# Sunset Limited / Texas Eagle PRIIA §210 FY10



## Devil's Advocate (Sep 30, 2010)

*Direct Document Link...*

*Contents Page Link...*



> *1. **New daily Los Angeles - Chicago service* combines the Los Angeles - San Antonio portion of the Sunset Limited with the San Antonio - Chicago Texas Eagle.*2.* *New daily San Antonio - New Orleans service* with cross-platform transfer of passengers at San Antonio.


Looks like they're still moving forward on the daily Sunset/Eagle both west _and_ east of SAS.



> Although the restructured service will *increase sleeping car capacity and revenues*, and *offer full meal service on all portions of the Sunset/Eagle route*, the elimination of equipment utilization inefficiencies will enable Amtrak to provide that service with *four fewer Superliner Sleepers and four fewer diners*. These cars will be shifted to the Capitol Limited to ease capacity constraints on that route. The plan also requires five Diner Lounges and one coach car to support the new service. *This equipment is immediately available*; the diners shifted from the Sunset Limited to the Capitol Limited will replace diner-lounge cars currently used on that route.


 This is one of those topics that's probably best left to other analysts more familiar with Amtrak maintenance and operations, but it looks good to me.



> The new schedule in Los Angeles will enable *better connections with the Coast Starlight*. Along with reductions in San Antonio layover time, the new route gives customers much *better arrival and departure times* in key cities. Amtrak’s Market Research & Analysis Group estimates that these changes will drive higher ridership in these cities. The new service will vastly improve San Antonio layovers for through passengers. The most dramatic reductions will be for passengers traveling between Los Angeles and Chicago, with *trip times falling by 9 and 5 hours* for eastbound and westbound travelers respectively.


Although this may not be a direct benefit to SAS O&D pax it's still a net benefit in my view.



> Amtrak presented this plan to its Board of Directors in early 2010 and received approval to proceed. Amtrak believes it is *logistically feasible to begin the new service in early 2011*, pending host railroad approval. Amtrak is currently in discussions with Union Pacific (UP), SCRRA, and BNSF Railway (BNSF). Assuming these approvals occur, the *Southern and Southwest Divisions have plans in place to begin the hiring, training, and qualifying* process for the T&E and OBS personnel. Since the new service will not travel over any new route segments, Amtrak will not have to qualify crews on new Amtrak routes or establish new crew bases or commissaries. This plan includes a service reroute from Colton Crossing (San Bernardino) to Los Angeles via Fullerton and the BNSF Fullerton Subdivision. Amtrak does not currently expect to be able to implement this reroute at the outset due to operational issues. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), which has made significant investments in BNSF infrastructure in this Corridor, has expressed support for the reroute via Fullerton.


Early 2011 sounds great to me, assuming a new anti-rail congress doesn't start dismantling Amtrak before they can begin implementation.



> *Amtrak’s customers will benefit in the following ways:*
> * Daily Los Angeles to New Orleans Service through San Antonio
> 
> * Up to 91% reduction of San Antonio through passenger layover time
> ...


If this pans out I don't see much to complain about, at least not yet.

There's plenty to digest in the full document, so please take a look and post your impressions!

-Dax


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 30, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Early 2011 sounds great to me, assuming a new anti-rail congress doesn't start dismantling Amtrak before they can begin implementation.


Probably depends a lot more on the UP than Congress. There have been regular attempts to dismantle Amtrak in Congress for the last 39 years, some quite serious. Amtrak always manages to squeak by, but the insecurity and starvation diet has been the root of much of the ineffective culture at Amtrak. But if the Republicans seriously gain in Congress, there will be yet another attempt, which will again most likely fail. If G. W. Bush and a completely Republican controlled Congress couldn't get it done, it probably won't get done. This show has been going on for a LONG time.

So the "host railroad approval" condition is the real gotcha here. Amtrak can have it planned out and be completely ready, but UP owns the track. And UP is not hospitable to adding daily service without significant $$$ from Amtrak for capital improvements (750 million?). That cost was entirely absent from the report, although to be fair that news didn't come out until just a few days before the report was released. Until they get that worked out, there isn't a prayer.

With that said, I read the document and think it is pretty well reasoned, with some flaws/little white lies. They restored the WB to NB Starlight connection last year. Changing the schedule back to close to what it was before they caved to UP around 2005 or so could be done without going daily, which would reduce the monumental dwell times in the current schedule. But the document does make sense, and vastly improves equipment utilization. Hate to say it, because for my own reasons I'd rather see a full service train continue to New Orleans, but it is well reasoned.


----------



## Eric S (Sep 30, 2010)

I didn't really find much in the report that I disagreed with. (I've been one of those who has been in general agreement with the proposal as we've discussed on here many, many times at length.) Unless/until Union Pacific agrees, though, or agrees to something more reasonable than $750 million, I don't think this has much chance of happening/being implemented, whereas the _California _Zephyr and _Capitol __Limited/Pennsylvanian_ proposals can probably be implemented rather quickly and without much cost.


----------



## me_little_me (Sep 30, 2010)

We wanted a way to get from Atlanta (actually western NC) to San Antonio w/o having to arrive/depart SAS in the middle of the night. This gives us much better options especially to go on to El Paso from SAS.


