# Sunset Limited Summary



## WhoozOn1st (May 5, 2009)

From memory, impressions, and notes - mostly from notes - here is a summary of the Sunset Limited presentation given by Amtrak's Brian Rosenwald at the joint NARP/RailPAC meeting at Los Angeles, 5-2-09. The notes were taken by the Patrick & Alice RailRiot 2009's Executive Assistant, who is currently off gallivanting around SoCal somewhere on vacation, with tenous and intermittent internet access. Because of this there was a lack of consultation in preparation of this summary, and it is subject to revision and correction. Any mistakes are mine, and probably due to the difficulty of deciphering the chicken scratches of the Executive Assistant, who apparently teaches penmanship at medical schools. While consultation in summary preparation would have been far preferable, I promised to post the info quickly. So in the event, timeliness trumped depth, with the result we have below. As a caveat before anybody gets their panties in a bunch, the material below was characterized as an incomplete proposal, not a done deal. Further, don't kill the messenger. This is a straightforward account of what was presented to the meeting, not an opinion piece. Clearly, from the number of views and posts here every time the Sunset Limited is a topic, people hold very strong views regarding this particular train. I'm not really among the vehement, and though I do have my own ideas on the subject they won't be found here.

_______________________________________________

The presenter was (and presumably still is) Brian Rosenwald, Chief, Product Management, Amtrak. The title of the presentation, as listed in the meeting agenda, was "The Sunset Limited - Amtrak's Plan."

Before getting to the Sunset itself, Rosenwald gave an overview of the decision-making process at Amtrak, and the ways in which it is changing. Specifically, he covered Rapid Product Improvement (RPI). RPI is a management methodology whooz purpose is to improve performance. As explained by Rosenwald with respect to Amtrak, it consists of a cross-functional team for each route, covering such aspects as customer service, product quality, and market performance. Currently this concept is being applied to six routes per year, both corridor and long distance.

Rosenwald characterized use of RPI as exciting in that anything and everything can be considered, and noted that with respect to Amtrak's decision-making, change is hard. The notes are a bit opaque here, but I seem to recall that Rosenwald was speaking to the difficulty of getting Amtrak's bureaucracy to accept and practice RPI's more collaborative process.

Some examples were given of areas of change, and of issues that have been or are being addressed. These included saving the Coast Starlight's Pacific Parlour Cars from "extinction" with both a new revenue model and the funding for their recent refurbishment at the Beech Grove facility in Indiana; dirty restrooms on the San Joaquins; long distance staffing levels; dining car staffing; restoration of regional menus (Rosenwald used the hideous example of shrimp and grits on the Crescent); the failure of "diner lite"; "greener, healthier" dining car fare (customers don't like it); pricing structure on the San Joaquins. With respect to the Adirondack - a route of particular interest to the Patrick & Alice RailRiot 2009 - efforts will be made to resolve Customs issues at Rouses Point, and to have a dome car in the consist every day.

SUNSET LIMITED

Moving on to the main topic, Rosenwald said that with about 65 people working on about 250 ideas for the Sunset Limited, the cross-functional team includes people on the trains, managers, and at least 8 different departments. Rosenwald noted use of the Sunset by those seeking to cast long distance trains overall in a negative light, characterized the train as a "diamond in the rough," and conceded that many of the wounds suffered by the Sunset are "self-inflicted" by Amtrak due to the way the train is run. Noting that tri-weekly service cannot turn a profit, and that cutting amenities won't make that better, Rosenwald asserted that the only way to go is to restore daily service.

At the outset of the Sunset's RPI process, 50 pages of data were used as a starting point for discussion. Average train speed was among the main factors considered, and it was noted that the Coast Starlight is the slowest long distance train, at around 39 mph. In spite of this the train is successful, suggesting that a combination of the route's virtues and the train's amenities is more important than speed; Sunset's average speed is about 42 mph.

Additional points:

The Sunset Limited is a leisure train, with research showing that only 4% of customers ride for business purposes. (I would hazard a guess that such numbers are similar across the board for LD trains, with certain exceptions)

The connection with the Texas Eagle is not well done, and on time performance has been poor (not exactly news), though it was noted that December 2008 was quite good on that score.

Cost recovery for the Sunset Limited is the lowest of the LD trains, at 33%. This statistic was shown as a PowerPoint slide in bar graph form, showing cost recovery for all LD trains. Next worst is the Cardinal (another tri-weekly) at 55%. These numbers include direct costs only, not allocated costs. I'm not a numbers guy, so I leave it to somebody else to explain the difference. (Though not mentioned, and not in the notes, it could be seen on the graph that best on cost recovery is the Auto Train, at 121%.)

The Sunset also has the worst revenue per car day, while the Empire Builder has the best. The EB sets turn around quickly, whereas due to the tri-weekly schedule Sunset equipment spends a lot of time sitting around.

It was noted that customer satisfaction is heavily tied to onboard and station employees.

At this juncture a stop sign slide appeared on the screen. Beyond this Rosenwald moved into the incomplete proposal area, for which there are no final numbers. Also a good stopping point for me.

INTERMISSION: The Snack Bar is OPEN. 

Launching the next segment, Rosenwald said the proposal may be completed in a few months, is not done, and could change. 20-25 combinations were considered. A main rule to be followed was that no equipment could be added - a deal breaker. And it was important to follow the market research.

So the possible proposal is a combined Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle. Revenue impact would be projected at about a positive $8 million with tickets and food service; figures on cost impact are still in development. Here is a sort of laundry list:

The new train would run L.A.-San Antonio-Chicago daily. A 10:30 p.m. LAX departure would provide a connection with the Coast Starlight, and result in improved stop scheduling at Maricopa and San Antonio. Shuttle service to Phoenix would be improved and marketed.

Stub service between San Antonio and New Orleans would also be daily on a "daylight" schedule (13.5 hours, arriving NOL 9:30 p.m.), with a cross-platform connection at SAS, and would consist of Superliner coaches with business class, checked baggage, and meal service.

Meal service would improve on 21/22.

There would be no net increase in equipment or OBS, and extra sleepers would provide greater revenue.

Rosenwald was covering things fairly rapidly here, and the notes reflect this by becoming almost as fragmentary as my memory at this point. Collaboration would really help about now, but as a backup the Executive Assistant will probably see this online at some point and hopefully clarify:

Continuous crew - no crew change at Austin. Better dinners. 22 has no breakfast now. TE much better onboard service.

