems could be a cross platform transfer to a standby car(s). Gets back to not enough equipment.a


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 5, 2015)

Honestly any transfer point from the Northeast to California other than Chicago would be an improvement to reduce the gridlock around Union Station (or hopefully the Gateway project helps things a lot).

If you're going from NYP/PHL/WAS to LAX, I think going through a mostly southern route would be less susceptible to weather problems than a CL or LSL. Right now, there's no practical way to go from the NEC to LAX without going through CHI.

In fact, how would you go from California to Florida now? SWC/CZ to CL to SS/SM? So you'd have to go all the way north to Chicago and then all the way down south to Florida? Amtrak has to improve southern transportation.


----------



## neroden (Nov 5, 2015)

The Southeast has taken the worst of the train cuts since 1970 (as I noted in another thread). Unfortunately, this is because there is *still* very little political support for train service in most of the Deep South.

Atlanta can't be bothered to actually build a new intercity train station, or to try to get back any of its (numerous) lost services -- and it's the biggest city in the region.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Nov 6, 2015)

Atlanta/Georgia politicians see no future benefit to travel by rail. Additionally, I am sure that the Delta Air Lines lobby is very strong in the area so the politicians do not want to make DAL upset by expanding passenger rail. Interestingly, Deltas more rural flights within Georgia have decreased from 10 - 15 years ago, so increased rail could bring people to Atlanta for long distance and overseas flights.


----------



## jis (Nov 6, 2015)

I don't think Delta ought to really care. Even a vast expansion of local rail service around Atlanta will not register as even a blip on Delta's balance sheet. Indeed it might enable them to dump some more perennially money losing puddle jumpers around there.

There are other reasons for the obduracy of the Atlanta politicians,


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 24, 2015)

With the upcoming Sunset Limited schedule change (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66564-sunset-limitedtexas-eagle-schedule-change/), I excitedly thought that would set up for a better transfer in NOL between the SL and Crescent. Then I got the NOL times backward.

My goal is to create a more friendly SL-Crescent transfer opportunity. Currently it is

19-1: 7:32pm to 9:00am

2-20: 9:40pm to 7:00am

Also, they recently proposed a new extension of the CONO to Florida.

http://www.newsherald.com/assets/pdf/DA2111216.PDF

Assuming the SL is not extended to Florida, here are the transfers from the CONO-SL between LAX/Texas and Florida

19-58: 9:40pm to 1:45pm

59-2: 9:30am to 9:00am next day

Not only would 59-2 be an overnight, it would be as close to a full day as you can get!

My goal now would be to shift the SL schedules to better connect not only with the Crescent but with the CONO.

The westbound SL (1) would have to leave NOL after 7:32pm (19 arrival). It would still be a lousy layover for the CONO but anything is better than a 23 hr 30 min layover. The eastbound SL (2) would have to arrive in NOL before 7:00am (20 departure). When I did this before with a previous schedule, it required an arrival in NOL in the graveyard shift. This will not change unless the Crescent eastbound/northbound would be pushed back from 7am.

Using straight hour shifts on the current SL:

1 (back 10 hrs): NOL 11:00pm, HOU 8:18/8:55am, SAS 2:05/4:45pm, El Paso 3:22/3:47am, Tucson 8:45/9:35am, Maricopa 10:52/11:02am, Palm Springs 4:02pm, LAX 7:35pm

2 (forward 8 hrs): LAX 6:00am, Palm Springs 8:36am, Maricopa 1:30/1:40pm, Tucson 3:28/4:15pm, El Paso 11:10/11:35pm, SAS 12:50/2:25pm, HOU 7:10/8:10pm, NOL 5:40am

The connection between the 2 and 20 is just 1:20. I would hope Amtrak would guarantee it. Maybe they can move the Crescent back. A 3 hr shift back leaves NOL at 10:00am, ATL at 11:04pm, and arrives in NYP at 4:46pm, barely beating the rush hour. The WAS arrival would be 12:53pm, which would still leave plenty of time for a transfer to the CL. 3 hours may not be necessary, maybe 1-2 would be OK. You can't arrive in NOL any earlier than 5:40am without pushing the LAX departure before 6am.

The eastbound LAX departure goes from 10:00pm to 6:00am which could be worse but the arrival time is way better. The SAS times are way better. El Paso would be the biggest loser, at least westbound (eastbound barely is before midnight).

By now I can hear most of you yelling about the Texas Eagle connection. My thought is the TE/SL connection is really just for Texas. No normal person would take the TE/SL from CHI to LAX. STL can use Missouri River Runner to SWC. Even if you couldn't do 313-3 and 4-314 as shown in the timetable, 311-3 would be 9:15am to 8:15am two days later with approximately an 8 hr layover in KCY while 316-4 would be 6:15pm to 9:40pm two days later with approximately a 9 hr layover in KCY. Both are still way quicker than STL-LAX on the TE (8:00pm to 5:35am three days later, 10:00pm to 7:19am three days later). Aside: They should really reschedule 313 and 314 to allow more leeway with the SWC.

So here's what I would do with Texas:

Use my SL schedule above.

Establish through cars or a shuttle requiring a transfer between DAL and SAS using the TE route. This is counter to the PRIIA which had the shuttle between NOL and SAS.

Return the TE to CHI-SAS only.

This would increase expenses but the added benefit would then be that DAL-SAS would now be twice daily (or at least on the SL days if you didn't want to run these trains on days the SL doesn't run).