----------



## rtabern (Oct 1, 2010)

Just read the whole plan... and I would say I am just "luke warm" to the proposal. The biggest thing I don't like is the arrival and departure time in Los Angeles. Going east, you'd not leave until 11:30PM?? I would hope they would let you board by like 8PM or something and get settled in. It didn't say anything about that. I am also not a big fan of the arrivial time into LAX -- 5AM?? And that is with the pad... so it could get in as early as 4:15AM. It did say people could remain on the train until 6:30AM or whatever -- but you're not going to be able to "sleep in" until 6:30AM because people are going to be banging around on the train, etc. as soon as you get in -- and I am sure the attendants will pressure sleeper passengers to get off ASAP so they can get to the hotel. I am not sure about everyone -- but I dont mind the dwell time in SAS. I always found it fun to have hours to walk around to the Alamo and Riverwalk. I am glad they are keeping the train 3 nights... the extra time on the train is part of the reason I will often take 421 over 3 going CHI-LAX. Again, I know this is the railfan in me speaking, as I am probably not your typical passenger either.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 1, 2010)

Im with rob on the lukewarm :huh: because of the arrival/departure times! Most of the pax that ride this train are going to LA, those catching the Coast Starlight will not have a Lounge to hang out in/place to keep their stuff, so will be busy keeping an eye on their stuff so the people that "live" in LAUS don't practice five finger discounts!

As rob said, the return on #22/#2,whatever they number it?, from LAX-CHI will result in the same problem! I'm not aware of any hotel that will let you stay in your room that long without charging; even if they hold your luggage you still have hours and hours to kill and downtown LA at night is not New York! :help:

Im beginning to agree with AlanB about this, a stubb train from SAS-NOL is not the answer for that route either!Cut out cars from SAS-NOL would be a much better idea IMO!(ie sleeper,CCC,coach,coach baggage!(the CCC could even be made into a Business Class car,Amtrak does have spares of this not so favorite car!)


----------



## jis (Oct 1, 2010)

rtabern said:


> Just read the whole plan... and I would say I am just "luke warm" to the proposal. The biggest thing I don't like is the arrival and departure time in Los Angeles. Going east, you'd not leave until 11:30PM?? I would hope they would let you board by like 8PM or something and get settled in. It didn't say anything about that. I am also not a big fan of the arrivial time into LAX -- 5AM?? And that is with the pad... so it could get in as early as 4:15AM. It did say people could remain on the train until 6:30AM or whatever -- but you're not going to be able to "sleep in" until 6:30AM because people are going to be banging around on the train, etc. as soon as you get in -- and I am sure the attendants will pressure sleeper passengers to get off ASAP so they can get to the hotel.


I am probably one of the few who had ridden the Sunset Limited in its original schedule which resembled the schedule being proposed, as well as the current schedule, and of course each has its pluses and minuses. But overall I think the original schedule and the new proposed one are better than the current one. Late departure never proved to be a problem for me, since I stored my bags at what was then LAUPT, and went out for the evening. Indeed now it is easier to do so with excellent transit connection by LRT and Subway, which was absent back then. And I guess I have always preferred early arrival rather than middle of the morning arrival, so that was not an issue for me.

So I am an enthusiastic supporter of the new schedule. I would prefer the NOL section to be a bunch of through cars from LAX, but I can see why that is not feasible right now.


----------



## daveyb99 (Oct 1, 2010)

I voted LukeWarm.

I am very excited to hear about a more concrete plan; however:

*Why:*

No mention of _Heartland Flyer_. This train would benefit from the improved connections. And NO mention on PAGE 32 / "Other Routes"

*Why:*

No detraining in SAS during engine switch operation (see PAGE 21).

No mention of how long this might take, why can't both happen same time, or better yet - why can't it wait till after detraining.

*Why:*

LAX arrival can stay till 0630. Why not a little later, maybe 0800.

*Errata*

Schedule PAGE 15

does not use current schedule for southbound travel. oh well

*How About*

at least a mention of service East of New Orleans (possibly a continuation of the SAS-NOL)

at least a mention of through cars NOL-SAS-LAX (both sleeper and coach)


----------



## gswager (Oct 1, 2010)

Perhaps the engineer should adjust the speed of train so that it can arrive at LA on-time, not early! Makes sense for European and Japanese trains that are rigorously followed the time schedule, not at the highest speed.


----------



## rtabern (Oct 1, 2010)

Not to be a "Debbie Downer"... but the other thing I forgot to mention about the plan THAT STINKS is the fact there is only going to be 1 SLEEPER on the Chicago to Los Angeles section of the train with maybe 4 roomettes being sold in the Transdorm. 1 SLEEPER for the whole train??? I would be much happier if there were 2 sleepers -- atleast during the summer months on the "new" Texas Eagle.

Yes, I know there is currently only 1 thru sleeper (#421) right now from CHI-LAX (with another sleeper (#21) that just goes to SAS). However, generally they encourage people going past SAS to go in the #421 sleeper and folks going to San Antonio to be in the #21 sleeper and that seems to work out okay. However, sometimes I find it hard to snag a deluxe bedroom in the #421 sleeper --- what the heck is it going to be like with just 1 sleeper on the whole train??? YIKES!!! You will have people who want a bedroom from just CHI-STL or even CHI-DAL tying up the rooms for others who want the 3-night trip from CHI-LAX.

Amtrak, you need 2 sleepers on theis train!

I am actually a big fan of the daily "thru-train" CHI-LAX, because, if I have time, I love taking #421 over #3 because I love being able to stay in the same bedroom for 3 nights on the train!! It's a cool experience...