Summing up, Rosenwald asked rhetorically "Can we do this?" then answered that he didn't know. Union Pacific has been contacted about the potential proposal, but no formal presentation has been made.

A Q&A slide was shown, and hopefully will be included if the PowerPoint materials are made available online (which they have not been as this is posted). Among other things, it noted that there are currently 10 proposals for service east of New Orleans. Rosenwald stressed several times that service east of NOL is an issue separate from the current possible proposal. Also on this slide was a short list of possible names for what would be essentially a new train and route configuration: Argonaut; Golden State Limited; California Eagle; "Sneagle" (joke name combo of Sunset and Eagle).

And that was pretty much it.


----------



## p&sr (May 5, 2009)

> No more "greener, healthier" dining car fare (customers don't like it)...

Glad they noticed. The dining car should be for meat-and-potatoes type meals. We can get all the Greens we need in the dinner salad that accompanies it. If we decide to eat "light", we can always pick up a pack of Potato Chips in the Lounge afterwards.

> Shuttle service to Phoenix would be improved and marketed.

Well, it could scarcely be made worse, I suppose.


----------



## printman2000 (May 5, 2009)

WhoozOn1st said:


> The Sunset Limited is a leisure train, with research showing that only 4% of customers ride for business purposes. (I would hazard a guess that such numbers are similar across the board for LD trains, with certain exceptions)


Hmmm. There are plenty of other reasons to be traveling than business or leisure.


----------



## the_traveler (May 5, 2009)

WhoozOn1st said:


> Any mistakes are mine, and probably due to the difficulty of deciphering the chicken scratches of the Executive Assistant, who apparently teaches penmanship at medical schools.


You mean his/her/it's (I'm never sure which :lol: ) writing is that clear?



> INTERMISSION: The Snack Bar is OPEN.


Where is it? I can't find it! :lol: (Or is it beyond the Sightseer!)



> Shuttle service to Phoenix would be *improved* and marketed.


You mean there is shuttle there now? That's news to me!



> Meal service would improve on 21/22..........
> 
> Continuous crew - no crew change at Austin. Better dinners. 22 has no breakfast now.


FYI - The thru train to/from LAX is #421/422. The train between CHI and SAS is #21/22.


----------



## saxman (May 5, 2009)

If anything happens, I think it will be for the better or Amtrak and its passengers. I'm really glad to see Amtrak doing all this with the Sunset and taking on other issues with LD trains. These next several years may be good times for Amtrak. And I'm an optimist.


----------



## Rail Freak (May 5, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> If anything happens, I think it will be for the better or Amtrak and its passengers. I'm really glad to see Amtrak doing all this with the Sunset and taking on other issues with LD trains. These next several years may be good times for Amtrak. And I'm an optimist.



As you know, I'm quite new!

What is Amtrak doing with the Sunset that is so positive?

RF


----------



## saxman (May 5, 2009)

Rail Freak said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> > If anything happens, I think it will be for the better or Amtrak and its passengers. I'm really glad to see Amtrak doing all this with the Sunset and taking on other issues with LD trains. These next several years may be good times for Amtrak. And I'm an optimist.
> ...


Just read all the threads on this forum about the Sunset Limited changes.


----------



## jis (May 5, 2009)

Whooz, were you also planning to post some info on Boardman's talk and Q&A in LA?


----------



## WhoozOn1st (May 5, 2009)

jis said:


> Whooz, were you also planning to post some info on Boardman's talk and Q&A in LA?


Definitely, Jishnu, and on other presentations as well. It's just that I promised the Sunset stuff right away. Notes were taken of the entire meeting (I have 'em) and I'll hold off until seeing the Executive Assistant on National Train Day so we can consult better before I post further about it.

EDIT: Had other plans last Sunday, so missed weekly chat, but I'll be there this week. There are meeting details which are not really postworthy, but that I think might be of interest to other chatters.


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 5, 2009)

Rail Freak said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> > If anything happens, I think it will be for the better or Amtrak and its passengers. I'm really glad to see Amtrak doing all this with the Sunset and taking on other issues with LD trains. These next several years may be good times for Amtrak. And I'm an optimist.
> ...


Nothing positive. They want to give/payoff California another daily LD train to Chicago. Which would make 3 California to Chicago LD trains.

Then leave the second largest state, 4th largest city, and 7 million people from SAS to NOL a crappy symbolic snub train.


----------



## AlanB (May 5, 2009)

WhoozOn1st said:


> Cost recovery for the Sunset Limited is the lowest of the LD trains, at 33%. This statistic was shown as a PowerPoint slide in bar graph form, showing cost recovery for all LD trains. Next worst is the Cardinal (another tri-weekly) at 55%. These numbers include direct costs only, not allocated costs. I'm not a numbers guy, so I leave it to somebody else to explain the difference. (Though not mentioned, and not in the notes, it could be seen on the graph that best on cost recovery is the Auto Train, at 121%.)


Direct costs are things like fuel, labor, cleaning/turn around costs, payments to the freight RR hosts. Basically the costs that Amtrak can easily attribute to that train and only that train. Allocated costs include things like shared station costs, senior management, insurance, car overhauls, and police.


----------



## -Jamie- (May 6, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> FYI - The thru train to/from LAX is #421/422. The train between CHI and SAS is #21/22.


Unless Amtrak's website is mistaken (or I'm just misunderstanding you), the Texas Eagle consists of train #'s 21/22, 321/322, & 421/422. The Sunset Limited is # 1/2.


----------



## -Jamie- (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> Rail Freak said:
> 
> 
> > saxman66 said:
> ...


Couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## jis (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> Then leave the second largest state, 4th largest city, and 7 million people from SAS to NOL a crappy symbolic snub train.


Then again it is a daily snub too! 

I think to compensate they should extend the Heartland Flyer from Fort Worth to Houston via College Station, like a section of the Texas Eagle used to for a short period. This train could connect with the Texas Eagle/Golden State/whatever the new through CHI - LAX train is called at Fort Worth and provide cross platform transfer.

I think this will provide better network effect and lay the groundwork for a connected network of train service in Texas. It will also double the service to the 4th largest city connecting it to another large city or two.