New 401 (6 hr shift from 21): DAL 5:50am, Ft. Worth 7:25/8:10am, Austin 12:30pm, SAS 3:55pm

New 402 (9 hr shift from 22): SAS 4:00pm, Austin 6:31pm, Ft. Worth 10:58/11:20pm, DAL 12:20am

Current DAL-LAX times: 11:50am-5:35am 2 days later

New DAL-LAX times: 5:50am-7:35pm 2 days later

Current LAX-DAL times: 10:00pm-3:20pm 2 days later

New LAX-DAL times: 6:00am-12:20am 2 days later

I have cut 4 hrs from the schedule due to not having a nearly 6 hr layover in SAS although the eastbound schedule is 1 hr longer although if the layover in Ft. Worth is reduced that might be less.

The southbound 21 takes 10 hrs (1.5 hr layover in Ft. Worth but the northbound takes 8 hrs (1 hr layover in Ft. Worth). If we can do that train in 8 hrs each way with a minimal layover in Ft. Worth, you can run approx. 6am-2pm south and 4pm-midnight north. If you could get the southbound train to SAS by 1:30pm you not only could transfer in SAS west to LAX but possibly east to HOU/NOL (and connect in NOL for both the Crescent to the NEC and the proposed CONO extension to Florida). I think 4pm will allow enough time for a transfer from both the east/west SL.

Certainly there would be added expense for a new DAL to SAS train to either connect with the SL or allow for a transfer in SAS but you add a second frequency to the route. Another possibility for a shuttle would be instead of DAL to SAS but DAL to HOU. This would allow quicker service for DAL eastbound but longer westbound (plus Austin would be left out and you would have to find a DAL to HOU route).

So obviously there will be winners and losers but I feel the winners outweigh the losers. All of a sudden, NOL becomes a decent transfer point and there would be two ways to go from the NEC to LAX (via CHI or via NOL). Florida to LAX (assuming CONO extension to Florida) requires a long layover in NOL but it would be shorter than what it would be now.


----------



## west point (Dec 24, 2015)

As an alternate maybe split a Crescent train 419 & 420 at Meridian, Ms. That will give service to Jackson, Vicksburg, Shreveport, Dallas, Connect to the TE at Dallas. This still adds SAS as a direct connection and a very large population base to the Crescent

That eliminates Houston as a thru train but at least passengers can get present connections. Also another thruway bus from Longview - Houston or even the present thruway buses..


----------



## west point (Dec 24, 2015)

A thought would be that terminate the Crescent at Marshall / Longview. That would save a consist of a train 419 - 420. It would have to be studied to see if operating costs there would be less than DAL. Lay over facilities, car loco maintenance costs etc.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 24, 2015)

west point said:


> As an alternate maybe split a Crescent train 419 & 420 at Meridian, Ms. That will give service to Jackson, Vicksburg, Shreveport, Dallas, Connect to the TE at Dallas. This still adds SAS as a direct connection and a very large population base to the Crescent
> 
> That eliminates Houston as a thru train but at least passengers can get present connections. Also another thruway bus from Longview - Houston or even the present thruway buses..


The Thruway bus gets into Dallas Greyhound at 3:40am from Meridian (10:45pm departure to Meridian). For the Meridian-Dallas schedule to give a decent schedule into Dallas the train would have to arrive about 4 hrs earlier or 3 hrs later than the bus.

I don't see much gain of a through train stopping at Longview. It's only another 127 miles and about 3 hrs to Dallas.


----------



## neroden (Dec 24, 2015)

For reference, the Texas Eagle - Sunset Limited through cars plan is really for Texas, not for Chicago-LA, but specifically there's some very large markets:

DFW or Austin - LA

DFW or Austin - Arizona

DFW or Austin - New Mexico

These are huge, huge travel markets.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 24, 2015)

neroden said:


> For reference, the Texas Eagle - Sunset Limited through cars plan is really for Texas, not for Chicago-LA, but specifically there's some very large markets:
> 
> DFW or Austin - LA
> 
> ...


I figured that was the case but I feel 401-1 and 2-402 if 401 and 402 are scheduled properly would take care of that and get rid of the nearly 6 hr layover in SAS and the 2:45am departure from SAS and 5:35am arrival into LAX.


----------



## neroden (Dec 25, 2015)

Right. You need a maintenance base in Dallas for that plan, though. :-(


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 26, 2015)

neroden said:


> Right. You need a maintenance base in Dallas for that plan, though. :-(


Well currently the Heartland Flyer terminates in Ft. Worth although looking at the times the start and end times it probably gets serviced in Ft. Worth and then goes back out the same day and is stored overnight in Oklahoma City.

Depending on how fast you can go between DAL and SAS, it looks to be almost impossible to have the same train set arrive in SAS and leave the same day. You'd probably have to have two sets with a set going into SAS one day and then leaving for DAL the next day.

The TE is 314 miles each way. If you can get it to 8 hrs each way, the ideal times would be 6am-2pm and 4pm-midnight to allow connections with both of my proposed eastbound and westbound SL (it would be through cars to the westbound but you should be able to transfer to the eastbound). I don't know if 7 hrs each way is possible.

Assuming its through cars DAL-SAS, is it possible to branch off only coach cars and a cafe without the sleepers? That would save having to store sleeper cars in the Dallas area. What is done now with the LSL and EB splits? The worst case would then be to just have a day train without sleepers between DAL and SAS and force a transfer in SAS although it would be in the afternoon and the layover would be less than the current layover in SAS of nearly six hours. I'm sure Texas won't like having to transfer in this scenario but I believe the PRIIA is going to force passengers east of SAS to transfer in SAS and according to their schedules that would be 11:00pm-1:10am west and 6:50-7:50am east, neither is pleasant IMO.