----------



## Gob (Oct 1, 2010)

This seems to be a horrible plan for people traveling NOL-LAX, or even traveling to/from NOL in general. They seriously expect people to stay up until 11pm, grab their belongings, and "step across the platform" onto an entirely different train? I hope they stop selling NOL-LAX tickets and start selling NOL-SAS-LAX tickets separately-they've pretty much gutted the Sunset Limited but kept the name for sentimental reasons.

Since there is already Chicago-Los Angeles service every day, it would have made more sense to keep the NOL-LAX train as the "primary" train and the CHI-SAS train as the "add-on" train.


----------



## henryj (Oct 1, 2010)

The way I read it, the Sunset/Eagle has just been downgraded to a CCC vs a full diner, one sleeper instead of two west of SAS and two coaches vs three and no baggage car. Four sleepers and four diners are being robbed and given to the Capitol Limited which I guess makes our eastern readers happy but guts the Sunset Ltd. It would only take five sleepers with the new schedule to run one through from NOL to LAX. Although technically this change increases overall capacity, if you are just counting seats, due to it being daily, but individual trains will be short a coach, sleeper, full diner and baggage car west of SAS.

The so called stub trains are to be tiny little 2 coach and a CCC trains. The Sunset/Eagle itself will be one of the shortest and smallest in capacity of all the Amtrak long distance trains. To reduce costs, all switching in SAS will be discontinued, thus no thru coach or sleeper from NOL will be possible without reinstating this expense. So the train will be basically a sleeper, trans dorm, CCC, lounge, two coaches with no baggage car and a capacity of less than 200 people. A short little six car train for what is still a 60 hour trip from Chicago. New Orleans to LAX even with the transfer is around 45 hours.

Eastbound passengers on the stub trains will be able to transfer immediately on arrival to the Sunset/Eagle which is a plus. Certainly the schedules have been improved and the arrival times in Houston and San Antonio have been improved substantially, but they could have done that long ago with the existing service. Plus the connection eastbound to the Coast Starlight has been restored.

They do mention that the improved daily schedule will encourage establishment of a daily shuttle service connecting Maricopa to Phoenix, a city of some 4 million people that currently is just abandoned. But there is no committment to do that which is a glaring omission. Finally, I see that Beaumont is now listed as a flag stop even though they have committed to building a new station and have a metro area population of almost 400k while the likes of Lafayette and Lake Charles are regular stops.

Finally, all this depends on UP's approval and they have demanded $750 million to start up this type of daily service. No way Amtrak is going to pony up that kind of money to run a little six car train.

So I will believe it when I see it. I plan to be on the first daily train coach Houston to New Orleans, preferrably in business class. Anyone want to join me?


----------



## AlanB (Oct 1, 2010)

rtabern said:


> Yes, I know there is currently only 1 thru sleeper (#421) right now from CHI-LAX (with another sleeper (#21) that just goes to SAS). However, generally they encourage people going past SAS to go in the #421 sleeper and folks going to San Antonio to be in the #21 sleeper and that seems to work out okay. However, sometimes I find it hard to snag a deluxe bedroom in the #421 sleeper --- what the heck is it going to be like with just 1 sleeper on the whole train??? YIKES!!! You will have people who want a bedroom from just CHI-STL or even CHI-DAL tying up the rooms for others who want the 3-night trip from CHI-LAX.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that on days that 421/422 runs, that sleeper is the only full sleeper on the train. Trains 21/22 only sell rooms in the Trans/Dorm. On days that 421/422 doesn't run, then and only then does 21/22 get a full sleeper.

So this plan doesn't change capacity on the Eagle at all. However, it does decrease the number of sleepers on the SAS-LAX portion of the Sunset Limited. Granted with daily service that does increase overall sleeper capacity, but still I could see sell outs on the weekends and certainly the issue of getting a through room could raise its ugly head too.

One more reason not to like this plan.


----------



## mfastx (Oct 1, 2010)

Sounds like a good plan to me, it's an improvement so I'm all for it. I like the new Houston departure times, still a little dissapointed in the travel time to New Orleans, 9 hours is a little long.

But overall good plan.


----------



## Alika (Oct 1, 2010)

Gob said:


> This seems to be a horrible plan for people traveling NOL-LAX, or even traveling to/from NOL in general. They seriously expect people to stay up until 11pm, grab their belongings, and "step across the platform" onto an entirely different train? I hope they stop selling NOL-LAX tickets and start selling NOL-SAS-LAX tickets separately-they've pretty much gutted the Sunset Limited but kept the name for sentimental reasons.
> 
> Since there is already Chicago-Los Angeles service every day, it would have made more sense to keep the NOL-LAX train as the "primary" train and the CHI-SAS train as the "add-on" train.


I wholeheartedly agree. As someone who no longer likes to fly, I've booked a sleeper from LAX to NOL and back next May for the Rotary International convention. With a two year old in tow, I can't imagine trying to put her to sleep in a coach seat (it's never worked for us before), waking her up in the middle of the night by switching trains, and trying to put her back to sleep.

I agree that daily service is essential to the health of long-distance service, but forcing passengers to switch trains enroute is going to be a turn off for a lot of people including me. Despite how they might want to market it, it seems what they are really proposing is a daily LAX-CHI Texas Eagle, plus further truncating the Sunset Limited to really just be an SAS-NOL train. Might as well just take the "Sunset" out of the name and just call it "Limited" because that's what it'll be.  Now, if at least one through sleeper and coach are offered, I'd be happy to sing the praises of this proposal. If not, I just hope any changes will only occur *after* my trip.