----------



## printman2000 (May 6, 2009)

If they take away the Texas Eagle name, I will never ride Amtrak again. :lol:

How can they stop using a name that has its own song??

http://www.texaseagle.com/eagleway.htm


----------



## Steve4031 (May 6, 2009)

Thanks for your efforts. This clarified a lot for me. I don't like the proosed changes, but that is a different deal. I don't like the idea of changing trains to go from la to new Orleans. I would not like giving up my sleeper early in the morning in San antonio. Also would not like not having a dining car for the entire day.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (May 6, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> If they take away the Texas Eagle name, I will never ride Amtrak again. :lol:
> How can they stop using a name that has its own song??
> 
> http://www.texaseagle.com/eagleway.htm


A little on the hokey side, but overall not too shabby. Thanks, printman2000/Chris 2!


----------



## printman2000 (May 6, 2009)

WhoozOn1st said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > If they take away the Texas Eagle name, I will never ride Amtrak again. :lol:
> ...


No Chris, CRAIG. Sorry I was not more memorable.


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 6, 2009)

jis said:


> Guest_GP35_* said:
> 
> 
> > Then leave the second largest state, 4th largest city, and 7 million people from SAS to NOL a crappy symbolic snub train.
> ...


How about extend the Heartland beyond Houston all the way to Galveston. Great station/museum in Galveston. The station is downtown in the historic strand district

and a on rail trolley outside the station for trips to the Seawall/beach.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (May 6, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


Whatever you say, Fred! I'm bad on names, and it has nothing to do with whooz memorable.


----------



## saxman (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> Rail Freak said:
> 
> 
> > saxman66 said:
> ...


California already has 3 trains to Chicago. One just runs 3 days a week. So no change there. And you'd rather have Houston have the same service its had for years? I'm not saying a stub train is the best solution, but anything is better than 3 days a week service and 6 AM. Daily service to Houston would a huge improvement, plus it would actually have middle of the day calling times. I don't want to see the sleepers go either, but I'd rather have daily service. I think the best solution to still have same seat service to both Chicago and New Orleans, everyday. I'm not the expert on available equipment, so I'm not sure if this option is possible without adding cars, but it seems like it would be.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 6, 2009)

Well, if they get rid of the Sunset Ltd. name, then they should get rid of the Texas Eagle name. Might as well name it the Golden State as was suggested.

The ONLY thing good about this for Houston and New Orleans is daily service. The service on the train gets reduced. Cross platform connection is fine and dandy...if the train from Chicago to S.A is on time. If not, I hope the passengers will enjoy a nice, long wait in the tiny San Antonio station. As for no sleeping car...that's really a shame...but I guess the folks wanting a sleeper all the way from L.A to N.O still have the option of going through CHI, although that adds a full night to the trip.

I'm curious to see what the "business class" will be like on the Superliners, though.

I'll also miss the Sightseer Lounge...and the regular Dining Car.

Overall....I'm disappointed. In fact, I would have rather seen one additional weekly frequency added to the current SL if it meant keeping same train, no connecting service between NOL and LAX.


----------



## the_traveler (May 6, 2009)

-Jamie- said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> > FYI - The thru train to/from LAX is #421/422. The train between CHI and SAS is #21/22.
> ...


The SL runs NOL-SAS-LAX and is # 1/2. The daily TE runs CHI-SAS and is #21/22. The one thru coach and one thru sleeper that runs CHI-SAS-LAX is "train" # 421/422. The one coach that runs CHI-STL is "train" # 321/322.


----------



## printman2000 (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> How about extend the Heartland beyond Houston all the way to Galveston. Great station/museum in Galveston. The station is downtown in the historic strand districtand a on rail trolley outside the station for trips to the Seawall/beach.


I don't think the running from Houston to Galveston is very good. I rode the Texas Limited a couple of times and speeds were horrible and unreliable. Granted it was a tourist train, but I got the impression that it was going as fast as it could.


----------



## AlanB (May 6, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Guest_GP35_* said:
> 
> 
> > How about extend the Heartland beyond Houston all the way to Galveston. Great station/museum in Galveston. The station is downtown in the historic strand districtand a on rail trolley outside the station for trips to the Seawall/beach.
> ...


Last I had heard there was a plan under consideration that would improve those tracks and restore service between Galveston and HOU in the form of a commuter like service. Not sure just where the plan is currently, but I saw a story about 4 or 5 months ago now.


----------



## printman2000 (May 6, 2009)

AlanB said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Guest_GP35_* said:
> ...


Yeah, I ran across and article from 2007. It could happen, but I suspect it will not be anytime soon. Houston seems to be focused on light rail right now.


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 6, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> Guest_GP35_* said:
> 
> 
> > Rail Freak said:
> ...


Tri-weekly need not be the all for the Sunset. There is enough equipment to run Sunset twice daily 5 times per week and 1 time each direction on the

remaining 2 days. Right now this could be done. So why is Amtrak continuing to allow an unfair playing field for Sunset then allow critics to bash the train.

AlanB you are right. Houston to Galveston is being upgraded and going continous weld. Houston is a major bottle neck so other

plans include over passes over the Sunset route for trains coming out of the petro-complex. Double mains and massive sidings going into the hump yard for 3-4

trains to sit on instead blocking the main line. You can get details on this and more on the TX-dot website.


----------



## jis (May 6, 2009)

Steve4031 said:


> Thanks for your efforts. This clarified a lot for me. I don't like the proosed changes, but that is a different deal. I don't like the idea of changing trains to go from la to new Orleans. I would not like giving up my sleeper early in the morning in San antonio. Also would not like not having a dining car for the entire day.


I take it that you don't like a CCC? :lol:


----------



## jis (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> Tri-weekly need not be the all for the Sunset. There is enough equipment to run Sunset twice daily 5 times per week and 1 time each direction on theremaining 2 days. Right now this could be done. So why is Amtrak continuing to allow an unfair playing field for Sunset then allow critics to bash the train.


Interesting! Could you give a short summary of what equipment will be needed in the pool and how it will need to be deployed to run this service? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks.


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 6, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Guest_GP35_* said:
> 
> 
> > How about extend the Heartland beyond Houston all the way to Galveston. Great station/museum in Galveston. The station is downtown in the historic strand districtand a on rail trolley outside the station for trips to the Seawall/beach.
> ...


We are talking 47 miles. Even if the Heartland was to go 35, Galveston is worth it. Anyone riding the train to Galveston will be tourist, and tourist

won't mind the slower speeds.


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 6, 2009)

jis said:


> Guest_GP35_* said:
> 
> 
> > Tri-weekly need not be the all for the Sunset. There is enough equipment to run Sunset twice daily 5 times per week and 1 time each direction on theremaining 2 days. Right now this could be done. So why is Amtrak continuing to allow an unfair playing field for Sunset then allow critics to bash the train.
> ...