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/970/304/PRIIA-210-SunsetLtd-TexasEagle-PIP,0.pdf

If you assume the CONO gets extended to Florida, any passenger from Florida to LAX will have to transfer twice, once in NOL and once in SAS with the NOL transfer requiring an overnight stay. In the old days, you were able to go cross country with no transfers. Under my plan, that would be one transfer in NOL. The westbound layover would be long (about 14 hrs) but would not require an overnight stay and would be way shorter than the 23 hr, 30 min it would be. There would be almost no additional traffic between Florida and California (or Arizona and New Mexico) under this scenario (it would probably not be much faster than the current nightmare of going north to WAS and west to CHI).


----------



## Seaboard92 (Dec 26, 2015)

I'm interested in the Crescent plan as it's my college train. What I see as the ideal solution for it would be to extend a section to FTW over the Kansas City Southern. Then extend the Heartland Flyer to SAS from FTW. One extra set is needed for the Flyer. And one set is saved from the section if the timetable works out. And FTW-SAS gets two trains a day. And we know ridership will be helped by that.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 1, 2016)

Seaboard92 said:


> I'm interested in the Crescent plan as it's my college train. What I see as the ideal solution for it would be to extend a section to FTW over the Kansas City Southern.


Is that the Meridian to Dallas route others have discussed?



Seaboard92 said:


> Then extend the Heartland Flyer to SAS from FTW. One extra set is needed for the Flyer. And one set is saved from the section if the timetable works out. And FTW-SAS gets two trains a day. And we know ridership will be helped by that.


Well my proposal calls for breaking the TE-SL connection at SAS and creating a second DAL-SAS train to connect/through cars to the SL at SAS. Would you have the Heartland Flyer hook up with my new SL schedule at SAS? If so, it would have to leave DAL early in the morning to reach SAS by the afternoon and would arrive in DAL late at night right before or just after midnight. Then the OKC times would be in the middle of the night (around 2am southbound and 4am northbound). I'd probably keep the Flyer a train connecting to the TE at FTW using the current schedule than try to connect it to my new SL schedule and make the train much less attractive to OKC.

I wonder if it would be possible to extend the Heartland Flyer to HOU though. This is the timetables.org schedule from 1994 when they ran through cars DAL-HOU: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031

Travel time between DAL and HOU was 6:45 south and 6:40 north. First, the Flyer would have to get to DAL. If you assume 8 hrs from FTW to HOU, you'd arrive in HOU around 9pm and have to leave HOU around 9am. My proposed SL eastbound leaves HOU for NOL at 8:10pm and the SL westbound SL arrives in HOU from NOL at 8:18am. You would probably have to leave OKC going south and arrive in OKC later but you could have the HF for OKC/DAL/FTW to NOL and with my new schedule better connections to the Crescent and CONO. Now that would require state funding unless you want to use it as a second SL shuttle. Then you could have 401/402 be DAL-SAS to connect with the SL at SAS and 501/502 be OKC-HOU to connect with the SL at HOU. Unlike 401/402 which if scheduled properly could connect with the SL in both directions (to/from LAX and to/from NOL), 501/502 would only be practical to/from NOL.


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> In the old days, you were able to go cross country with no transfers. Under my plan, that would be one transfer in NOL. The westbound layover would be long (about 14 hrs) but would not require an overnight stay and would be way shorter than the 23 hr, 30 min it would be. There would be almost no additional traffic between Florida and California (or Arizona and New Mexico) under this scenario (it would probably not be much faster than the current nightmare of going north to WAS and west to CHI).


Other than the brief period when Amtrak ran the Sunset to Florida, how long back was it when it was possible to travel from California to Florida without at least one and possibly two changes? Certainly by the 60s it required two changes to get to anywhere in Florida other than JAX, and the connection in NOL was horrendous to the faster of the two trains to JAX, and the slower train to which the connection was good took 22 hours to get to JAX from NOL and did not carry any Sleepers!. Effectively you got to Miami on Day 5 if you left LAX on Day 1. I wonder even how many railfans went through that ordeal


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 1, 2016)

jis said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > In the old days, you were able to go cross country with no transfers. Under my plan, that would be one transfer in NOL. The westbound layover would be long (about 14 hrs) but would not require an overnight stay and would be way shorter than the 23 hr, 30 min it would be. There would be almost no additional traffic between Florida and California (or Arizona and New Mexico) under this scenario (it would probably not be much faster than the current nightmare of going north to WAS and west to CHI).
> ...


I don't know if 12 years (1993-2005) counts as a brief period. I guess it depends on how old you are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Limited

I would rather no one be forced to transfer. But I think it's more "fair" for the DAL-SAS portion to be forced to transfer than the NOL-SAS portion, especially if the transfer is a better time of the day than the proposed SL-TE transfers at SAS. Hopefully we'll see the proposed CONO extension to Florida so you wouldn't have to go all the way north to CHI to get from Florida to Texas even if you have an overnight layover in NOL.


----------



## jis (Jan 1, 2016)

I guess I don't think of any of Amtrak's time as old time  What I find interesting is that the LD network that remains differs very little from the corresponding routes and timings of Pre-Amtrak days. Tis is in huge contrast to development in say Asia and Europe. I suppose it is a result of what is essentially a stagnant system that is just puttering along somehow.


----------



## west point (Jan 2, 2016)

A proposal would be put some Sunset cars onto the Crescent. Take the cars to Atlanta, then continue Sunset from Atlanta - Savannah / or Jacksonville. Then combine Sunset at either SAV or JAX with Palmetto and go to Miami. Would serve much higher population centers and give ATL Florida service.

