# Yes Virginia there may be a Sunset Limited running east of New Orleans



## had8ley (Apr 29, 2009)

Just received a letter dated 4/28 from Thomas L.Stennis~ Director, Government Affairs South, for Amtrak. He states that a committee was formed and came to the following conclusions concerning the eastbound service of the Sunset Ltd.; 1. Operate the train the same as pre-Katrina.

2. Operate the City of New Orleans through New Orleans, on a daily basis, to Orlando and lastly; 3. a stand alone train running at night between New Orleans and Orlando. He goes on to say that these scenarios, and the associated costs, will be presented to Congress on or before July 16th. Let's keep our fingers crossed that service will start soon after.


----------



## wayman (Apr 29, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Just received a letter dated 4/28 from Thomas L.Stennis~ Director, Government Affairs South, for Amtrak. He states that a committee was formed and came to the following conclusions concerning the eastbound service of the Sunset Ltd.; 1. Operate the train the same as pre-Katrina.2. Operate the City of New Orleans through New Orleans, on a daily basis, to Orlando and lastly; a stand alone train running at night between New Orleans and Orlando. He goes on to say that these scenarios, and the associated costs, will be presented to Congress on or before July 16th. Let's keep our fingers crossed that service will start soon after.


I like the one-seat-ride from Chicago idea!


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Apr 29, 2009)

Here's the old SL schedule from Fall/Winter 1999/2000, before much of the crazy padding was added...note the shorter running time between NOL and ORL, and fairly reasonable times for all cities between NOL and MOE, compared to what was the norm in the early 00's.

Sunset Limited 99/00

I'm still a fan of a full seperate train NOL-ORL but I like the idea of a through coach and sleeper from the CONO, similar to the TE/SL combination in SAS.


----------



## MattW (Apr 29, 2009)

While I love the addition or re-addition of a new route or extension of an existing route, I would have to disagree with the CHI-ORL via NOL train. Sure it may work, but Georgia needs some sort of service and an ORL-ATL-CHI route makes sense since it picks up both the CHI markets and ATL markets instead of running over existing markets down to Florida.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Apr 29, 2009)

Rats though I mean the CONO rooms were a steal but with new service the price will only rise.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 29, 2009)

MattW said:


> While I love the addition or re-addition of a new route or extension of an existing route, I would have to disagree with the CHI-ORL via NOL train. Sure it may work, but Georgia needs some sort of service and an ORL-ATL-CHI route makes sense since it picks up both the CHI markets and ATL markets instead of running over existing markets down to Florida.


The restoration or alternatives being discusses are relatively cheap.

To do a Chicago - Atlanta - Florida train on a decently fast and reliable schedule would cost megabucks. Remember, the most reliable and best used of the old Chicago to Florida trains was the City of Miami that did not go through Atlanta, and it cannot be resurrected as portions of its route have been abandoned and other portions are now low speed short lines. The one of the "fast three" that did go through Atlanta died pre 1960. Its route is all still there, and all now CSX, but it is highly congested and would need a lot of curve straightening to be reasonably fast even if uncongested. Sooooo: Unless someone has a pipeline into large amounts of cash, there will not be any Chicago to Atlanta train.

Not that I don't want to see trains on this route. I have always thought that if a 12 to 14 hour Chicago-Atlanta schedule could be achieved in the 1950's that a heavily used day train and overnight train would both have done well and probably lasted to A-day with one or more being carried forward.


----------



## Rail Freak (Apr 29, 2009)

My Prayers may have been answered!!!! 

RF


----------



## Greg (Apr 29, 2009)

had8ley said:


> Just received a letter dated 4/28 from Thomas L.Stennis~ Director, Government Affairs South, for Amtrak. He states that a committee was formed and came to the following conclusions concerning the eastbound service of the Sunset Ltd.; 1. Operate the train the same as pre-Katrina.2. Operate the City of New Orleans through New Orleans, on a daily basis, to Orlando and lastly; a stand alone train running at night between New Orleans and Orlando. He goes on to say that these scenarios, and the associated costs, will be presented to Congress on or before July 16th. Let's keep our fingers crossed that service will start soon after.



I hope your final 5 words are epiphinal!! We've been waiting so long and I'd love a long weekend trip to NOLA from TLH by train!!!!


----------



## Sam31452 (Apr 29, 2009)

The Sunset Ltd would really have altered my travel plans for summer. I would have gont NYP-SAV-ORL-NOL-LAX. Now i'm going

NYP-CHS-SAV-BAL-(a few stations in between including SEA)-LAX-CHI-NOL.

A connection between Florida and New Orleans does make sense, even if it's only running 3 days a week.


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED01 (Apr 29, 2009)

Me and several friends have been waiting four years for this. This is the moment of truth here guys. Sunset Limited is a train I'm personally been waiting for a long time. I've never seen it before except for multiple videos and photos taken oof the train in Florida. By the way guys I don't normally go off topic, but aren't they also restoring the Pioneer and Desert Wind as well?


----------



## Greg (Apr 29, 2009)

maybe we should all email our congresscritters now asking for their support in resumption of this service due to the imminent release of Amtrak's recommendations.


----------



## had8ley (Apr 29, 2009)

Greg said:


> maybe we should all email our congresscritters now asking for their support in resumption of this service due to the imminent release of Amtrak's recommendations.


Great suggestion. Not to say that almost four years of reminders have been crossing their desks on a daily basis.


----------



## Guest_Ben_* (Apr 29, 2009)

The only difference I see between the three options is that options 1 and 2 let passengers "sit through" NO, while option 3 forces passengers to transfer. All the options have trains leaving NO in the late afternoon and arriving in Orlando the next day. I assume a similar run westbound for the options. Other than that, all these options are basically the same service. Wouldn't it make sense to keep the train as it was, since more passengers go east of NO from the Sunset than the City of NO? As I understand it, many people traveled through NO on the Sunset. It would be wise to let the train go through NO so they wouldn't have to transfer. Timekeeping has turned around, so that shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Apr 30, 2009)

Guest_Ben_* said:


> The only difference I see between the three options is that options 1 and 2 let passengers "sit through" NO, while option 3 forces passengers to transfer. All the options have trains leaving NO in the late afternoon and arriving in Orlando the next day. I assume a similar run westbound for the options. Other than that, all these options are basically the same service. Wouldn't it make sense to keep the train as it was, since more passengers go east of NO from the Sunset than the City of NO? As I understand it, many people traveled through NO on the Sunset. It would be wise to let the train go through NO so they wouldn't have to transfer. Timekeeping has turned around, so that shouldn't be an issue.