The equipment is sitting in NOL 3 days. There is 2 Superliner trainsets sitting in NOL right now.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Guest_GP35_* said:
> ...


And it has been since August, '05.


----------



## VentureForth (May 6, 2009)

The number one thing that they need to consider even before allocating equipment is where do people in LA want to go? From what I understand, there are very few terminal to terminal riders. We've talked quite a bit about the advantage to total thru service in a single seat. But if 50% of the people boarding in LA want to go to Dallas, 40% to Chicago and 10% to New Orleans, then it makes sense to make the few people sit on a bench and change trains.

I don't want yet another Sunset thread be hijacked by talk about Texas (yes, I participated in the other), but lets all keep in mind that the long distance Amtrak trains should connect as many METROPOLITAN areas as efficiently as possible. Smaller places like College Station and Galveston need to be the focus of locally tax payer funded (and Federally matched) organizations.

It's all about the feeders. But the feeders only work when Amtrak is reliable.

What I want to know is if this proposal then eliminates the 8 hour layover and the 3 hour schedule pad in San Antonio. I think this proposal has the potential to knock almost 15 hours off the schedule. That's cost savings no matter how you look at it.


----------



## wayman (May 6, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> The number one thing that they need to consider even before allocating equipment is where do people in LA want to go? From what I understand, there are very few terminal to terminal riders. We've talked quite a bit about the advantage to total thru service in a single seat. But if 50% of the people boarding in LA want to go to Dallas, 40% to Chicago and 10% to New Orleans, then it makes sense to make the few people sit on a bench and change trains.


And it's not just the "people boarding in LA". I mean, the 40% of LA's passengers can take the SWC. It's more a question of where the passengers boarding in every city from LA to SAS want to go: do more of them want to a station somewhere from SAS to CHI or somewhere from SAS to NOL. If more want to go north than east of SAS, then putting most of the equipment there makes perfect sense.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 6, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> The number one thing that they need to consider even before allocating equipment is where do people in LA want to go? From what I understand, there are very few terminal to terminal riders. We've talked quite a bit about the advantage to total thru service in a single seat. But if 50% of the people boarding in LA want to go to Dallas, 40% to Chicago and 10% to New Orleans, then it makes sense to make the few people sit on a bench and change trains.
> I don't want yet another Sunset thread be hijacked by talk about Texas (yes, I participated in the other), but lets all keep in mind that the long distance Amtrak trains should connect as many METROPOLITAN areas as efficiently as possible. Smaller places like College Station and Galveston need to be the focus of locally tax payer funded (and Federally matched) organizations.
> 
> It's all about the feeders. But the feeders only work when Amtrak is reliable.
> ...


Don't forget about Houston. The stub train would not only inconvenience NOL passengers but HOS passengers as well. And believe it or not, every time I take the Crescent between ATL and NOL, I always run into some people connecting overnight in NOL to the SL, going to various stops, but more times than not LAX. If any of those people are going to points west of SAS, this will be a detterant for them.

As for the SAS stop...I made some schedules based on the times proposed, and I think they could make a 1.5 hour total layover time in SAS work, easily. No more overnight in SAS, to say the least.


----------



## printman2000 (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Guest_GP35_* said:
> ...


I dunno. Not sure I would want Galveston as the end point either. Not much room down there. Houston would be a better terminus.


----------



## Rail Freak (May 6, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> Rail Freak said:
> 
> 
> > saxman66 said:
> ...


OK! I've taken your helpful suggestion!!!

What is Amtrak doing with the Sunset that is so positive??????

RF


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 6, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Guest_GP35_* said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


Room for what? The Galveston is already an end station. Galveston is a major tourist destination. Riders from the plex and Ok. would

fill that train with tourist.

Back to Sunset. I saw a file that shows about 25% east of SAS use the Sunset to go to LA.

Would more go if the train was daily? not limited by space? El paso was another stop with about 25% from east of SAS.

I think that file was on Amtrak.com. We should take a look at it. But if I am not mistaken., thats 50% west of SAS.


----------



## GG-1 (May 6, 2009)

WhoozOn1st said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > WhoozOn1st said:
> ...


So that explains the Fez :lol:

Now who am I.


----------



## John Bredin (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> Rail Freak said:
> 
> 
> > saxman66 said:
> ...


1) Does the existing try-weakly SAS-LAX service make no intermediate stops?! Because the last time I checked, communities including the cities of El Paso, Tucson, and (metropolitan) Phoenix are on this route and would be receiving daily service for the first time in years under this proposal.

2) In the same light, Houston, the "4th largest city" of your posting, would go from try-weakly to daily service. I don't see how that's either crappy or symbolic.

I'm not saying that a sleeper-less stub train is ideal, because it isn't. But daily service from LA to NOL and all the stops inbetween is an *improvement* that Amtrak can do _now_ with the equipment it has _now_. Sleepers can be added to a coach-cafe train later if and when they have more of them. IMHO, keeping sleepers on a try-weakly train is hardly a victory at all. Two cheers and a mangy cat for the status quo.


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 6, 2009)

John Bredin said:


> Guest_GP35_* said:
> 
> 
> > Rail Freak said:
> ...


First, do the math. Can 4 Superliner trainset provide daily service to LA as the TE? And still provide daily service between SAS and NOL?

Fuzzy math...


----------



## saxman (May 6, 2009)

Rail Freak said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> > Rail Freak said:
> ...


Ok I took your post wrong. I'm not saying these plans are perfect. And we all should keep in mind, that there are about 15 different proposals, as Whooz said. So the one positive thing Amtrak is proposing is to make the Sunset daily. Thats positive in my book.


----------



## printman2000 (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> Room for what? The Galveston is already an end station. Galveston is a major tourist destination. Riders from the plex and Ok. wouldfill that train with tourist.


Room for spare equipment. Usually, endpoints have some spare equipment stored for bad ordered equipment.


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 6, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Guest_GP35_* said:
> 
> 
> > Room for what? The Galveston is already an end station. Galveston is a major tourist destination. Riders from the plex and Ok. wouldfill that train with tourist.
> ...


Have you been to the Galveston trainstation? 4 tracks, mostly being used by museum equiment. Space can be made.

Across the street is a massive BNSF yard.


----------



## printman2000 (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Guest_GP35_* said:
> ...


Yes. And I doubt they are going to want to rid themselves of historic equipment to make room.