----------



## TML (Oct 1, 2010)

With respect to the SL/TE, there are two major issues that I would like to see addressed at some point or another:

(1) Service East of New Orleans

(2) Service to Phoenix

The first issue has been ongoing for over five years now, and it seems that the only thing hindering it from being resolved is a lack of political will among those in Congress.

The second issue has been ongoing for almost 15 years now, and according to reports from the Arizona Rail Passenger Association and the Southwest Rail Corridor Coalition, the "abandoned" track segment between Phoenix and Wellton still exists and can be reactivated for less than $100 million. The Arizona DOT now has plans to use newly available federal money to try to bring the SL/TE back to Phoenix.

I can't predict when these issues will be resolved, but I will certainly celebrate on the day(s) when service is restored to both of the aforementioned areas.


----------



## The Chief (Oct 1, 2010)

Previous speculation on this board about a *Dining Car* on the *Eagle* got our hopes up. Now Amtrak's PRIIA Section 210 Report *Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle* Performance Improvement Plan is just that, a plan to improve performance, not comfort.

Daily service will be swell. The new sked looks better, especially San Antonio layover decrease, and other Texas times (<--- that _is_ provincial, but I live here).

Of course I prefer a Dining Car over the ill-designed CCC, and a second sleeper would make sense on such a _long_* distance route.

Some of the Amtrak staff PIP contributors may not know, or failed to include, any reference to anticipated *Sleeper* increases from Econ Recovery program(s) for ongoing refurbs and repairs. My understanding is that will net increase the fleet Sleeper roster.

Doesn't the *Capitol Limited* presently run a Dining Car?

The PIP notes:

The plan also requires five Diner Lounges and one coach car to support the new service. This
equipment is immediately available; the diners shifted from the Sunset Limited to the Capitol
Limited will replace diner-lounge cars currently used on that route.
*Please note full route mileage on Eagle-Sunset Chicago-LA is 2728 miles (current route), and Capitol Limited Chicago-DC is 1163 miles. New Orleans-San Antonio is 573 miles. I've ridden all three routes. I would like a Dining Car on Chicago-LA and Chicago-DC. The "New Orleans Stub" seems a nice fit for a CCC.

I did not see anything speculating a resumption-to-Florida leg, so I guess that ship has sailed. And on a historical note, *SP* comes off looking pretty bad in the PIP. Ha!

Also, *New Orleans Stub* may catch on as a train name,,,


----------



## AlanB (Oct 1, 2010)

The Chief said:


> Doesn't the *Capitol Limited* presently run a Dining Car?


No, currently the Capitol uses CCC's instead of full diners, since Amtrak converted too many diners to CCC's.

However, the Capitol was originally slated to get full diners thanks to the Stimulus monies fixing several wrecks. Don't know what happened to that plan.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Oct 1, 2010)

AlanB said:


> The Chief said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't the *Capitol Limited* presently run a Dining Car?
> ...


Didn't two diners out West catch fire this summer?


----------



## AlanB (Oct 2, 2010)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The Chief said:
> ...


Yes, but only one is listed as being out of service. Could be that the railfan that maintains that page is unaware of the other or it could be that it's back in service.

Additionally, the Cap plan only required 3 of the 4 diners being restored with Stimulus monies.


----------



## The Chief (Oct 2, 2010)

AlanB said:


> The Chief said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't the *Capitol Limited* presently run a Dining Car?
> ...


Thanks *Alan*.

My Spring Summer 2010 timetable lists "_Dining: Full meal service_" under *Capitol Ltd* Service. And I checked the Amtrak site which lists "_Dinette, Cafe and Snack Cars, Dining Car_," so I thought there was a Diner.


----------



## Chris J. (Oct 2, 2010)

The Chief said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The Chief said:
> ...


I think the CCC on the Capitol is used as a full diner - ie. it has the normal diner menu, just with the CCC seating.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 2, 2010)

Chris J. said:


> The Chief said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Correct!


----------



## frequentflyer (Oct 4, 2010)

*When the Los Angeles-Chicago train is ready to depart at 7:40*

*AM (after a 1,500-mile inspection), it follows the same route the northbound Texas Eagle uses*

*today. It shoves west from station track # 3 to Del Rio Main Track # 1 and back to Tower 112.*

*Then when it is clear of the Austin Subdivision Track 2 switch at Tower 112, the train begins to*

*travel railroad north on the Austin Subdivision Track 2.*

When did 22 depart north by backing out of San Antonio? Its already facing north, it used to depart heading north,when did it change?


----------



## Steve4031 (Oct 4, 2010)

I voted no. IMHO, they should have a full service diner on this route. I guest I should have said luke warm because the schedule is improved from Chicago to LA.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 4, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> I voted no. IMHO, they should have a full service diner on this route. I guest I should have said luke warm because the schedule is improved from Chicago to LA.


Which route? The proposal involves a full service diner on the CHI-SAS-LAX _Texas Eagle_. It is true, though, that it does not involve a full service diner on the SAS-NOL _Sunset Limited_ stub.


----------



## henryj (Oct 4, 2010)

Eric S said:


> Steve4031 said:
> 
> 
> > I voted no. IMHO, they should have a full service diner on this route. I guest I should have said luke warm because the schedule is improved from Chicago to LA.
> ...


Not exactly, the plan calls for 9 Diner Lounges, or CCC's to support the service. That's two for the stub trains and seven for the Eagle/Sunset. They may serve the full Diner menu on the Eagle/Sunset, but the cars are CCC's. The four Diners currently serving the Sunset Ltd route are to be transferred to the Capitol Limited.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 5, 2010)

henryj said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Steve4031 said:
> ...