When I took the Sunset between Jacksonville and New Orleans and vv, there were always lots of passengers connecting to and from the CNO to Chicago and other midwest points. The westbound Sunset was usually not more than an hour late into New Orleans so it usually had a good conection to the northbound CNO. Southbound CNO to Eastbound Sunset was another story because the Sunset often ran very late. Quite a few passengers would take the Capital LTD/Sliver Star from Chicago to Florida points via Washington and return by the Sunset/CNO to avoid the delay in New Orleans ]


----------



## gswager (Apr 30, 2009)

I am curious if that SL route has extended. Will New Orleans station handle the capacity for passengers during layover?


----------



## AlanB (Apr 30, 2009)

gswager said:


> I am curious if that SL route has extended. Will New Orleans station handle the capacity for passengers during layover?


If the Sunset is reextended east of NOL, the the passengers that are on the train into NOL will just remain on the train. A few curious might decide to go into the station depending on just how long the layover is, but many won't.

If they don't extend the Sunset east, but instead choose one of the other options, then things would get a bit more interesting. The station itself has the capacity for the passengers, the problem would be with the Magnolia Room, the first class lounge. That doesn't have the capacity.


----------



## VentureForth (Apr 30, 2009)

I would love to see a high quality, first rate, Empire-esque Flagship of the South. LA to Orlando by train, able to stick to its schedule, no more than an hour and a half layover anywhere.

You'd think Disney would be all over this! Disney to Disney service!


----------



## GG-1 (Apr 30, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> I would love to see a high quality, first rate, Empire-esque Flagship of the South. LA to Orlando by train, able to stick to its schedule, no more than an hour and a half layover anywhere.
> You'd think Disney would be all over this! Disney to Disney service!


Aloha

Na Disney would not benefit, How many would have the time to visit both parks plus the cross country train. the best gain for disney would be gtting the southern rout to Orlando for those passengers.

Now having said no to that kind of trip, I would do it just to do it, assuming I wone a lottery, gues it may be time to buy a ticket.


----------



## the_traveler (Apr 30, 2009)

AlanB said:


> gswager said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious if that SL route has extended. Will New Orleans station handle the capacity for passengers during layover?
> ...


I agree. I took the SL way back when it ran straight thru - and went from LAX to JAX. Last month was the first time I was inside NOL! :blink: I'm sure there are many other passengers like me. (As far as NOL, I mean! Nobody is as crazy as I am!  )


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Apr 30, 2009)

the_traveler said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > gswager said:
> ...


The closest I think I ever was to being inside NOL was watching archive stuff on the History Channel or something... Some day I plan on going down to see if I can stir up any trouble, but until then I guess I have to stay north of the Mason-Dixon line.


----------



## Chatter163 (Apr 30, 2009)

> He goes on to say that these scenarios, and the associated costs, will be presented to Congress on or before July 16th. Let's keep our fingers crossed that service will start soon after.


Considering that Congress is not even in session at that time, I would not keep them crossed for too long.


----------



## Larry H. (Apr 30, 2009)

Personally living along the CNO line I was quite interested to read the Newsletter this week that talked about this idea. I didn't think that Amtrak would actually be considering this quickly. One thing I would add if at all possible is that the branch off the CNO that was called the River cities connecting at Centralia Il and on to St. Louis and Kansas City was a good one, but if I were wishing for the most ideal extension I would opt for it to go on to Omaha thus connecting people in Denver and west to a shorter route to both missouri destinations as well as on to florida avoiding going all the way into Chicago. Plus it would add access to the CZ from St. Louis and Kansas City as well. That would do quite a bit to enhance the system. Well while were at it why not run that connecting train on to New York giving the Mid West a real chance to go east without spending days out of there way in travel. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Rail Freak (Apr 30, 2009)

There goes the SDL LOOP, but who cares!


----------



## saxman (May 1, 2009)

Someone want to add a poll to this thread. I'd like to see what us at AU think is the best option.

I'm kind of torn between getting the Sunset back as it were or extending the CONO. I think it should definitely be daily. I have no doubt that a same seat Chicago to Florida train would do very well, and when you have the benefit of a same day connection from the western part of the Sunset to have even more connections. I think a through Chicago-Florida train would probably make more revenue than a California-Florida train. Well actually I'm not really sure.

But here an idea...take a sleeper and a coach from the CONO and tack it on to the eastbound Sunset. That would make a same seat service for both trains! Or something to that effect. But of course what happens on days the Sunset isn't running? Something to ponder about....


----------



## manchacrr (May 1, 2009)

AlanB said:


> gswager said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious if that SL route has extended. Will New Orleans station handle the capacity for passengers during layover?
> ...


This past weekend I went to New Orleans for Jazz Fest and to pick up some tickets. I was speaking with one of the station agents and they said that they were planning on expanding the Magnolia Room. It seems that there are some recently vacated Amtrak offices behind the lounge. These offices have apparently been moved to another area in the station.


----------



## AlanB (May 1, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> Someone want to add a poll to this thread. I'd like to see what us at AU think is the best option.


Done!


----------



## AlanB (May 1, 2009)

trainman668 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > gswager said:
> ...


That's very good to hear.


----------



## had8ley (May 1, 2009)

Chatter163 said:


> > He goes on to say that these scenarios, and the associated costs, will be presented to Congress on or before July 16th. Let's keep our fingers crossed that service will start soon after.
> 
> 
> Considering that Congress is not even in session at that time, I would not keep them crossed for too long.