----------



## henryj (May 6, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Guest_GP35_* said:
> ...


The Galveston museum and the lower floor of the former Santa Fe depot were totally destroyed by hurricane Ike. There is no reason to run or terminate a train down there. Galveston is a ghost town inhabited by tourists and a few worker bees that support them. Even the Hospital is shutting down. There is nothing there.


----------



## VentureForth (May 6, 2009)

My name proposals for LAX to CHI -

Sunset Eagle

Texas Sunset

Windy Eagle

Eagle Limited

For the Stub -

The New Antonio

San Orleans Special

Sam Houston Flyer

Gilead Glider

And, New Orleans to Orlando -

Southeast Zephyr

Poncha's Train

Gulf Coaster


----------



## WhoozOn1st (May 7, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> My name proposals for LAX to CHI -Sunset Eagle
> 
> Texas Sunset
> 
> ...


Rosenwald did say that in the event the proposal is finalized, accepted, and implemented there will likely be a contest to name the new train.

EDIT: I consider such contests generally bogus, with the winner being whoever comes up with the name that's already been decided upon. The contests are merely marketing tools, conducted by the tools in Marketing.


----------



## Hamhock (May 7, 2009)

WhoozOn1st said:


> EDIT: I consider such contests generally bogus, with the winner being whoever comes up with the name that's already been decided upon. The contests are merely marketing tools, conducted by the tools in Marketing.


That reminds me of The Onion's Statshot graphic of "New Celestial Seasonings Flavors", where the list (including "Calming Illustration Mint" and "Bunch of Leaves and Twigs in a Mug") ended with "Vice-President of Product Development's Choice".


----------



## jis (May 7, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> My name proposals for LAX to CHI -Sunset Eagle
> 
> Texas Sunset
> 
> ...


My choices:

LAX - CHI _Golden State_

SAS - NOL _Argonaut_ which can naturally be extended to LAX via through coach and sleeper when equipment becomes available.

NOL - ORL _Gulf Breeze_


----------



## printman2000 (May 7, 2009)

Okay, we have some very wrong thinking here as far as names go. From my quick/rough estimates, this train will spend 36 hours of its journey in Texas. All other states combined is only 25 hours. California is only a mere 4 hours of its entire journey, yet people want to give Cali another train named for it?

36 hours in Texas, 60% of its journey, it deserves to keep the Texas Eagle name.


----------



## jis (May 7, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> 36 hours in Texas, 60% of its journey, it deserves to keep the Texas Eagle name.


I could go with that 

We could also do a gross mis-reuse of a name and call it _Texas Chief_ thus having two Chiefs traveling from CHI to LAX and give BNSF (successor to ATSF) the hibijeebies  What blasphemy ... a Chief running mostly on UP!


----------



## VentureForth (May 7, 2009)

Now I'm a Texan by heritage and heart...

But keep in mind that of those 36 hours, probably will lose close to 12-15 of those hours on the new schedule (if they know what's good for them). That'll reduce some of their total time in TX. 

I like Texas Sunset.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 7, 2009)

FWIW, I've heard that the Sunset Limited name might not be dead after all...which, if true, would be a great thing.


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 7, 2009)

henryj said:


> Guest_GP35_* said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


That is not true and really low of you to spread those false rumors. If you don't think it is a good Idea, just say, not need to make up stuff. Galveston residential population is 90% pre Ike and the island is full of tourist. Full of tourist is the reason why the Heartland would do well south of Fort Worth.

http://www.galveston.com/webcams/


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 7, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Okay, we have some very wrong thinking here as far as names go. From my quick/rough estimates, this train will spend 36 hours of its journey in Texas. All other states combined is only 25 hours. California is only a mere 4 hours of its entire journey, yet people want to give Cali another train named for it?
> 36 hours in Texas, 60% of its journey, it deserves to keep the Texas Eagle name.


The Texas Eagle should terminate in Texas. The train should go to Corpus Christi then terminate inm Brownsville. A real Texas Eagle.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 7, 2009)

jis said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > 36 hours in Texas, 60% of its journey, it deserves to keep the Texas Eagle name.
> ...


God forbid, Jishnu. Remember, there are those of us who would like the Heartland Flyer to be extended to Houston and Chicago, at which point it could be rightfully named (at least to some degree) the _Texas Chief_, given that the original wasn't a totally high-class train. It wouldn't be the same degree of sacrilege that naming the SWC _Super Chief_ or LSL _20th Century Limited_ would be.


----------



## jis (May 7, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> God forbid, Jishnu. Remember, there are those of us who would like the Heartland Flyer to be extended to Houston and Chicago, at which point it could be rightfully named (at least to some degree) the _Texas Chief_, given that the original wasn't a totally high-class train. It wouldn't be the same degree of sacrilege that naming the SWC _Super Chief_ or LSL _20th Century Limited_ would be.


Indeed GML! Indeed. I am with you on that! BTW, I am one of those that would like to see the Heartland Flyer get extended to Houston for sure, and yes with its possible extension north to Kansas City, I can see your point.


----------



## Guest_GP35_* (May 8, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> FWIW, I've heard that the Sunset Limited name might not be dead after all...which, if true, would be a great thing.


I hope you're right. I like to believe, 'The Sunset Limited has endured for 115 years and it will continue run long after the other trains have crumble to dust.'


----------



## jphjaxfl (May 8, 2009)

Guest_GP35_* said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, we have some very wrong thinking here as far as names go. From my quick/rough estimates, this train will spend 36 hours of its journey in Texas. All other states combined is only 25 hours. California is only a mere 4 hours of its entire journey, yet people want to give Cali another train named for it?
> ...


 The original Texas Eagle operated by Missouri Pacific and Texas and Pacific ran in two sections leaving St. Louis 10 minutes apart. Trains 1 & 2 carried cars to and from Mexico City, San Antonio, Houston and Galveston. Trains 21 & 22 known as the West Texas Eagle carried cars to and from El Paso and Fort Worth via Dallas. Through Sleeping cars were operated between Fort Worth and Los Angeles via El Paso and the Espee. There was also a Memphis section of the Texas Eagle that interchanged Sleeping Cars and Coaches at Little Rock for both sections of the Texas Eagle. The original Texas Eagle was truly a Texas train. Between San Antonio and Mexico City, the train was known as the Aztech Eagle. Both sections of the Texas Eagle carried through Sleeping Cars between Chicago, New York, Baltimore and Washington to Houston, San Antonio, Fort Worth and El Paso. The original Texas Eagle was also sort of a transcontinental train except you had to change Sleeping Cars between Fort Worth and El Paso.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 8, 2009)

Here is an update from trains magazine website. If they shorten the layover in San Antonio, it might not be so bad.