Ah, you're right.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 5, 2010)

frequentflyer said:


> *When the Los Angeles-Chicago train is ready to depart at 7:40*
> 
> *AM (after a 1,500-mile inspection), it follows the same route the northbound Texas Eagle uses*
> 
> ...


There is no direct connection between either of the tracks that go north out of San Antonio and the east-west line on which the Amtrak Station is located that permits the Texas Eagle to move directly into and out of the Amtrak San Antonio station.

A little history:

(In these following descriptions I am using east and west or north and south based on railroad east and west or north and south. The ex-SP I am calling east-west in orientation. In reality, the SP makes two 90 degree turns so that the compass orientation of the line through the station is north-south, with the north end of the station described as “east.”)

The east-west track is the former Southern Pacific line, and the station is at/adjacent to the Southern Pacific station. The SP station is on the east side of downtown.

There were and are two lines going generally north out of San Antonio. These lines come together about 50 miles north of San Antonio.

The former Missouri Pacific main came in from the north and northeast and was the route of the original Texas Eagle, to St. Louis which, by the way did not go through Dallas. The MoPac had a station on the west side of downtown. This station no longer exists. This track crosses the ex-SP line at and continues south to Laredo.

The former Missouri Kansas Texas main came in from the northeast and was the route of the Texas Special, to St. Louis which did not go through Dallas. The MKT also had their own station. It was a stub end station, located somewhat south of downtown in between the other two stations. This station no longer exists.

The ex-Missouri Pacific and ex-Missouri Kansas Texas both went through Austin, partly each on their own track and partly with MKT trackage rights on the MoPac. The each also had their own station in Austin.

These lines are now both in the Union Pacific house. They now are both listed in the Up employee timetable as part of the Austin Subdivision. The track designated as track 1 of this subdivision is the ex-Missouri Pacific main. The track designated as track 2 of this subdivision is the ex-Missouri Kansas Texas main. These lines come together about 50 miles north of San Antonio.

The ex-SP main crosses over the ex-MKT track (now called track 2 of the UP Austin Subdivision) approximately 2 miles east of the Amtrak station. This is not a grade crossing. The ex-SP is above the ex-MKT. There is not connection at this location. Looking at an aerial photo, there appears to have been one in the past.

The junction between these two lines is at Tower 112, which is 1.7 miles west of the SP station.

The ex-MKT turns out of the SP at tower 112 toward the south side. It heads compass east for about 3 miles, then turns north, crossing under the SP about 5 miles from tower 112.

The ex-SP main crosses ex-MoPac at Tower 105, which is 1.7 miles beyond tower 112, placing it 3.4 miles beyond the Amtrak station. There is also a secondary track connecting these two lines between tower 112 and a point called Apache Junction. This distance between these points is 1.6 miles. Apache Junction is 0.5 miles north of tower 105.

The normal route of the southbound Texas Eagle into town is to come in on Track 1. Whether it goes to Tower 105 and then backs to the station or goes through Apache Junction on the connection to Tower 112 and pulls into the station, I do not know. However, if it goes through the connection, it will enter the station aimed east (compass north). Anyone who has ridden through cars from the Texas Eagle to the Sunset could answer that one. If they leave town on the Sunset facing backward from that of their trip south, then they went through the connection. If they back into the San Antonio station and then leave San Antonio aimed the same direction as the normal for their trip in, they went through Tower 105.

The normal direction for northbound trains out of San Antonio is by way of Track 2. For the northbound Texas Eagle to get on track 2, it will leave station backing up westbound on the ex-SP to Tower 112, then going forward on Track 2 is the normal route of the northbound Texas Eagle.

These junctions, slow tracks, and reversals are the reasons for the very slow Austin to San Antonio times for the TE in both directions.


----------



## henryj (Oct 5, 2010)

George Harris said:


> There is no direct connection between either of the tracks that go north out of San Antonio and the east-west line on which the Amtrak Station is located that permits the Texas Eagle to move directly into and out of the Amtrak San Antonio station.
> 
> A little history:
> 
> ...



George, last time I was in San Antonio the MP station still existed. It was being used by Generations Credit Union and is at 123 N. Medina St. Has it recently been torn down? I can still see it on Google Earth. True, the MKT depot is long gone. The Texas Special however did go through Dallas. It split in Waco and sent a section through Fort Worth and one through Dallas. They recombined north of Dallas in Dennison. The MP Eagle San Antonio section however went north east through Hearne and hooked up with the Houston section at Palestine and the Dallas section in Longview.

Thanks for the long complicated description of the tracks in San Antonio. The roads are just as confusing. I believe the Eagle can come into SAS on either track so sometimes the thru cars go out backwards and some times they go out forward on the Sunset. I assume the same goes for the departure northward. When the cars end up going in reverse the crew just comes through and reverses the seats.


----------



## jim hudson (Oct 5, 2010)

You are correct henry, it's still there as a Credit Union! IIRC it used to be the old T&P station before it was MoPac, i remember as a boy riding a steamer into that station on a school trip from San marcos to San Antonio and back! Many moons ago when the iron horses ran on steam, railroad men were rough and tough and the hobos rode the rails!


----------



## jphjaxfl (Oct 6, 2010)

jim hudson said:


> You are correct henry, it's still there as a Credit Union! IIRC it used to be the old T&P station before it was MoPac, i remember as a boy riding a steamer into that station on a school trip from San marcos to San Antonio and back! Many moons ago when the iron horses ran on steam, railroad men were rough and tough and the hobos rode the rails!