Not to fret~ I won't be standing on Track #6 platform with my bags packed on July 17th. Do you ever stop to think that this is possibly an Amtrak stall tactic to add to the almost four years of "We don't have a Mobile station so we can't run a train?" I'll take all bets that this proposal WON'T be presented until Congress is home eating watermelon and kissing babies for the 4th of July recess. IF we get service by the first of next year I, for one, will be amazed.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (May 1, 2009)

Well there will at least be some studies! How could we do anyhing with out an in depth study!


----------



## Larry H. (May 1, 2009)

I just sent off a note to our Senator Durbin who is normally a real Amtrak Booster. I outlined the early results of this poll and gave him my suggestion for extending the River Cities into either Omaha or Denver, and perhaps on to New York, Washington. What a difference that couple things could make.


----------



## cpamtfan (May 1, 2009)

I think if you timed everything right, you could have a seperate train, except on three days it would use Superliner equipment (ala CONO) and four times with single level (when running it with single level equipment, extension to Miami) using Silver Service/Crescent equipment.

cpamtfan-Peter


----------



## had8ley (May 1, 2009)

I just voted in the poll. I must say that the City thru to Orlando makes a lot of sense IF there are proper connections with the Crescent and Sunset. The most important aspect of this is daily LD service which would hopefully show Amtrak that tri-weekly service is a bean counters worst idea. Also, the IC/CN provided excellent OTP's even during boom times as opposed to the UP's devastating side tracking of the Sunset at almost every opportunity. I'm not poo-pooing any idea to go east of NOL but to trust the UP again would be equivalent to buying the Brooklyn Bridge.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 1, 2009)

I'm not a fan of extending the CONO. I happen to like the current setup... regarding that train specifically. But it seems to be the most logical of the three choices.

EDIT: I would be a fan of a train 590 and 580 or something to that would help separate the pax-- otherwise you're going to deal with higher room prices and such.. You'd need to add cars to the consist anyway...


----------



## printman2000 (May 1, 2009)

Extending the CONO would really need to have a lounge back and get a real dining car back.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 1, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Extending the CONO would really need to have a lounge back and get a real dining car back.


Yeah. And from what I've heard the CCC on the CONO has been more or less well received-- but that CCC couldn't handle more pax... and yes a sightseer would be needed. But I can't justify a diner and a CCC and a sightseer-- one of them has to go.


----------



## printman2000 (May 1, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Extending the CONO would really need to have a lounge back and get a real dining car back.
> ...


That is what I meant. Exchange the CCC for a dining car.


----------



## AlanB (May 1, 2009)

had8ley said:


> I'm not poo-pooing any idea to go east of NOL but to trust the UP again would be equivalent to buying the Brooklyn Bridge.


Actually with the legislation that was passed near the end of last year, one doesn't need to worry quite so much about UP. The new rules and fines that the FRA is now able to impose will help keep UP in line.


----------



## MattW (May 1, 2009)

I had to vote with stand alone overnight (daily). If Atlanta's going to get another train sometime in the next century, it might as well go CHI-ATL-ORL and maybe MIA. CHI-NOL-ORL would basically prevent this.


----------



## jis (May 1, 2009)

AlanB said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not poo-pooing any idea to go east of NOL but to trust the UP again would be equivalent to buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
> ...


I may be wrong in my recollection, but isn't it the Surf-Board (STB) that is the primary body that handles action against operating railroads that fail to stay within the operating parameters for Amtrak trains set by the act late last year?


----------



## saxman (May 1, 2009)

MattW said:


> I had to vote with stand alone overnight (daily). If Atlanta's going to get another train sometime in the next century, it might as well go CHI-ATL-ORL and maybe MIA. CHI-NOL-ORL would basically prevent this.


How would that prevent ATL not getting additional service ever? Even if there were CHI-ATL-FL service it is probably still years away due to track condition. So adding extending CONO service to Florida, IMHO, would not prevent future ATL service.



had8ley said:


> I must say that the City thru to Orlando makes a lot of sense IF there are proper connections with the Crescent and Sunset.


How would it be able to get a same day Crescent connection? Right now it gets into NOL late in the evening and leaves early in the morning. I've pondered several scenarios of making a same day connection from the Crescent to the Sunset, but can't seem to come up with any without messing up another connection on the other end. If it leaves NOL after the Sunset arrives in the late afternoon, you'd miss the connection to the Capitol Ltd in DC. If the Sunset left later, you'd mess up Texas Eagle connections. Of course all this would be solved by two daily trains, but hey...I'm trying to be realistic.


----------



## MattW (May 1, 2009)

Simple, I've discovered that politicians look at a small part of the big picture even IF they look at the "big picture." A politician's going to see Midwesterners gong to Florida, not the communities (including Atlanta) in between. So if you already have direct CHI-Florida service, a politician's not going to give as much thought to a CHI-ATL-Florida service as the endpoints are the same.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 2, 2009)

A stand-alone train might be nice-- but in all fairness there needs to be service along the Gulf Coast more than there needs to be another CHI-ATL-ORL train. I would support a 'stand alone' but not as an overnight, unless you can it on a weird routing. I think a day train would be more appropriate if it can make the proper connections. Then again, I wouldn't want this to turn into another Silver Palm gone Palmetto.... Perhaps the original Sunset is the best--


----------



## George Harris (May 2, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> How would it be able to get a same day Crescent connection? Right now it gets into NOL late in the evening and leaves early in the morning. I've pondered several scenarios of making a same day connection from the Crescent to the Sunset, but can't seem to come up with any without messing up another connection on the other end.


Dedicated bus between Mobile AL and Meridian MS. Straight up US 45, 135 miles, less than 3 hours.


----------



## saxman (May 2, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> A stand-alone train might be nice-- but in all fairness there needs to be service along the Gulf Coast more than there needs to be another CHI-ATL-ORL train. I would support a 'stand alone' but not as an overnight, unless you can it on a weird routing. I think a day train would be more appropriate if it can make the proper connections. Then again, I wouldn't want this to turn into another Silver Palm gone Palmetto.... Perhaps the original Sunset is the best--


A day train would break the connections from the CONO and the current Sunset Ltd, because it would probably have to leave early in the morning from NOL and arriving wouldn't get there until in the evening. I don't think an overnight train is such a bad thing.