Also fewer new train miles and new stations. Give a route that is longer but about same amount of time NOL - JAX.

There would be no need for any train schedules to change but ATL station with two trains same time ............????????????


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 2, 2016)

west point said:


> A proposal would be put some Sunset cars onto the Crescent. Take the cars to Atlanta, then continue Sunset from Atlanta - Savannah / or Jacksonville. Then combine Sunset at either SAV or JAX with Palmetto and go to Miami. Would serve much higher population centers and give ATL Florida service.
> 
> Also fewer new train miles and new stations. Give a route that is longer but about same amount of time NOL - JAX.
> 
> There would be no need for any train schedules to change but ATL station with two trains same time ............????????????


I had suggested Atlanta to Florida service previously:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66344-revisiting-boston-florida-servicenec-to-fl-via-charlotte/?p=635903


----------



## jis (Jan 3, 2016)

west point said:


> A proposal would be put some Sunset cars onto the Crescent. Take the cars to Atlanta, then continue Sunset from Atlanta - Savannah / or Jacksonville. Then combine Sunset at either SAV or JAX with Palmetto and go to Miami. Would serve much higher population centers and give ATL Florida service.
> 
> Also fewer new train miles and new stations. Give a route that is longer but about same amount of time NOL - JAX.
> 
> There would be no need for any train schedules to change but ATL station with two trains same time ............????????????


The only question in my mind is why would anyone in their right mind put together such a Rube Goldberg scheme? 

Thinking about starting something between Atlanta and JAX preferably via SAV makes quite a bit of sense. But sending Sunset Limited cars for a general tour of the South makes no sense at all. Just IMHO of course.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 3, 2016)

jis said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > A proposal would be put some Sunset cars onto the Crescent. Take the cars to Atlanta, then continue Sunset from Atlanta - Savannah / or Jacksonville. Then combine Sunset at either SAV or JAX with Palmetto and go to Miami. Would serve much higher population centers and give ATL Florida service.
> ...


Pick your poison, NOL to Florida via ATL where you would need to establish service from ATL to JAC (or ATL to Savannah) or use the SL East route. Which is easier to implement? Certainly in terms of obtaining new train miles, west point is correct as it would be fewer new (or reintroduced) miles.


----------



## jis (Jan 3, 2016)

My problem is with using Sunset Limited cars. It was a problem in the original Sunset East and it will continue to be a problem no matter which way you send it.

As for the relative difficulty of starting services in the real world, one route has an active process in place and the other route is being discussed basically by foamers and no one else, and requires funding from a state that is one of the most strongly opposed to rail service. Guess which one is easier to get going


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 3, 2016)

My updated plans are attached.

SL schedule changed for better connections in NOL east and better arrival time in LAX (departure time may be worse).

SL/TE connection broken but through cars DAL-SAS connect with the SL in SAS and the wait time is shorter going west (2:55-4:45pm).

Heartland Flyer extended to HOU and times changed to connect with the SL in HOU (Seaboard92 suggested OKC-SAS and I thought it wouldn't work but then I came up with the HOU extension). I used an old TE schedule from 1994 (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031) for a rough schedule. If Oklahoma/Texas don't want to spend the money, either consider it part of the SL or create an OKC-NOL train which would be > 750 miles.

If you have both the new DAL-SAS train and the DAL-HOU extension of the Heartland Flyer, then DAL/FTW can go to the west via SAS (through cars) or east via HOU (transfer). Going DAL to ORL or ATL would require transfers in HOU and NOL but currently it also requires two transfers (CHI and WAS). Therefore, I was able to have the DAL-SAS branch leave DAL later and arrive in DAL earlier because I didn't need for the train to catch the SL the other way.

Some additional possible combos using my proposed schedules:

NYP-HOU (19/1): 2:15pm to 8:18am two days later (43 hrs, 3 min)

NYP-SAS (19/1): 2:15pm to 2:05pm two days later (48 hrs, 50 min)

CHI-HOU (59/1): 8:05pm to 8:18am two days later (36 hrs, 13 min)

ORL-HOU (58/1): 4:15pm to 8:18am two days later (41 hrs, 3 min)

ORL-SAS (58/1): 4:15pm to 2:05pm two days later (46 hrs, 50 min)

ORL-LAX (58/1): 4:15pm to 7:35pm three days later (76 hrs, 20 min)

ATL-HOU (19/1): 8:38am to 8:18am next day (24 hrs, 40 min)

ATL-SAS (19/1): 8:38am to 2:05pm next day (30 hrs, 27 min)

ATL-LAX (19/1): 8:38am to 7:35pm two days later (61 hrs, 57 min)

ORL-DAL (58/1/822): 4:15pm to 4:05pm two days later (48 hrs, 50 min)

ATL-DAL (58/1/822): 8:38am to 4:05pm next days later (32 hrs, 27 min)

NOL-DAL (1/822): 11:00pm to 4:05pm next days later (29 hrs, 5 min)

The ORL times are longer because the layover in NOL is longer for the CONO to the SL than the layover in NOL for the Crescent to the SL. The goal was to connect the Crescent and SL. The SL-CONO connection (if you assume the CONO extension to Florida comes to fruition) was improved as well in both directions. I didn't think too hard about CONO south to SL west until I realized CHI-HOU and the schedule does line up better than the current CONO/SL connection (currently 3:32pm to 9:00am next day, proposed 3:32pm to 11:00pm same day). I wanted to do CHI-DAL-HOU using the extended HF but the northbound HF just missed the northbound TE in DAL and the southbound TE would give you just 30 minutes in DAL.