The former Missouri Pacific Depot in San Antonio was the International Great Northern Of Texas Depot before it was Missouri Pacific. The Station use to have the IGN name and logo above the door. The IGN was a MoPac subsidiary in Texas. The Texas & Pacific Railroad did not serve San Antonio. It ran from New Orleans to El Paso via Alexandria, Shreveport, Dallas, Ft. Worth and Big Springs. It had some branches in the Dallas and Shreveport areas.


----------



## jimhudson (Oct 6, 2010)

Thanks for the correction, you are correct Sir!When one relies on their memory for things back in the day they tend to blur and become confused! I should have looked it up like our resident historian Bill H. I actually have been in that station both as a Rail Station and Credit Union,and also the old Katy and SP Sunset Stations. FWIW, also the old T&P Station(a beautiful building, worth a visit) in FTW which is now condos/business offices and the TRE Station to catch the train to DAL (afew blocks away is the Intermodel Station for Amtrak/Greyhound and Local busses., the DFW Metro area is becoming well served by transportation especially when they had so far to go to catch up after gearing everything to automobiles!)


----------



## frequentflyer (Oct 6, 2010)

Thank you George. I know the Eagle has two routes into and out of San Antonio. In the morning the Eagle travels along I-35 heading northeast out of town. On the map it appears the tracks heading northeast out of the station connect to the those same tracks that parallel I-35,but as you stated,its a flyover with the connection taken out. So I take it the Eagle backs up under I-10, alongside of it and then pulls forward turning north on the west side of downtown. Wow.


----------



## colobok (Oct 6, 2010)

I don't understand 2 things:

1) Why to arrive to LAX at 5am and then let passenger to sleep until 6:30am?

Wouldn't it be better to arrive to LAX at 6:30am and make departures 1,5 hrs later?

2) How are they going to implement this with $3 million payment to UP when UP demands much much more?


----------



## George Harris (Oct 6, 2010)

jphjaxfl said:


> jim hudson said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct henry, it's still there as a Credit Union! IIRC it used to be the old T&P station before it was MoPac, i remember as a boy riding a steamer into that station on a school trip from San marcos to San Antonio and back! Many moons ago when the iron horses ran on steam, railroad men were rough and tough and the hobos rode the rails!
> ...


To all: I stand corrected. I know that when the Interamerican operated there was no station at the stop and that peple were basically dumped on the ground. A little research led me to: http://txtransportationmuseum.org/IGN.htm

Yes, The railroad was initially and for many years the international and Great Northern, although the extent of "northern" was Longview, Texas.

There you will find a thorough history of the building. The short version is that the building was there, but between the end of MoPac service and the Credit Union purchase the building went through what appeared to be death spiral. A few quotes from the referenced site:



> The International & Great Northern Railroad began service to San Antonio on 1/1/1881. The company line began as the International Railway Company in 1870. It was planned to build to Arkansas near a point on the Red River and make connections to a railroad under construction from St. Louis. . . . The new company . . . reached Austin in 1876. The I & G.N. went into receivership on 4/1/1878 and came out on 11/1/1879. It went into receivership again in 1881 and permission from the creditors had to be sought in order for the additional 153.7 miles from San Antonio to Laredo could be completed, which they were on 12/31/1881.. . . .
> 
> The magnificent depot was completed in 1908. It is a most impressive structure, which was exactly the intent of its architect and the railroad It is made of compressed brick and stone and cost, even back then, some $142,000.00. Hardly chump change. The amazing thing is how often the railroad was foreclosed on and put into receivership, and yet the trains ran, buildings like this one were constructed, locomotives and rolling stock were bought, then replaced by larger, stronger, faster types.
> 
> ...


If the article gave the date the Credit Union bought the build, I did not see it, but form things said, it had to be somewhere around 1985.. - OK, only one 5


----------



## Ryan (Oct 6, 2010)

19855? It's a train station! FROM THE FUTURE!!!


----------



## George Harris (Oct 6, 2010)

Ryan said:


> 19855? It's a train station! FROM THE FUTURE!!!


Now fixed. :blush:


----------



## henryj (Oct 7, 2010)

George Harris said:


> To all: I stand corrected. I know that when the Interamerican operated there was no station at the stop and that peple were basically dumped on the ground. A little research led me to: http://txtransportationmuseum.org/IGN.htm


George, thanks for the link. Lots of interesting information. Although I have seen the restored depot, I had no idea the decay it had fallen into nor how close we came to losing it or the amount of work it took to restore it. San Antonio is fortunate to have two of it's three stations still standing. Here in Houston we lost our best and most beautiful station in the 1960's when the SP sold it and they tore it down to build the downtown post office. Union station is of course now the entrance to the ball park. All we have is a little one room building the SP put up after the sale to service the still running Sunset Limited.........and after 50 something years it's still running.

http://www.epperts.com/lfa/BB67.html


----------



## daveyb99 (Oct 9, 2010)

George Harris said:


> There is no direct connection between either of the tracks that go north out of San Antonio and the east-west line on which the Amtrak Station is located that permits the Texas Eagle to move directly into and out of the Amtrak San Antonio station.
> 
> A little history:


THAT was about as painful as the actual maneuvers.