George Harris said:


> Dedicated bus between Mobile AL and Meridian MS. Straight up US 45, 135 miles, less than 3 hours.


Ok, yeah that would solve it going connecting to the eastern route, but what if I come down the Crescent and continue westbound?


----------



## had8ley (May 2, 2009)

AlanB said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not poo-pooing any idea to go east of NOL but to trust the UP again would be equivalent to buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
> ...


Not to trump you Alan but I've been party to an FRA hearing where a high six figure fine to the UP was whittled down to $1,500 by UP lawyers. I'd trust a python in my pants pocket before I'd even consider trusting a UP lawyer.


----------



## henryj (May 2, 2009)

The way I see this is it really comes down to equpment availability. Right now the EB Sunset train set sits in New Orleans for three days before returning west. That set is the one that went on to Orlando. Amtrak could restore service east of NOL immediately if you returned to the pre-Katrina schedule, but only for three days a week. This might be the best thing to do in the short term. To extend the CONO on to Orlando would take two more sets of equipment which Amtrak doesn't have. The Sunset has four sets of equipment dedicated to the service now. It would take seven to make it daily to Orlando, or five to make it daily to New Orleans with a connecting train between New Orleans and Orlando. If you use a connecting train it could be anything Amtrak could dredge up, probably single level equipment. Any service between New Orleans and JAX/ORL is going to be an overnight train in order to make connections in New Orleans. So the next phase might be a daily Sunset LAX to NOL with connecting service to Florida as this would only require one more set of Superliner equipment with a phase three being a through daily Superliner Sunset. Extending the CONO is an interesting option. It depends on how many people would really travel through on an extended CONO. Perhaps a through car or two would be an option. Amtrak complains about the long route for a Sunset running between LAX and ORL which is 2,759 miles. However, the Texas Eagle LAX to CHI is 2,728 miles and they don't complain about that one. Really this all boils down to politics and equipment. Who has the most influence and what equipment is available.


----------



## WICT106 (May 2, 2009)

I'm inclined to agree with other posters here who state that it should be some sort of stand-alone train, with connecting service at both New Orleans and Jacksonville or Orlando. I feel apprehensive about the ability of the train to keep its schedule if it becomes part of a longer distance run. I also think that it should be twice per day each way operation, or two frequencies per day. Once per day just is inconvenient, unless you're located at one of the "Sweet Spots" of the Builder's schedule (as I am).


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 3, 2009)

had8ley said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > had8ley said:
> ...


Each time they go through the court system, the precedent adds to the case. It won't stay that low for long.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 3, 2009)

from reports from the beach grove meeting. no Virgina these is no sunset limited east of NO or west either.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (May 3, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Not to mention UP has to pay these layers 6 figures and each time they get a case they usually have to cough up something more-- the more legal battles UP has to go through, the more money it costs them in the long run.


----------



## had8ley (May 4, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > had8ley said:
> ...


I totally agree; but the UP has more lawyers on full time staff, biting at the bit to save "their" RR's $$$ than some LD trains carry pax. I watched their ways for many a year~ they honestly would drag six lawyers into court with them than in order to avoid paying a legitimate injury claim. Delaying Amtrak is like swatting a mosquito to them at the present time. Hopefully, the new regs will ring their bell.


----------



## VentureForth (May 4, 2009)

I thought CSX, not UP, controlled the SSL tracks East of New Orleans.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 4, 2009)

They do. But the problem in the past was that UP would have delivered the train onto CSX's tracks hours late. CSX is pretty good working with on-time, in-block Amtrak trains. They are not creative or dynamic, and when a train comes in outside of its block, it becomes a pariah and gets increasingly delayed. This contrasts with, say, BNSF which is often helpful with helping delayed Amtrak trains make up time. More over, CSX gave the go ahead years ago.

So despite the ownership of the tracks, the main impediment to SSL OTP is UP, on both sides of NOL. It was the OTP and resultant money pit that made Amtrak not want to restore the train once given an excuse to cancel it. That would be one advantage of a CHI-SAS, SAS-NOL, and CHI-NOL-ORL trio of trains- it would avoid having the UP-CSX handoff. The hand-off would be CN-CSX with most everything else being on the UP, atleast south of Temple.

As much as I hate to say goodbye to a grand old name like _Sunset Limited_, I think this arrangement makes a hell of a lot more sense. Besides, the Amtrak Sunset Limited was a disgrace to the name- even SP had the grace to drop "Limited" from its name when they downgraded it.


----------



## jis (May 5, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> As much as I hate to say goodbye to a grand old name like _Sunset Limited_, I think this arrangement makes a hell of a lot more sense. Besides, the Amtrak Sunset Limited was a disgrace to the name- even SP had the grace to drop "Limited" from its name when they downgraded it.


Yes. _The Golden State_ would be a fine name for the new train. All that I would suggest is that concurrently the Heartland Flyer be extended from Fort Worth to College Station - Houston connecting with the _Golden State_ in Forth Worth in both directions. I know. I know crazy radical idea. But what the hey! Just needs one more set of a couple of Super Coaches and perhaps a CCC of which we have too many floating around anyway. It is the connectedness of the network that makes it more useful and hence brings more passengers to the system


----------



## Guest to your site (May 5, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> They do. But the problem in the past was that UP would have delivered the train onto CSX's tracks hours late. CSX is pretty good working with on-time, in-block Amtrak trains. They are not creative or dynamic, and when a train comes in outside of its block, it becomes a pariah and gets increasingly delayed. This contrasts with, say, BNSF which is often helpful with helping delayed Amtrak trains make up time. More over, CSX gave the go ahead years ago.
> So despite the ownership of the tracks, the main impediment to SSL OTP is UP, on both sides of NOL. It was the OTP and resultant money pit that made Amtrak not want to restore the train once given an excuse to cancel it. That would be one advantage of a CHI-SAS, SAS-NOL, and CHI-NOL-ORL trio of trains- it would avoid having the UP-CSX handoff. The hand-off would be CN-CSX with most everything else being on the UP, atleast south of Temple.
> 
> As much as I hate to say goodbye to a grand old name like _Sunset Limited_, I think this arrangement makes a hell of a lot more sense. Besides, the Amtrak Sunset Limited was a disgrace to the name- even SP had the grace to drop "Limited" from its name when they downgraded it.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 5, 2009)

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I hate to say goodbye to a grand old name like _Sunset Limited_, I think this arrangement makes a hell of a lot more sense. Besides, the Amtrak Sunset Limited was a disgrace to the name- even SP had the grace to drop "Limited" from its name when they downgraded it.
> ...