This is a dream scenario schedule so you don't need to tell me Amtrak doesn't have the money or equipment since that's obvious. I feel my proposed SL with the already proposed CONO extension to Florida would be way better than what we have right now. Of course some would lose but I feel the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks (feel free to argue).

Sunset Limited Reschedule Proposal January 2016.pdf


----------



## jis (Jan 4, 2016)

Since it is a dream scenario where equipment availability etc are to be ignored, why do you selectively worry about 750 miles?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 4, 2016)

jis said:


> Since it is a dream scenario where equipment availability etc are to be ignored, why do you selectively worry about 750 miles?


I'm selectively choosing what parts are fantasy ($) and what parts are reality (PRIIA)


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 4, 2016)

I guess I push the 750 mile rule because I would like to believe (maybe unjustifiably) that Amtrak would add shorter day routes with high potential (Texas routes, Florida routes, 3-C) if they weren't hampered by the 750 mile rule. They don't require the sleeper cars that are in short supply. My proposals would re-introduce DAL-HOU service and double DAL-SAS service, both of which require state funding. The only new trains that Amtrak can start without state funding are the > 750 mile LD trains that require sleepers they don't have and in general are less popular and lose more money than shorter regional trains. With airplanes, customers are more likely to ride a train for 3-4 hrs than a whole day or more.

Of course the fact that Amtrak has done nothing with 3-C in the almost 30 years before PRIIA dispute that theory.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 5, 2016)

I wanted to get more aggressive with some of the schedules.

The westbound SL (#1) leaves an hour earlier (10pm). This shrinks the delay in NOL by an hour as well as the delay in SAS from the DAL-SAS branch (although the SL would wait for that train under my proposal). This moves the northbound HF (#822) up an hour as well so the times north of FTW stay the same as the current HF.

I show the possible connection of the HF with the TE at DAL although it probably can't be guaranteed (#21-#821:11:30am-12:15pm, #822-#22: 3:05pm-3:40pm). Maybe the TE can be moved although that would hurt the TE-CL connection in CHI.

Using AMSAD for 2015:

#19 arrives NOL more than 2 hrs late 37 times (just over 10%)

#2 arrives NOL more than 1 hr late 39 times

Maybe the Crescent could be tweaked if this connection becomes problematic.

#1 arrives HOS more than 1 hr late 8 times (more than 30 min late 18 times)

#822-#22 may work depending on the OTP of the HOS-DAL leg. But #21-#821 will likely never work (158 times more than 30 min late into DAL, 130 times more than 60 min late). You probably can guarantee CHI-DAL-HOS or DAL-HOS-NOL but not both. Considering NOL-HOS is way more reliable than CHI-DAL, that would have to be the choice. To go from CHI-HOS you would have to go via NOL.

Sunset Limited Heartland Flyer Reschedule Proposal January 2016.pdf


----------



## trainviews (Jan 5, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I guess I push the 750 mile rule because I would like to believe (maybe unjustifiably) that Amtrak would add shorter day routes with high potential (Texas routes, Florida routes, 3-C) if they weren't hampered by the 750 mile rule. They don't require the sleeper cars that are in short supply. My proposals would re-introduce DAL-HOU service and double DAL-SAS service, both of which require state funding. The only new trains that Amtrak can start without state funding are the > 750 mile LD trains that require sleepers they don't have and in general are less popular and lose more money than shorter regional trains. With airplanes, customers are more likely to ride a train for 3-4 hrs than a whole day or more.
> 
> Of course the fact that Amtrak has done nothing with 3-C in the almost 30 years before PRIIA dispute that theory.


750 mile route or not the basic fact is that Amtrak will not start any new routes at all without new funding for it, simply because taking on new deficit will be political suicide. Additionally starting new routes has become very costly in capital improvements and having too little funds for capital costs to start with, there's no chance in hell Amtrak will use them for starting out new services (the very small incremental cost of the switch in Pittsburgh might be the exeption).

This was true many years before PRIIA and it is true today. The only things it does it stipulate that federal money can't legally be used to fund shorter routes. But it wouldn't happen anyhow. Likewise no new LD's will be started solely on Amtraks initiative. It will require an act of congress and possibly cofunding from states - at the very minimum for the capital costs. So there's really no need to keep harping at Amtrak. Save the effort for the guys with the money: Congress and state governments.


----------



## neroden (Jan 5, 2016)

I keep pointing out that changing to a daily Cardinal would now be profitable for Amtrak, in that it would require *less* funding than the current arrangement. (In fact it would make the Cardinal profitable before overhead.) Which means that Amtrak *should* start it regardless of federal funding, because it *reduces* the need for federal funding. Similarly, through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited would now be profitable for Amtrak.

Taking on new operating deficit would be politically unwise, but *getting rid of* operating deficit by expanding would be politically very wise. There may not be a lot of opportunities to do this, but I've already listed two. These should be the priority places to spend capital funds -- places where there is an actual, calculatable payback for Amtrak on them. (By contrast, although Gateway is a good project, there is no payback for Amtrak from the Gateway tunnels. They are entirely for the benefit of NJ Transit. Amtrak should refuse to spend its own money on this project and should require specific federal grants for it.)


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 5, 2016)

neroden said:


> I keep pointing out that changing to a daily Cardinal would now be profitable for Amtrak, in that it would require *less* funding than the current arrangement. (In fact it would make the Cardinal profitable before overhead.) Which means that Amtrak *should* start it regardless of federal funding, because it *reduces* the need for federal funding.


Isn't that all dependent on fixing Buckingham Branch?