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=5009


----------



## GP35 (May 11, 2009)

John Bredin said:


> 2) In the same light, Houston, the "4th largest city" of your posting, would go from try-weakly to daily service. I don't see how that's either crappy or symbolic.
> I'm not saying that a sleeper-less stub train is ideal, because it isn't. But daily service from LA to NOL and all the stops inbetween is an *improvement* that Amtrak can do _now_ with the equipment it has _now_. Sleepers can be added to a coach-cafe train later if and when they have more of them. IMHO, keeping sleepers on a try-weakly train is hardly a victory at all. Two cheers and a mangy cat for the status quo.


I thought about this and came to the conclusion, both good and bad in the tri-weekly LD train cancel out the good and bad

in the snub train. Both are crappy. However here is the deal breaker for me, a tri-weekly LD train with awful numbers lasted 38 years.

How long will a daily stub train last with poor numbers? not 38 years. I see calls to cancel it after 1 year. I guarantee the business coach

will run 1 or 2 passengers in a line superliner. Summer train buffs and families looking for weekend getaways will keep the coach car

decent levels, but come winter that coach will be as empty as the business coach.

The likely long term consist.

1.P42

1. CCC

1. Coach


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 12, 2009)

GP35 said:


> How long will a daily stub train last with poor numbers? not 38 years. I see calls to cancel it after 1 year.


Don't be silly. There is quite a bit of local ridership on the SSL between SAS and NOL and the points in between. That ridership isn't changing with the stub. You'll lose a little LD ridership, but not much. The nutcases that don't fly because it scares them (no offense to the many people on this board who probably fall into that category) aren't going to start flying now. You'll lose a little local traffic between SAS/Houston and, say, El Paso. What they gain from going daily will more than make up for the loss of certain types of local passengers.


----------



## Neil_M (May 12, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The nutcases that don't fly because it scares them (no offense to the many people on this board who probably fall into that category) aren't going to start flying now.


You don't fly do you?


----------



## GP35 (May 12, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > How long will a daily stub train last with poor numbers? not 38 years. I see calls to cancel it after 1 year.
> ...


This ain't New Jersey. Passenger trains aren't common here. 95% of the population don't know we have passenger rail service.

When someone rides the train here, the train ride is as much of the vacation as the destination. This is truck country, and cars.

Houston is the 4th largest city, top 10 MSA, yet it lags behind Dallas and Atlanta in getting commuter rail. Why? Because Houston and Beaumont

combined refineries make over 50% of this country gas. Gas here is cheap and no one wants to give their cars. Even car-pooling is a joke here.

Amtrak needs to understand passenger train riders here are vacationers and train fans, not business riders. A stub train makes no sense, even if it is daily.


----------



## jphjaxfl (May 12, 2009)

GP35 said:


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


Any time a train can run daily rather than tri weekly, it is going to attract new riders because the can better plan their trips. More passengers are apt to ride a train between Lafayette and Houston or San Antonio and Beaumont or other city pairs when they know the train will run at the same time each day. I had a good friend miss the Sunset Limited because he got confused as which day the train departed. It was part of a transcontinental trip and really messed his trip up. I think the daily plan is excellent.


----------



## GP35 (May 12, 2009)

jphjaxfl said:


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


That is not what Amtrak stats said. It showed half of the passengers within the NOL-SAS corridor rode the train to outside Corridor. 25% to LA alone.

And if daily service is a must, and I agree, then run the Sunset daily. There is enough trainsets for a daily NOL-LAX Sunset.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (May 12, 2009)

This may be old news; Amtrak considers Coast rail line


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 12, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > The nutcases that don't fly because it scares them (no offense to the many people on this board who probably fall into that category) aren't going to start flying now.
> ...


Not because it scares me. I don't fly because I hate the dehumanization.



GP35 said:


> This ain't New Jersey. Passenger trains aren't common here. 95% of the population don't know we have passenger rail service.When someone rides the train here, the train ride is as much of the vacation as the destination. This is truck country, and cars.
> 
> Houston is the 4th largest city, top 10 MSA, yet it lags behind Dallas and Atlanta in getting commuter rail. Why? Because Houston and Beaumont
> 
> ...


If the Sunset Limited runs primarily for vacation and other un-needed transportation, it has no reason to exist at all. If it does, it is because of its tri-weekly status. Amtrak isn't here to run _Nostalgia Limited_, Mr. Geep. The day I feel that is what they are doing, that all they run at tax payers expense is a tourist attraction and curiosity everywhere outside the northeast, northern midwest, and west coast, I will join John McCain and others in calling for its dismantling.

I do not now, nor have ever in the past, seen Amtrak as some kind of curious relic. It is not one. It is a serious transportation provider. It provides and diligently serves small communities and transit-dependant riders. It offers inter-city rail among our big cities for business travelers and people who do not believe in flying. It does serve vacationers, but not as much as one would think.

With the _Sunset Limited_'s route running daily, it will get more riders. It will get more utility riders. That's the kind of people Amtrak needs. Amtrak is in the people moving business. This will more more people more effectively.

I'm not talking about New Jersey. Except for Newark as a conduit for New York PATH trains, Amtrak does not serve New Jersey. It stops at 6 stations here- Trenton, New Brunswick, Princeton Junction, Metropark, and Newark. New Brunswick and Princeton Junction are not served much at all, either. There may be a few super-rich snobs who ride Amtrak from, say, Newark to Trenton. But not many.

Our local rail transportation is provided by NJ Transit, which runs more trains in a day in New Jersey than Amtrak does in two across the entire country. NJ Transit New York to Trenton is about $20 for a round trip ticket. Amtrak would be anywhere from $72-122 for a non-Acela and $110 - 230 for Acela.

I talk about this from the perspective of where it serves. No matter where it serves, it serves as transportation first. Providing that transportation first is the key. Anything above that is gravy and should be considered as such.


----------



## GP35 (May 12, 2009)

Green I hate to burst your bubble, but that's what it is. People here ride the train for fun. Not to get to that business meeting

in SAS. They ride the train for the kids, to visit grand ma in Tucson, a novelty, a vacation which is why Sunset sleeper stayed full.