I'd imagine you could fill 2 coaches with HOS and NOL bound passengers alone...plus some connections east of NOL (easier doing FTW-HOS-NOL-ORL than it is doing FTW-CHI-WAS-ORL) on top of that. Not sure about the track situation between DAL and HOS nowadays though, but on paper it makes sense.


----------



## printman2000 (May 5, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Dallas-Houston needs high speed rail. I suspect it would be very much used.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 5, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Yes it does...I was surprised when I didn't see it on the proposed national HSR network map.


----------



## p&sr (May 5, 2009)

jis said:


> _The Golden State_ would be a fine name for the new train.


How about, "The Golden Sunset"?


----------



## saxman (May 5, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > NativeSon5859 said:
> ...


It is proposed in the proposed Texas T-Bone HSR project. The bottom of the T will split off from Temple and go to Houston.

http://www.thsrtc.com/


----------



## VentureForth (May 6, 2009)

Rumor has it that Southwest Airlines has been a HUGE lobbyist against any sort of meaningful high speed rail. After all, they are essentially a railroad that has taken to the skies. An HSR system would GREATLY impact Southwest's market share.

As many times as I used to travel down I-35 between Dallas and San Antonio, and the few times I would go between Dallas and Houston on I-45, the benefit was always obvious.

Just try to wrangle land using imminent domain for a high speed rail corridor from landowners in Texas.

Before the T-Bone project, the Texas Triangle was proposed. It would have built a triangle between Dallas, San Antonion and Houston back up to Dallas. Any HS corridor in TX that includes El Paso would be greatly opposed due to the huge amount of infrastructure to service one major city. With just about nothing between San Antonio and El Paso, it's a different ball game than the highly congested I-35 and I-10 corridors.

Lubbock, Amarillo, Midland, Odessa and Abilene are the only other large cities West of the Ft. Worth/San Antonio line, but they are not in any sort of decent alignment.

Who put all these cities in these dumb places anyway? Ugh.


----------



## printman2000 (May 6, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


Yeah, but it was not included in the proposed national map that came out. I still think the T-bone thing is stupid. They should directly connect DFW and Houston and T-bone off to San Antonio.


----------



## VentureForth (May 6, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Yeah, but it was not included in the proposed national map that came out. I still think the T-bone thing is stupid. They should directly connect DFW and Houston and T-bone off to San Antonio.


Can't really do that. The route between DFW & San Antonio is MUCH more densely populated with multiple population centers served, including the State Capital. Keep in mind that rail is extraordinarily expensive (which I still can't figure out) and its success as a passenger option must be in direct competition (or congetion aleviation) to other modes of transit, ie: I-35.

I think that a practical routing would be San Antonio with alternate trains serving Dallas and Ft. Worth - NOT going through one to get to the other (that already exists with the TRE). Additional route would be from Austin to Houston. Most trains from Houston would term in Austin, where you can then decide to go to San Antonio, Dallas or Ft Worth. This is completely doable if you're on your own ROW and don't have to have your route depend on the freights. Obviously the disadvantage would be Houston straight to Dallas.

What makes my suggestion even possible is that you can almost paint a straight line from Houston to Austin without having to serve intermediate towns. Same with San Antonio to Austin to Temple to Dallas (or Ft Worth). Problem with Dallas to Houston is the mega void inbetween (except College Station).


----------



## printman2000 (May 6, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but it was not included in the proposed national map that came out. I still think the T-bone thing is stupid. They should directly connect DFW and Houston and T-bone off to San Antonio.
> ...


I believe (though no evidence) that the most used corridor would be DFW-Houston. I know so many people that make that trip weekly or more. It has to be direct or Southwest Airlines will continue to carry all that traffic and rail will never compete. No one is going all the way to Austin to get to DFW.


----------



## henryj (May 6, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but it was not included in the proposed national map that came out. I still think the T-bone thing is stupid. They should directly connect DFW and Houston and T-bone off to San Antonio.
> ...


The line to Austin from Houston was abandoned in the 1960's. You can't get there from here. Houston to Dallas was served by two railroads, the Southern Pacific and the Burlington/RI joint line. The SP ran the Sunbeam in 4hrs25min with one stop over 264 miles. The Burlington ran the Sam Houston Zephyr in about 4hrs on a route of 249.6 miles. Both routes still exist and are in decent shape. All it takes to resume service is the will to do it by TXDOT and Amtrak. Amtrak ran an extension of the Eagle on the SP route for a few years, but they took 6 hours to make the trip and the train did not last. No one is going to utilize a train that takes more than 4 hours when SWA offers hourly service and gets you there in a hour. So a train detouring through Temple or San Antonio to get to DFW is useless.


----------



## jis (May 7, 2009)

Amtrak has run a Fort Worth Houston service in two incarnations both via Temple.

The first was the Texas Chief which took 6:35 for the run stopping at Cleburne, McGregor, Temple and Bellville Yard on the way. This was circa 1972 and until the Texas Chief died.

After the death of Texas Chief, Amtrak ran a section of the Inter-American from Fort Worth to Texas which took 7:25, stopping at Cleburne, McGregor, Temple, Brenham, Rosenberg. This was circa 1980.

After the Inter-American died, Amtrak ran a section of the tri-weekly Texas Eagle from Dallas to Houston which took 6:10, and had stops at Corsicana and College Station on the way. This was circa 1990.

The Houston section was withdrawn sometime in the early 90s


----------



## VentureForth (May 7, 2009)

henryj said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > printman2000 said:
> ...