----------



## CCC1007 (Jan 5, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > I keep pointing out that changing to a daily Cardinal would now be profitable for Amtrak, in that it would require *less* funding than the current arrangement. (In fact it would make the Cardinal profitable before overhead.) Which means that Amtrak *should* start it regardless of federal funding, because it *reduces* the need for federal funding.
> ...


yep, which is why those improvements should be funded asap.


----------



## jis (Jan 6, 2016)

Virginia is funding those improvements already.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 6, 2016)

jis said:


> Virginia is funding those improvements already.


What do you think happens first, Buckingham Branch allows for a daily Cardinal or the Viewliner II's are ready to use?


----------



## jis (Jan 6, 2016)

'Tis not Buckingham Branch, but CSX that has to agree to daily service. And we know how that goes....


----------



## trainviews (Jan 6, 2016)

neroden said:


> I keep pointing out that changing to a daily Cardinal would now be profitable for Amtrak, in that it would require *less* funding than the current arrangement. (In fact it would make the Cardinal profitable before overhead.) Which means that Amtrak *should* start it regardless of federal funding, because it *reduces* the need for federal funding. Similarly, through cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol Limited would now be profitable for Amtrak.
> 
> Taking on new operating deficit would be politically unwise, but *getting rid of* operating deficit by expanding would be politically very wise. There may not be a lot of opportunities to do this, but I've already listed two. These should be the priority places to spend capital funds -- places where there is an actual, calculatable payback for Amtrak on them. (By contrast, although Gateway is a good project, there is no payback for Amtrak from the Gateway tunnels. They are entirely for the benefit of NJ Transit. Amtrak should refuse to spend its own money on this project and should require specific federal grants for it.)


Agree. I didn't count adding frequencies as starting a new route. Likewise neither are the Pennsylvanian-Capitol Ltd. through cars.

I'm just getting annoyed with the whole "It's over 750 miles so Amtrak could/should/will just fund it - piece of cake!". Fantasyland is fun. I just like to get pointed out when that's where I am.

Edit: moved my answer out of the quote where it had mistakenly ended up...


----------



## west point (Jan 6, 2016)

The Cardinal is an interesting enigma.

1. It now takes two train sets to operate 3 times a week. Making it daily only takes one more train set. additional locos ????

2. Train miles will increase 7 /3 and

3. OBS costs may or may not increase a full 7/3 depending on work rules..

4. Station agents for the 5 staffed stations past Charlottesville may need some more staffing ?

5. Station costs about same except for slight utilities and little cleaning.

6. From what we have been told T & E crews will have less lay over time. Some more T & E crews will be needed but the extra boards for the route may not need any more ?

7. Sleepers may be a short term problem only until the V-2 sleepers come into service. much of this past summer there were 2 sleepers on the 3 times a week trains. Of course each daily train could go to one sleeper ... but in slack time ??

8. How much will over all passenger traffic increase with daily service ? It all depends on the possible saturation of present trains and convenience of daily service. That is a million dollar question.

a. None - no chance

b. 2 times - unlikely

c. 7/3 - more likely

d. 3 times still most likely

e. But we have seen some routes that went daily increase ridership all over the map

So that is a million dollar question that will only be answered by actually beginning daily service. Weather guessers have better luck.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jan 6, 2016)

trainviews said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I push the 750 mile rule because I would like to believe (maybe unjustifiably) that Amtrak would add shorter day routes with high potential (Texas routes, Florida routes, 3-C) if they weren't hampered by the 750 mile rule. They don't require the sleeper cars that are in short supply. My proposals would re-introduce DAL-HOU service and double DAL-SAS service, both of which require state funding. The only new trains that Amtrak can start without state funding are the > 750 mile LD trains that require sleepers they don't have and in general are less popular and lose more money than shorter regional trains. With airplanes, customers are more likely to ride a train for 3-4 hrs than a whole day or more.
> ...


And for them to get more money guess where do they get it from?

In an ideal world, the government wouldn't completely control train travel. I wouldn't trust the government to make me breakfast. My hope is one day rail travel becomes at least profitable enough for private companies to get involved. I get it that no transportation is self sufficient but airplanes and buses seem to depend less on the government than trains do. I don't see the government ever telling United or American they can't shut down a specific route that they want to eliminate. I'd like to see a system where routes are determined by demand and revenue, not senators.

Hopefully All Aboard Florida, Xpress West, and the project in Texas connecting Dallas and Houston are successful and maybe more companies will get involved. Amtrak's numbers are definitely up from 10 years ago overall so maybe one day trains be as mainstream as buses.


----------



## trainviews (Jan 7, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> trainviews said:
> 
> 
> > Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> ...


Absolutely agree on the wish that some of the private initiatives will be successful. Waiting for political momentum to get a larger build out of passenger rail in the US could be a very long wait, and a government run train is no better than a privately run one.

But I don't think Amtrak or any other company will ever reach a point where anything resembling the current network will ever be profitable. The world over only a few select routes are making enough profit above the rail to also cover the investment/capital costs and the overhead of the company.

So if you want sevice to anywhere but the largest metropolises and anything resembling a network, there's really no way out of making it a government/taxpayer priority.


----------



## keelhauled (Jan 7, 2016)

None of the private initiatives are an apples to apples comparison with Amtrak. Texas Central is working with the Japanese for funding and equipment, XpressWest with the Chinese, and All Aboard Florida/Brightline is just a means to real estate development for the parent company. I am torn. On one hand, I believe that rail is an essential means of transportation and from that point of view I hope they succeed. On the other, I worry that if they are successful, then the expectation begins to become that the government does not need to have a role in passenger trains, and that would be the death of the national system.