During th Bush years Amtrak remain humble and made it a goal for a daily Cardinal and Sunset. Well now ole Amtrak got extra money

and a pro-Amtrak president. Amtrak is in the penthouse now. Now Amtrak don't need those who supported Amtrak during the Bush years. Amtrak can now back stab

supporters by screwing them out of a LD train. When did more money to Amtrak mean cutting LD service to 7.5 million people.


----------



## George Harris (May 12, 2009)

GP35 said:


> Green I hate to burst your bubble, but that's what it is. People here ride the train for fun. Not to get to that business meeting in SAS. They ride the train for the kids, to visit grand ma in Tucson, a novelty, a vacation which is why Sunset sleeper stayed full.
> 
> During th Bush years Amtrak remain humble and made it a goal for a daily Cardinal and Sunset. Well now ole Amtrak got extra money
> 
> and a pro-Amtrak president. Amtrak is in the penthouse now. Now Amtrak don't need those who supported Amtrak during the Bush years. Amtrak can now back stab supporters by screwing them out of a LD train. When did more money to Amtrak mean cutting LD service to 7.5 million people.


Real simple: Look where the votes were for the current crowd in power. Blow it all on corridors, and yes, Illinois, but foget the long distances runs. There was one critic a few years ago that noted that the Empire Builder produced more passenger miles per train mile than any of the corridors, and for quite a few more than their total daily passenger miles for all the trains combined running in some of these "corridors". And the northeast corridor? Yes, lots of people, but everything about it is so expensive that it is a hopeless sinkhole for money. Look in the history of passenger railroading. The money, when there was money, was always in the long haul trains.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 13, 2009)

GP35 said:


> Green I hate to burst your bubble, but that's what it is. People here ride the train for fun. Not to get to that business meeting in SAS. They ride the train for the kids, to visit grand ma in Tucson, a novelty, a vacation which is why Sunset sleeper stayed full.
> 
> During th Bush years Amtrak remain humble and made it a goal for a daily Cardinal and Sunset. Well now ole Amtrak got extra money
> 
> ...


GP35, maybe that's how it is in Beaumont, but I have never really felt that passengers on the SL line out of NOL are in it for vacations only. I don't see the line as any different than any other Amtrak line. The only thing preventing it from reaching its full potential is its tri weekly service. Those people who would otherwise consider Amtrak for transportation on the days that the train is not running will have to look elsewhere, or change their travel plans.

Sure, NOL, SAS get vacationers...that's to be expected. But in my experience, not an overwhelming amount. In other words, not nearly enough for me to consider the SL to be a "tourist train".


----------



## Neil_M (May 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Same thing.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 13, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Neil_M said:
> ...


I only fly when I absolutely have to, or when I am flying somewhere to meet a train.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 13, 2009)

I believe that the Sunset on a daily schedule would provide a vital link to that region. And could be competitive to flying in some Markets. New Orleans to Houston and New Orleans San Antonio are two city pairs that I suspect would require connecting flight and/or dealing with relatively high fares.

As stated before, I don't like the stub train without through cars. Though a shorter layover time for the Eagle in San Antonio would be a plus.


----------



## GP35 (May 13, 2009)

Steve4031 said:


> I believe that the Sunset on a daily schedule would provide a vital link to that region. And could be competitive to flying in some Markets. New Orleans to Houston and New Orleans San Antonio are two city pairs that I suspect would require connecting flight and/or dealing with relatively high fares.
> As stated before, I don't like the stub train without through cars. Though a shorter layover time for the Eagle in San Antonio would be a plus.


No, Houston big airport is a major hub. Continentals biggest hub. And Houston other airport is like a Southwest hub. Plenty

of cheap flights to those cities out of Houston.


----------



## saxman (May 13, 2009)

The NOL, HOS, corridor is a popular and I think a daily train, albeit being stub, would attract numerous riders along the route...not lose riders. I know of lots of people that live down there and would love to take the train from Houston to SA or NOL, but don't because, 1. Way to early calling times, and 2. It doesn't run on the day they want to go. Just because it won't have a sleeper, doesn't mean it will lose ridership. Most people have to fly or drive that route now because of those to reasons. Little to do with through sleeper service. Just look at the Heartland Flyer. I would consider that a stub train sort of, as it runs once a day to connect to the Eagle. But tons of people still ride it.

Now I'm by no means saying the SAS, HOS, NOL train is the best solution, because there for sure should be through car service. I'm just staying its way better then what we have now, because it would be daily, have great calling times in HOS and SAS, and provide a nice connection to go further west. Hopefully Amtrak will do some marketing to advertise a short connection time in SAS to assure riders they can go farther west. Sure you might lose a few passengers that absolutely hate to make a connection, but I'm willing to bet, the new riders would off set that. And as more cars become available out of Beach Grove, I would hope Amtrak would hold true and add through sleeper service. Now I'm going to duck, because I'm going to get flamed.


----------



## GP35 (May 13, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> The NOL, HOS, corridor is a popular and I think a daily train, albeit being stub, would attract numerous riders along the route...not lose riders. I know of lots of people that live down there and would love to take the train from Houston to SA or NOL, but don't because, 1. Way to early calling times, and 2. It doesn't run on the day they want to go. Just because it won't have a sleeper, doesn't mean it will lose ridership. Most people have to fly or drive that route now because of those to reasons. Little to do with through sleeper service. Just look at the Heartland Flyer. I would consider that a stub train sort of, as it runs once a day to connect to the Eagle. But tons of people still ride it.
> Now I'm by no means saying the SAS, HOS, NOL train is the best solution, because there for sure should be through car service. I'm just staying its way better then what we have now, because it would be daily, have great calling times in HOS and SAS, and provide a nice connection to go further west. Hopefully Amtrak will do some marketing to advertise a short connection time in SAS to assure riders they can go farther west. Sure you might lose a few passengers that absolutely hate to make a connection, but I'm willing to bet, the new riders would off set that. And as more cars become available out of Beach Grove, I would hope Amtrak would hold true and add through sleeper service. Now I'm going to duck, because I'm going to get flamed.


First, lets not be naive about Amtrak adding a sleeper in the future. Second, everything you mentioned;Daily serves, a better time to run the train, and

more short trip riders can be done by making Sunset Daily with the NOL sets. And by doing it this way, NO-ONE is losing a LD train.

So why kill a historic long distant train when you can accomplish the same goal with the same equipment?