Of course not. My plan is if Texas can pull off their intrastate HSR project, a standard guage, electrified, newest technology steel wheel passenger only ROW that is rated to 180 MPH or higher (ie: Shinkansen, TGV) could, indeed, get to there from here. My preliminary estimations would guess that on 180 MPH line, averaging 150 MPH, you could go from Houston to Austin to Dallas in 2:36. That's about an hour and a half longer than SWA, but when you figure the waiting room, etc., you're probably 1/2 hour delta. San Antonio to Dallas could be done in 1:50. It's bold, but doable in my opinion.

All Amtrak has to do is connect El Paso to the rest of the mess and tie Texas to the Nation.


----------



## printman2000 (May 7, 2009)

jis said:


> Amtrak has run a Fort Worth Houston service in two incarnations both via Temple.
> The first was the Texas Chief which took 6:35 for the run stopping at Cleburne, McGregor, Temple and Bellville Yard on the way. This was circa 1972 and until the Texas Chief died.
> 
> After the death of Texas Chief, Amtrak ran a section of the Inter-American from Fort Worth to Texas which took 7:25, stopping at Cleburne, McGregor, Temple, Brenham, Rosenberg. This was circa 1980.
> ...


Did the Houston section of the Eagle actually stop in Fort Worth? I rode it once and I remember they combined the two sections in Dallas. I don't recall if we stopped in Fort Worth or not.


----------



## printman2000 (May 7, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Of course not. My plan is if Texas can pull off their intrastate HSR project, a standard guage, electrified, newest technology steel wheel passenger only ROW that is rated to 180 MPH or higher (ie: Shinkansen, TGV) could, indeed, get to there from here. My preliminary estimations would guess that on 180 MPH line, averaging 150 MPH, you could go from Houston to Austin to Dallas in 2:36. That's about an hour and a half longer than SWA, but when you figure the waiting room, etc., you're probably 1/2 hour delta. San Antonio to Dallas could be done in 1:50. It's bold, but doable in my opinion.
> All Amtrak has to do is connect El Paso to the rest of the mess and tie Texas to the Nation.


Okay, if that route can really be done in 2:36 (Houston-Dallas) and does not require a train change in Austin, then that amount of time is competitive.

I still believe, though, you would get a lot more use with a straight shot (and less time). And I would bet it would be the most used corridor of any in Texas.


----------



## henryj (May 7, 2009)

jis said:


> Amtrak has run a Fort Worth Houston service in two incarnations both via Temple.
> The first was the Texas Chief which took 6:35 for the run stopping at Cleburne, McGregor, Temple and Bellville Yard on the way. This was circa 1972 and until the Texas Chief died.
> 
> After the death of Texas Chief, Amtrak ran a section of the Inter-American from Fort Worth to Texas which took 7:25, stopping at Cleburne, McGregor, Temple, Brenham, Rosenberg. This was circa 1980.
> ...


The successor to the Texas Chief was Amtrak's Lone Star which became a victim of the Jimmy Carter masacre. At that time they threw Houston a bone by sending a piece of the Inter-American from Temple to Houston. That did not last long. After a gap of several years they tried sending a branch of the Eagle from Dallas to Houston using the old SP route and it took maybe 6 hours. That also did not last. The Texas Chief/Lone Star route through Fort Worth, OKC, KC to Chicago was a popular one, but it did not serve the Houston-Dallas market. None of the others ever caught on.

Now of course Houston has a thru-way bus connection to the Eagle at Longview. Seems appropriate for a city of 5 million people don't you think?


----------



## VentureForth (May 7, 2009)

Longview is just about as close to Houston as Austin is... 

A lot of Houston's problems are Houston's alone. They've chosen not to support rail and they've chosen to put in a half-butt light rail disaster and they've chosen to spend their money on three huge loops around the city.

They're sleeping in the bed they made.


----------



## VentureForth (May 7, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Of course not. My plan is if Texas can pull off their intrastate HSR project, a standard guage, electrified, newest technology steel wheel passenger only ROW that is rated to 180 MPH or higher (ie: Shinkansen, TGV) could, indeed, get to there from here. My preliminary estimations would guess that on 180 MPH line, averaging 150 MPH, you could go from Houston to Austin to Dallas in 2:36. That's about an hour and a half longer than SWA, but when you figure the waiting room, etc., you're probably 1/2 hour delta. San Antonio to Dallas could be done in 1:50. It's bold, but doable in my opinion.
> ...


Again, though, the problem is that it can only serve Dallas and Houston. I'm not aware of any high speed city pairs that are the only stations on the route. There are no intermediate population centers that could benefit (except perhaps College Station). Routing it through Austin would now immediately pick up San Antonio, Austin, Temple, Waco, Dallas and Ft Worth with just one train change.


----------



## printman2000 (May 7, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


Running right up I45 hits Spring (The Woodlands), Conroe, Huntsville, Corsicana. Not huge places, but places that would benefit.

I am not saying there should not also be a San Antonio-DFW corrider, I just think this one is more important and will be better used. Just my opinion.


----------



## jis (May 7, 2009)

henryj said:


> The successor to the Texas Chief was Amtrak's Lone Star which became a victim of the Jimmy Carter masacre.


I don't exactly remember the sequence of events. There was a train called the Inter-American which ran Chicago - Laredo via SAS. It was cut back to SAS dropping the SAS - Laredo portion and at that time it was given the via Temple - Houston leg. This possibly happened at the same time that Lone Star was dropped. I will have to dig up the rest of my Amtrak timetable stash this evening when I get back home to figure out the exact sequence of events.


----------



## jphjaxfl (May 7, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Longview is just about as close to Houston as Austin is...
> A lot of Houston's problems are Houston's alone. They've chosen not to support rail and they've chosen to put in a half-butt light rail disaster and they've chosen to spend their money on three huge loops around the city.
> 
> They're sleeping in the bed they made.


 Your are right. Some of the larger states such as Texas, Florida, and New York need to step up to the plate and fund some Amtrak passenger services like California, Illinois, North Carolina and other states have done instead of building more highways.


----------



## VentureForth (May 7, 2009)

Well, in this case, I think that the Texas Stick Man (which is what I'm gonna call it: >--< Dallas & Fort Worth to San Antonio and Houston through Waco, Temple and Austin) should be a Texas thing. Shouldn't be an Amtrak thing - and I think that for all the intrastate systems. Certainly want to keep Amtrak connecting the National system...