----------



## jis (Jan 8, 2016)

But in all of those the government plays a very significant enabling role, though not of the traditional huge money commitment kind. Also, maybe Amtrak could enter into similar deals. Looks like one may be in the making for the Penn Station project proposed the other day by the New York Governor.


----------



## neroden (Jan 8, 2016)

AAF's definitely been using eminent domain -- government. XPressWest is going to do so too.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 19, 2016)

IIRC railroads have the same sort of eminent domain powers that, say, an electric company has (e.g. if high tension lines need to go in, they're going in). The powers are somewhat limited, but I believe this has been the case for a rather long time (if only because the risk of a stray landowner fouling up a major rail line expansion/extension or trying to milk such an extension for far more than their land would ever be worth has negative public policy implications).


----------



## jis (Jan 20, 2016)

All private entities that have limited power to exercise eminent domain were granted so by the appropriate legislature through an act. Only a state or federal legislature can actually exercise eminent domain. They may however delegate the authority with strict limitations of purpose of use of the acquired property, to public or private entities. So whenever eminent domain is exercised the government is always implicitly involved.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Feb 11, 2016)

Philly, you are so much better and dedicated at making train schedules than I am. Look at the Cardinal thread (under the Improving Ohio thread), and see me be in fantasy land spitting out unrealistic schedules left and right. Granted, Kentucky is pretty hard to get Amtrak to start running in, but still, you are much more realistic (even though this still counts as dream-land) and dedicated. How much free time do you generally have? If I had more, perhaps I could get more serious in doing this for fun and a (little teeny tiny bit) of actually getting Amtrak to do it.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 15, 2016)

Ok, I'm fine with a 6:35pm into LA, but 6:00am from LA? You know, LA is huge. And you miss the San Diego connection.

Train 2

LAX 1000A

TUC 828P/915P (728P/758P in the summer)

ELP 310A/335A (sorry El Paso)

SAS 450P/555P (please let that be possible?) ._.

HOS 1040P/1123P

NOL 853A

Train 20

NOL 1013A

BHM 528P/537P

ATL 1048P/1117P

CLT 434A/459A

CVS 1022A

WAS 106P

NYP 459P (yessssssssss  )

If NYP at 5:16pm is OK, then just push everything back by 17 minutes from the HOS departure and it should be back to normal 

LAX arrival at 6:35pm is awesome, connects perfectly to 7:30pm departure of 790 to SAN. Maybe push back 785 25-30 mins too (to SBA and GOL).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 15, 2016)

maxbuskirk said:


> Ok, I'm fine with a 6:35pm into LA, but 6:00am from LA? You know, LA is huge. And you miss the San Diego connection.
> 
> Train 2
> 
> ...


Personally I like this better than the one I made (better for LAX/SAN) but there's no way they'll allow an LD train into NYP anywhere close to 5pm where a few minutes delay it would tie up rush hour traffic in the Hudson Tunnel. If you push the train back to arrive in NYP after 6pm, ATL is after midnight and that will never happen as ATL is the biggest market on the Crescent.

Unfortunately the only feasible way to get a same day connection from the SL to the Crescent in NOL is for the SL to leave LAX early. I can probably say 9am from LAX and push your SL/Crescent up an hour might work.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 16, 2016)

Thanks for replying.

What are the long dwell times in the Sunset Limited stations for?

Tucson has 47 minutes, El Paso has 25, San Antonio 65, and Houston has an hour.

I feel like especially with SAS having no more Texas Eagle connections going north with this schedule, that dwell time could be significantly reduced at these 4 stations. Even with 30 minutes at each of these 4 stations (25 at ELP), that's still saving 82 minutes off my old schedule, which could more than pull #20 out of rush hour at NYP, while preserving the SAN connection.

Train 2

LAX 1000A

TUC 828P/858P

ELP 253A/318A

SAS 433P/503P

HOS 948P/1018P

NOL 748A

90 minutes connection at NOL

Train 20

NOL 918A

BHM 433P/442P

ATL 953P/1022P

CLT 339A/404A

CVS 927A

WAS 1211P

NYP 404P


----------



## west point (Aug 16, 2016)

As someone who often boards or arrives in ATL the schedule is a non starter. Too late arrival from NOL and too late departure from ATL. And if Crescent from NOL is late ( happens often from Anniston - ATL ) that gets really bad.

Now if the Sunset could reliably arrive NOL before 0600 that would make for a much better option.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 16, 2016)

Also this breaks the sameday connection in LAX from the Coast Starlight and makes for a 14 Hour Layover in SAS for #422/#22.

This one looks like a non starter with UP and Amtrak!


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 16, 2016)

Ok. How late can the NOL departure be then? And we'd sacrifice WAS and CVS.
But at the cost of sacrificing BHM, CVS and WAS could get a *little* better. It's like a game of who to sacrifice.
Fortunately, CLT is now in daytime.
NOL 1100P
BHM 615A/624A
ATL 1135A/1204P
CLT 521P/546P
CVS 1109P
WAS 153A
NYP 546A

Or, keep the 10:00A departure from LAX and cut dwell times more. After all, the SWC has 5 mins at FLG, 28 at ABQ, 10 at LAJ, and 19 at KCY going east, ignoring hidden dwell times. And Maricopa already has 10, too.

This would not go with a direct connection from the Coast Starlight, nor the Texas Eagle connection, and I do see Philly had a connection to DAL, that would be put more late-night with this schedule into FTW and DAL.