----------



## jphjaxfl (May 13, 2009)

GP35 said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> > The NOL, HOS, corridor is a popular and I think a daily train, albeit being stub, would attract numerous riders along the route...not lose riders. I know of lots of people that live down there and would love to take the train from Houston to SA or NOL, but don't because, 1. Way to early calling times, and 2. It doesn't run on the day they want to go. Just because it won't have a sleeper, doesn't mean it will lose ridership. Most people have to fly or drive that route now because of those to reasons. Little to do with through sleeper service. Just look at the Heartland Flyer. I would consider that a stub train sort of, as it runs once a day to connect to the Eagle. But tons of people still ride it.
> ...


 The Espee killed the historic Sunset Limited over 40 years ago when they made it a coach only train with a vending machine car. Then in 1969 or 1970, Espee offered to bring back Sleeping Cars and a Dining car if the ICC would allow them to cut the train to 3 days per week. At that point they had a fairly good idea that some form of nationalization of passenger service was coming. After Amtrak took over, Espee continued to try to kill the Sunset Limited by causing the train to be delayed by freight traffic.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 13, 2009)

GP35 said:


> Green I hate to burst your bubble, but that's what it is. People here ride the train for fun. Not to get to that business meeting in SAS. They ride the train for the kids, to visit grand ma in Tucson, a novelty, a vacation which is why Sunset sleeper stayed full.
> 
> During th Bush years Amtrak remain humble and made it a goal for a daily Cardinal and Sunset. Well now ole Amtrak got extra money
> 
> ...


Give me a good reason why Amtrak would want to cut a train and lose ridership on a train that's been gaining popularity- one of the few to be doing so in recent months. They do not. They have no reason to do so. Amtrak's goal in life is now and has always been ridership. This is going to increase ridership massively vis-a-vis utility riders. It's going to be less convenient for the small amounts of long distance travel, and it's a pain in the keister for railfans.

Let me tell you something, GP35. Amtrak is not here to cater to railfans. This is preserving the network while increasing service. This will also reduce needed equipment for the run. Its a win for everyone except for a small percentage of people who don't really matter in the general scheme of things and, lets face it, will probably ride the train anyway when they are done with their childish kvetching.



GP35 said:


> First, lets not be naive about Amtrak adding a sleeper in the future.
> So why kill a historic long distant train when you can accomplish the same goal with the same equipment?


As others mentioned the historic train was dead decades ago.

Lets not be naive and think Amtrak will not place the through sleeper on the train if:

1. it will create significant additional ridership.

2. Will not create massive financial burden due to consistently missed connections.

3. It can cover direct costs or even turn a small profit.

If it can meet the above three criteria, I'd be shocked if it didn't appear within a year of the change operating at-least 3 times a week. People thought 448/449 with sleeper and travelling through to Chicago was gone for good, but its back nonetheless. This through sleeper can and probably will happen if it can justify its existence for reasons other than placating flaming railfans.


----------



## GP35 (May 13, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > Green I hate to burst your bubble, but that's what it is. People here ride the train for fun. Not to get to that business meeting in SAS. They ride the train for the kids, to visit grand ma in Tucson, a novelty, a vacation which is why Sunset sleeper stayed full.
> ...


Dodging, personal attacks, calling the people in La. and Texas insignificant, everything except addressing my point. I'll try again.

Sunset can be ran daily, Sunset can be ran at a better time, TE can run through sleepers, and no one loses LD service.


----------



## Ryan (May 13, 2009)

Obviously, Amtrak disagrees. Since they're the ones with the data and extensive study, I'm going to trust that their solution is the better one for the system as a whole.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 14, 2009)

GP35 said:


> Dodging, personal attacks, calling the people in La. and Texas insignificant, everything except addressing my point. I'll try again.
> Sunset can be ran daily, Sunset can be ran at a better time, TE can run through sleepers, and no one loses LD service.


You remind me of a guy I know. Dear friend of mine, actually, and also a railfan. He has the same problem. Let me tell you what I constantly tell him: Do not attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Further, do not attribute to stupidity that which you do not have the full degree of information to comprehend. I'm not saying you are stupid. I'm not saying you are particularly ignorant. What I do know, because Amtrak is a subject I am writing a book on, is that Amtrak never does anything without carefully considering their options.

I sincerely doubt they would make this move if their analysis did not make it better for their purposes. And as I pointed out to you, their purpose is not profit, nor loss cutting, nor even revenue. Amtrak's primary purpose is ridership. Everything comes second to that.

I have met people who think Amtrak is the devil incarnate because they don't serve Podunkville. Where do they live? Well gee golly gosh, they live in Podunkville. Amazing, these coincidences.

I am not where you live, no. Yes, I am in New Jersey, a state served by 5 entirely separate rail providers- Amtrak, NJ Transit, PATH, SEPTA, and PATCO. Heck, you can almost say 6, since a few routes are operated on the behalf of MTA's Metro-North.

But you must keep in mind that the Sunset Limited does not affect me either way- it runs Superliner equipment, and Superliner equipment is not compatible with ANY of those 5 non-Amtrak rail providers, nor Amtrak's operated track in this state. This means you are looking at it from your point of view, a person who is benefited by things running the way you want them to. And I am standing as a strongly pro-rail (We all know just how strongly pro-rail I am, too) advocate who is impartially judging the situation.

As this impartial person, I agree with Amtrak's decision. It makes the most sense, it utilizes the equipment most efficiently for the overall system (it cuts down the number of Sightseers being used, and even the number of sleepers- it requires one full less set, save for the coaches, in fact, which will allow them to go to better use elsewhere- or used to provide the through-sleeper).

If I had my way, we'd have a _Golden State Limited_, and a _Sunset Limited_, with both having full sleeper, dining and lounge service, and with the Sunset geared to provide good timing through NOL-SAS, and the _Golden State Limited_ providing good times from SAS-west. Fact is, Amtrak doesn't have equipment to provide for this. Given this, the solution Amtrak outlines makes the most sense.


----------



## GP35 (May 14, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > Dodging, personal attacks, calling the people in La. and Texas insignificant, everything except addressing my point. I'll try again.
> ...


You blindly follow Amtrak and you call me ignorant. Have you every read the story of the Pied Piper? Have you ever looked at an Amtrak route map

from 1971 to today? Did you notice every several years a route disappears or is downgraded until it fails? So if making routes disappear and losing

congressional support is Amtrak's goal, well yes Amtrak analysis are doing an excellent job.


----------