----------



## henryj (Oct 10, 2010)

Just wondering if anyone has actually read the Amtrak report in detail. I just glanced through it and found several glaring errors. For instance, in the Operations section on page 18 it states that the Sunset/Eagle train will be six cars long.....but it lists 7 cars for the consist. Two coaches, one baggage coach, one CCC, one Lounge, one trans-dorm and one sleeper. Seven. The stub train to New Orleans is to be three cars, coach, baggage coach and CCC. West of SAS there will be two engines run 'elephant style'(their term). At SAS the engines split with one on the Eagle and one on the stub train. No provisions is mentioned for when a train limps into SAS with a dead engine. Which train gets the good one. lol. On page 19 and again on page 20 it states that freed up assets includes five sleepers, yet elsewhere on page 3 it lists only four.

On page 32 it lists detailed passenger loadings (on and offs). Everywhere the Sunset/Eagle is going from three times a week to daily it shows huge percentage gains..........that is except for Lafayette, Lake Charles, New Iberia and Beaumont which show huge declines. what's up with that? Did they just get this backwards? It makes no sense. I tried looking at the financial aspect of all this, but Amtrak's numbers just make no sense to me. But really, doesn't anyone proof read these documents before they go public?

I am sure if you look at it some more you will find more discrepancies. It's really a pretty poor document for a major Federal agency, don't you think?


----------



## mfastx (Oct 10, 2010)

henryj said:


> On page 32 it lists detailed passenger loadings (on and offs). Everywhere the Sunset/Eagle is going from three times a week to daily it shows huge percentage gains..........that is except for Lafayette, Lake Charles, New Iberia and Beaumont which show huge declines. what's up with that? Did they just get this backwards?


I wonder if that has anything to do with the arrival/departure time for those cities. For example, there will probably be less passengers if boarding at 3:00 AM rather than the current time, which may be more convienent.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 10, 2010)

daveyb99 said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > There is no direct connection between either of the tracks that go north out of San Antonio and the east-west line on which the Amtrak Station is located that permits the Texas Eagle to move directly into and out of the Amtrak San Antonio station.
> ...


Just re-read what I wrote and found one glaring error which no one has called me on - yet: I stated that the Katy's Texas Special did not go through Dallas. Someone needs to slap me about 40 times with a mid 1950's Missouri-Kansas-Texas timetable. The Texas Special *DID* go through Dallas.

I was going to go back to my originla post and fix this error, but I can't. There must be some time limit on edits.


----------



## henryj (Oct 11, 2010)

mfastx said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > On page 32 it lists detailed passenger loadings (on and offs). Everywhere the Sunset/Eagle is going from three times a week to daily it shows huge percentage gains..........that is except for Lafayette, Lake Charles, New Iberia and Beaumont which show huge declines. what's up with that? Did they just get this backwards?
> ...


Those cities all board in daylight. They are on the stub train route. Yet that route shows increases for New Orleans, Houston and San Antonio but declines in all the local in between cities. It's just an error. They got the signs backwards.


----------



## henryj (Oct 11, 2010)

George Harris said:


> daveyb99 said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...



Actually I did mention it George back on page 2. You just missed it. _"The Texas Special however did go through Dallas. It split in Waco and sent a section through Fort Worth and one through Dallas. They recombined north of Dallas in Dennison. The MP Eagle San Antonio section however went north east through Hearne and hooked up with the Houston section at Palestine and the Dallas section in Longview."_


----------



## George Harris (Oct 11, 2010)

henryj said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to go back to my original post and fix this error, but I can't. There must be some time limit on edits.
> ...


True. I was attmpting to correct an error I made.


----------



## had8ley (Feb 10, 2011)

henryj said:


> Just wondering if anyone has actually read the Amtrak report in detail. I just glanced through it and found several glaring errors. For instance, in the Operations section on page 18 it states that the Sunset/Eagle train will be six cars long.....but it lists 7 cars for the consist. Two coaches, one baggage coach, one CCC, one Lounge, one trans-dorm and one sleeper. Seven. The stub train to New Orleans is to be three cars, coach, baggage coach and CCC. West of SAS there will be two engines run 'elephant style'(their term). At SAS the engines split with one on the Eagle and one on the stub train. No provisions is mentioned for when a train limps into SAS with a dead engine. Which train gets the good one. lol. On page 19 and again on page 20 it states that freed up assets includes five sleepers, yet elsewhere on page 3 it lists only four.
> 
> On page 32 it lists detailed passenger loadings (on and offs). Everywhere the Sunset/Eagle is going from three times a week to daily it shows huge percentage gains..........that is except for Lafayette, Lake Charles, New Iberia and Beaumont which show huge declines. what's up with that? Did they just get this backwards? It makes no sense. I tried looking at the financial aspect of all this, but Amtrak's numbers just make no sense to me. But really, doesn't anyone proof read these documents before they go public?
> 
> I am sure if you look at it some more you will find more discrepancies. It's really a pretty poor document for a major Federal agency, don't you think?


Hey it's called bureauracy;I just don't think Amtrak would be considered a "major" agency especially by many Republicans and a few Dems. Ten clowns sitting at a conference table texting their wives; ten assistants to get coffee and donuts; two scribes to take down anything of interest (one relieves the other) and a pay check for occupying space. It can't get any better than that!