LAX 1000A

TUC 828P/843P

ELP 238A/243A

SAS 358P/428P

HOS 913P/930P

NOL 700A

NOL 830A

BHM 345P/354P

ATL 905P/934P (almost 1 hr earlier)

CLT 251A/316A

CVS 839A

WAS 1123A

NYP 316P

How important is the SAN connection?


----------



## jis (Aug 16, 2016)

You do realize that 7:00 to 8:30 between LD trains would not be a legal connection and it is guaranteed to be missed at higher than acceptable rate.

Really, how important is the connection at NOL anyway?


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 16, 2016)

Uh . . . .

Philly wanted a direct Sunset Limited to Crescent connection. Not my idea, but a good idea if it's possible.

If the 1.5 hrs connection at NOL isn't legal, how is the CS #14 to EB #28 at PDX connection legal? That's only *1 hr 13 minutes*. I looked online and from 1/1/16 to 6/30/16 it missed it 8% of the time.

Or CS #11 to SL #2 connection at LAX? That's only *1 hour*. Online, from 3/16/16 to 6/30/16, it missed it 5% of the time. For a short connection, that's pretty good. Of course, this isn't the SL, but still pretty good.

The SAN connection might have to sacrificed to get more time into the NOL connection and get #20 to depart NOL earlier if 9:05pm/9:34pm at Atlanta is still too late (which it could be, I've seen #20 2 hrs late on track-a-train multiple times).

Well then, how much time is required for this connection?

I just looked online for how late #2 was into NOL. Out of 99 results from 1/1/16 to today, it was more than 1 hr 25 mins late only 14 times, and only 6 of those would involve holding the Crescent more than 30 minutes.

On a few 14 to 28 or 11 to 2 connections, the 28 or 2 was held some amount of time at its originating station, making the number of missed connections by schedule more for these.

https://juckins.net/amtrak_status/archive/html/history.php?train_num=2&station=NOL&date_start=01%2F01%2F2016&date_end=08%2F16%2F2016&df1=1&df2=1&df3=1&df4=1&df5=1&df6=1&df7=1&sort=schAr&sort_dir=DESC&co=gt&limit_mins=&dfon=1


----------



## jis (Aug 16, 2016)

I don't know if there is any set minimum, but I have noticed that from CL to NEC Regionals whenever I had tried to book a connection they have tried to ease me towards 2 hours.

I can understand both the PDX and the LAX one because there is a clear possibility to bus/taxi in case of an evolving misconnect situation to force a connection. I am not sure whether such a possibility exists from Lafyette to Slidell or some such for SL to the Crescent.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 16, 2016)

I think the best idea is to keep the schedule as is and park a SL sleeper at NOL for people making the connection.


----------



## jis (Aug 16, 2016)

It will take a little bit of shunting, but a Sleeper overnights in NOL anyway.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 16, 2016)

It could also be used for passengers connected to the CONO, right now all 3 arrivals are after all 3 departures so there are no same day train connections in NOL. It would probably actually be better to use a CONO sleeper because they are there for about 20 hours, the SL turnaround time is only 11 hours.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 16, 2016)

Well then, the Sunset Limited will have to use a Viewliner sleeper, same with the CONO.

I guess it is possible to to do P42-P42-Baggage-ViewlinerCrescent-TransitionSleeper-rest of train

But that would be strange.

And would they lock the doors to the single Viewliner (or maybe two) at NOL overnight? It would be insecure just having an open, occupied train car sitting in the station overnight.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 16, 2016)

Just to remind you all of the context of Max's schedule shifts:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65927-proposal-for-extending-crescent-to-sas-improving-te-schedule/?p=640928

The eastern plan is difficult but the western seems to work nice IMO.

Proposed times:
NOL 10:00P

HOS 7:18A/7:55A

SAS 1:05P/3:45P

Tucson 7:45/8:35A

Maricopa 9:52/10:02A

LAX 6:35P

Proposed 401 (Through cars DAL-SAS):

DAL 6:10A

FTW 7:10A

Austin 11:30A

SAS 2:55P

Proposed 822

HOS 8:25A
DAL 3:05P/3:30P

FTW 4:30P/5:25P

OKC 9:23P


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 17, 2016)

I do think 4 nights cross-country is unnecessary.

Maybe if the SL goes to Fullerton and Riverside on BNSF then use the Colton crossings to get onto UP and continue, then #763 could connect with #2 with no ill effect. To me there's no huge difference moving Pomona and Ontario down to FUL and RIV.

From SAN Pac-Surf #763

SAN 607A

FUL 822A

(LAX 857A irrelevant)

*PSN is Palm Springs CA

From LAX Sunset Limited #2

LAX 845A

FUL 920A (#763 arrives FUL at 8:22A, so 58 minutes to connect, I think that's enough)

RIV 1003A

PSN 1136A (I did the math for RIV-PSN via Colton crossings and I got 82 minutes. I made it 93 to make sure it's not late, and to line it up with the current schedule on the hour.)

TUC 728P/743P

ELP 138A/143A

SAS 258P/328P

HOS 813P/830P

NOL 600A

How many hours at NOL are needed?

NOL 800A

BHM 315P/324P

ATL 835P/904P

CLT 221A/246A

CVS 809A

WAS 1053A

NYP 246P

If the Colton crossings are usable, then this might work.

Then again, connections to DAL are pretty late-night even without thru cars

SAS 331P (train will wait for #2)

AUS 602P

FTW 1029P/1034P

DAL 1134P

Oh, and the burrito lady will have to relocate to ABQ cause no one wants to eat burritos at 2am!


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Jul 21, 2017)

Sorry, do I kill threads? Seems to have happened a couple times now. . .


----------