----------



## printman2000 (May 7, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Longview is just about as close to Houston as Austin is...
> A lot of Houston's problems are Houston's alone. They've chosen not to support rail and they've chosen to put in a half-butt light rail disaster and they've chosen to spend their money on three huge loops around the city.
> 
> They're sleeping in the bed they made.


You have to consider Texas history before rushing to judgment. Houston is a big oil city, so naturally it will have pushed cars for the past many decades. Texans are also very independent minded which again leads to more car use. These two things have long been hurdles to rail in our state.

However, both Houston and Dallas are coming around. Dallas already has lots of light rail and commuter between Fort Worth & Dallas. Houston is expanding light rail and have been talking commuter rail more and more. There is also plans for a new intermodal station. From my experience, people are tired of dealing with the traffic and are more and more willing to use public transportation. I believe more would step on a train than on a bus, though.

Yeah, Houston's current light rail is small, but it was a first step. And it has been successful enough to get them moving on building more.

Things are looking up (rail-wise) for my home town!


----------



## saxman (May 7, 2009)

jphjaxfl said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Longview is just about as close to Houston as Austin is...
> ...


I think Texas is a lot closer to getting on board with rail then some think. The state Legislature is very close to forming a passenger rail division of TxDOT. IIRC, its just passed the state Senate and has gone to the House. It will be very exciting news for Texas. Now that Perry's precious Trans-Texas Corridor is pretty much dead, I can see Texas being the next California as far as rail service. I'm willing to bet we'll see extension of the Heartland Flyer to SAS, providing two daily trains on the FTW-SAS route.


----------



## jis (May 7, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> I think Texas is a lot closer to getting on board with rail then some think. The state Legislature is very close to forming a passenger rail division of TxDOT. IIRC, its just passed the state Senate and has gone to the House. It will be very exciting news for Texas. Now that Perry's precious Trans-Texas Corridor is pretty much dead, I can see Texas being the next California as far as rail service. I'm willing to bet we'll see extension of the Heartland Flyer to SAS, providing two daily trains on the FTW-SAS route.


Will all this happen before or after Perry manages to personally secede from the Union? :lol:

As for the Heratland Flyer being extended to SAS, well unless the timings of the trains change drastically that will be an odd thing to do, because the Texas Eagle/Golden State/whatever it is called and the Heartland Flyer will be chasing one another's marker from Fort Worth to SAS and back, given current timings.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 7, 2009)

The Texas Eagle lost its Houston section back in the '97 Clinton cuts that would have killed the entire train. The funding raised for it in the eleventh hour supported the SAS section but not, alas, the Houston section.


----------



## George Harris (May 7, 2009)

The UP (ex T&P) direct line between Ft. Worth and El Paso is 621 mile, mostly with a 70 mph speed limit for frieghts. There are al lot of slower limits, particularly in the first 200 miles out of Ft. Worth, but it would appear that a 12 hour schedule, which would be a 50 mph average, would be possible. This compares to 20 hours via San Antonio, even if the the dwell time at SA is zero.

Saying this to say that it would make sense to have a cross-platform swap between the TE / Golden State at Ft. Worth and let the new train run the direct line. In the current set up, there is 28 hours between leaving Ft. Worth and leaving El Paso. Thus a proper revision could easily take 12 hours out of the end to end time.


----------



## henryj (May 7, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


The Heartland Flyer is on the old Texas Chief/Lone Star route which at one time extended from Houston, Temple, Fort Worth, KC and Chicago. But as far as entending it down to SAS running on basically the same schedule as the Eagle, I just don't see it. Instead of your proposal I would institute another corridor train running opposite the Eagle's schedule thereby providing a morning and afternoon departure in both directions between DFW and SAS.

You could also extend the Heartland Flyer straight north from KC on the old Twin Star Rocket route and terminate it in Minneapolis/St Paul. Then start up a new LD train that serves Colorado and makes connections in DFW.

What Texas needs is corridor trains in the whole 'triangle', SAS, HOU, DFW to SAS and perhaps a HOU to Corpus/Brownsville service. It looks like we are going to get corridor type service between SAS/HOU and New Orleans.


----------



## henryj (May 7, 2009)

George Harris said:


> The UP (ex T&P) direct line between Ft. Worth and El Paso is 621 mile, mostly with a 70 mph speed limit for frieghts. There are al lot of slower limits, particularly in the first 200 miles out of Ft. Worth, but it would appear that a 12 hour schedule, which would be a 50 mph average, would be possible. This compares to 20 hours via San Antonio, even if the the dwell time at SA is zero.
> Saying this to say that it would make sense to have a cross-platform swap between the TE / Golden State at Ft. Worth and let the new train run the direct line.  In the current set up, there is 28 hours between leaving Ft. Worth and leaving El Paso. Thus a proper revision could easily take 12 hours out of the end to end time.


George, I worked on this type of schedule from time to time and basically it flip flops the current Sunset schedule. If you did this then you could extend the Heartland Flyer service down to SAS and just run the Eagle/Golden State all the way from Chicago through DFW and out the Baird sub. But then you serve El Paso around midnight in both directions and you would have to run a stub Sunset Limited all the way from New Orleans through Houston to El Paso. It would flip the current Sunset schedule making it an overnight run between NOL and HOU, but that part of the route is agonizingly slow anyway. It would give daylight service between Tucson/Phoenix and LAX but would not connect with the CS anymore. It's an interesting thought anyway.


----------



## saxman (May 7, 2009)

jis said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> > I think Texas is a lot closer to getting on board with rail then some think. The state Legislature is very close to forming a passenger rail division of TxDOT. IIRC, its just passed the state Senate and has gone to the House. It will be very exciting news for Texas. Now that Perry's precious Trans-Texas Corridor is pretty much dead, I can see Texas being the next California as far as rail service. I'm willing to bet we'll see extension of the Heartland Flyer to SAS, providing two daily trains on the FTW-SAS route.
> ...


Hahaha! Yeah I forgot Texas was going to secede from the Union.