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 10, 2011)

It can get better Jay! How bout when there's two engineers in the front where there usually is only one! Does that mean they get to take turns sleeping or have a few cold ones?? :lol:

(I know that usually there is either a trainee or the engineer is being qualified by the boss, just kidding Jay!  ) But you sure nailed the meeting scenario in Govt. offices!  The Stub train doesnt sound all that wonderful to me, I still think Alan B has it right about this plan, the stub train will probably disappear just like the Sunset East did! :angry2:


----------



## henryj (Feb 10, 2011)

jimhudson said:


> It can get better Jay! How bout when there's two engineers in the front where there usually is only one! Does that mean they get to take turns sleeping or have a few cold ones?? :lol:
> 
> (I know that usually there is either a trainee or the engineer is being qualified by the boss, just kidding Jay!  ) But you sure nailed the meeting scenario in Govt. offices!  The Stub train doesnt sound all that wonderful to me, I still think Alan B has it right about this plan, the stub train will probably disappear just like the Sunset East did! :angry2:


Jim, I personally think they are setting it up to demand state support east of San Antonio. The route will be under the 750 mile limit set by Congressional mandate. If Texas and Louisiana don't agree to support it, it's history.


----------



## had8ley (Feb 10, 2011)

henryj said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > It can get better Jay! How bout when there's two engineers in the front where there usually is only one! Does that mean they get to take turns sleeping or have a few cold ones?? :lol:
> ...


Jim; with Jindhal running all over the country campaigning for every one who asks :angry2: he did have time to turn down a proposal that both the mayors of Baton Rouge and New Orleans fully supported :angry2: ~ a train between the two cities to transport the displaced New Orleanians and get some of the traffic off of I-10. Then he didn't even apply for the high speed money :angry2: ~ so just how long do you think the stub train will last if it even rolls ??? I'm not grumpy tonight~ just wondering if the Sunset will die in SAS instead of NOL from now on. :angry2:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 10, 2011)

UP is asking for a ridiculous sum of money, so don't worry about it. It won't happen.


----------



## henryj (Feb 10, 2011)

They could make most of the improvements they proposed to the Sunset Limited right now at zero cost or actually at a positive return. They could change the schedule back to it's pre-katrina timings eastbound, eliminate the long layover in San Antonio and set up a bus connection to Phoenix that would probably make money. Eliminate the three day layover of equipment in New Orleans and the associated crew costs and eliminate the extra layover in Los Angeles and it's associated crew costs. That would free up at least one of the four sets of equipment for use elsewhere and result in more efficient use of crews and equipment. It would also give the eastbound train better timings out of San Antonio and through Houston. Why don't they just go ahead and make these changes? Daily service can just wait until they sort out the contract with the UP.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 10, 2011)

As much as I enjoy having Amtrak available to my city, if they were smart they'd probably cut the Texas Eagle off at Fort Worth and drop the Sunset Limited altogether. Once they did that they could focus on improving more important routes with the newly freed up hardware and staff.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 11, 2011)

I tend to disagree...though I will say that I'm not opposed to the concept of some sort of consolidation of the services in the SW, I think that scrapping virtually all service in Texas is a bad move. Congressional mandate notwithstanding, it would make more sense to kill the Cardinal for redundancy, but I'm iffy on both prospects. Of course, the equipment shortages are a perpetual problem...and will likely continue to be.


----------



## henryj (Feb 11, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Of course, the equipment shortages are a perpetual problem...and will likely continue to be.


Part of the equipment problem is just inefficient use by Amtrak itself. When the current Sunset Limited gets to New Orleans the equipment just sits there for three days before returning because they have never revised the schedule since they suspended service to Florida. They should either reinstate Florida service or change the schedule. In Los Angeles the same thing happens because the westbound morning arrival and mid-afternoon departure does not allow enough time to turn the train so the arriving set sits around until the next tri-weekly departure. This ties up four sets of equipment when three would do. Amtrak also has to pay the crews to sit around for that three days and put them up in a hotel somewhere. Most of the changes Amtrak proposed in the PIP on the Sunset could be done now to the existing train, yet they sit around doing nothing. As for the proposal to just eliminate the Sunset and Cardinal, well you could say that about almost any of the long distance trains as they all loose money. However, eliminating all service to Texas would be a bad idea with Texas being the second most populous state and have a lot of votes in Congress. Amtrak would have established a permanent and powerful enemy to it's existance.


----------



## Palmland (Feb 11, 2011)

Good analysis, henryj. Amtrak is good at doing studies, but not so much at implementing changes. Before going public, Amtrak should have first negotiated with UP on what was feasible on TE/Sunset changes. If their plan is good, why don't they implement it, just make it 3 days a week on the Sunset portions? If nothing else, it will show if there is a market for a daylight train across Texas.


----------



## had8ley (Feb 11, 2011)

I have 2 questions for those in the know. What if the Sunset stub was piggybacked to the original routing to Orlando; wouldn't this put it over the 750 mile cap for a LD train eliminating the need for Texas and Louisisiana to pony up $$$ ??? Secondly, is my interpretation of a "diner-lounge" is a CCC correct ?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 11, 2011)

had8ley said:


> I have 2 questions for those in the know. What if the Sunset stub was piggybacked to the original routing to Orlando; wouldn't this put it over the 750 mile cap for a LD train eliminating the need for Texas and Louisisiana to pony up $$$ ??? Secondly, is my interpretation of a "diner-lounge" is a CCC correct ?


:hi: Excellent idea Jay! (means it wont happen when the suits meet in DC!  )Id bet my pension that the CCC will be exactly what the stub train will have, perhaps they could reconfigure them to be more of a lounge instead of a diner/lounge as is the current set up, making it neither feast nor fowl as the old saying goes! Personally with UP being the landlord dont see this happening soon, if ever! :help:


----------



## bretton88 (Feb 11, 2011)

It can happen, easy. Amtrak takes it to the Surface Transportation Board to force UP to host the service. Granted, this is a recipe that won't earn Amtrak any friends in the Class 1 RRs.


----------