As far as scheduling goes, the Texas Eagle use to depart FTW as late 4 PM or even 4:30 PM. In my grand scheme, I think the TE should be running a lot later anyways to make an Empire Builder connection in Chicago. Now that its usually running on time, some serious padding can be taken out, by running on the TRE line (which I think will happen sooner than later) and still arrive in SAS before midnight. Maybe make the Heartland Flyer depart OKC a little earlier, get to Fort Worth before noon and have a late afternoon SAS arriving. And as I'm typing this, I realize that even that may be a little close together, but keep in mind I'm thinking in very short terms. If money arrived tomorrow, you could start this service this fall with no extra equipment. I'm just thinking what could happen within a year, so don't attack me please. 

Of course this corridor needs 4 or 5 or more trains daily, but sounds like Texas is gearing up for more serious HSR program.

So now that we're talking about Texas in the service East of NOL thread I should make a comment about that....Yes! we need service east of NOL!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 7, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > Of course not. My plan is if Texas can pull off their intrastate HSR project, a standard guage, electrified, newest technology steel wheel passenger only ROW that is rated to 180 MPH or higher (ie: Shinkansen, TGV) could, indeed, get to there from here. My preliminary estimations would guess that on 180 MPH line, averaging 150 MPH, you could go from Houston to Austin to Dallas in 2:36. That's about an hour and a half longer than SWA, but when you figure the waiting room, etc., you're probably 1/2 hour delta. San Antonio to Dallas could be done in 1:50. It's bold, but doable in my opinion.
> ...


I think the thought experiment that should be done is:

1) Figure out what it would cost to build the Texas Triangle at some particular speed (say, 220 MPH), and what the times between various city pairs would be.

2) Figure out what speeds would be required for the Texas T-Bone configuration to achieve equally good times for all the major city pairs, and what that would cost to build.

My suspicion is that building a smaller number of miles of 300 MPH track is going to turn out to be cheaper than building a larger number of miles of 220 MPH track.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 7, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Any HS corridor in TX that includes El Paso would be greatly opposed due to the huge amount of infrastructure to service one major city. With just about nothing between San Antonio and El Paso, it's a different ball game than the highly congested I-35 and I-10 corridors.
> Lubbock, Amarillo, Midland, Odessa and Abilene are the only other large cities West of the Ft. Worth/San Antonio line, but they are not in any sort of decent alignment.


El Paso is probably within range of having 1.5 hour HSR service to ABQ (IIRC it's about 266 miles), which puts that in range of being commuter service.

I think ABQ should have HSR to Ft Worth, and where that track crosses the Lubbock to Amarillo rail route, there should be a junction to provide Lubbock and Amarillo with rail service to all these other places. Maybe the trains serving Lubbock could continue south to Midland and Odessa. Not sure how to best deal with Abilene, though maybe the answer is to find the part of the Ft Worth to ABQ track closest to Abilene, and run track from there to Abilene.


----------



## jis (May 7, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> As for the Heratland Flyer being extended to SAS, well unless the timings of the trains change drastically that will be an As far as scheduling goes, the Texas Eagle use to depart FTW as late 4 PM or even 4:30 PM. In my grand scheme, I think the TE should be running a lot later anyways to make an Empire Builder connection in Chicago. Now that its usually running on time, some serious padding can be taken out, by running on the TRE line (which I think will happen sooner than later) and still arrive in SAS before midnight. Maybe make the Heartland Flyer depart OKC a little earlier, get to Fort Worth before noon and have a late afternoon SAS arriving. And as I'm typing this, I realize that even that may be a little close together, but keep in mind I'm thinking in very short terms. If money arrived tomorrow, you could start this service this fall with no extra equipment. I'm just thinking what could happen within a year, so don't attack me please.


Yeah. As I said there are suitable possible schedule changes that could make this work. It is just that anything close to current schedules won;t work too well.


----------



## henryj (May 8, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> Hahaha! Yeah I forgot Texas was going to secede from the Union.


The right of secession is not spelled out in the US Constitution nor is it denied to any state. One myth that continues to go around is that Texas was given the exclusive right to secede from the Union should it so desire. Texas was an independent Republic from 1836 until it joined the Union in 1845. One right Texas did reserve was title to all it's public lands. Any land in Texas that is now owned by the Federal Government has been purchased over time. So the right to secede exists for any state in the union, but as history has shown, that is only valid if the state has the means to make it stick. Otherwise the power of the Federal Government is absolute and has show it will not allow states to voluntarily leave the Union.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas


----------



## printman2000 (May 8, 2009)

Texas was also given the right to divide into 5 separate states if it chooses to do so. Probably could not happen today.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp

Just think, Texas states would then have 10 senators.


----------



## GG-1 (May 8, 2009)

printman2000 said:


> Texas was also given the right to divide into 5 separate states if it chooses to do so. Probably could not happen today.
> Just think, Texas states would then have 10 senators.


Scarier thought, More! Politicians

Aloha


----------



## Ispolkom (May 8, 2009)

henryj said:


> saxman66 said:
> 
> 
> > Hahaha! Yeah I forgot Texas was going to secede from the Union.
> ...


The Texas secession web site is quite something. [Comments redacted as being unconnected to Amtrak]

Obligitory railroad content: When the Southern Pacific and other railroads were built in Texas, did they get state land grants, since there wasn't federal land available?


----------



## George Harris (May 8, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> Obligitory railroad content: When the Southern Pacific and other railroads were built in Texas, did they get state land grants, since there wasn't federal land available?


Don't know, but until recently it was required that a railroad that operated in Texas had to be headqurtered in Texas. That is why you had such companies as the

St. Louis, San Francisco and Texas

The Missouri - Kansas - Texas Railroad Company of Texas

The Chicago Rock Island and Gulf

The Panhandle and Santa Fe

The Gulf Colorado and Santa Fe

Texas and New Orleans

Fort Worth and Denver City Railway Company

Even though Texas and Pacific had connections with Missouri Pacific, it functioned completely separately. For several of these others, the difference was difficult to notice. FW&DC was somewhere in between the completely separate identity and operation of T&P and the invisibility of the likes of SLSFT. MKT resolved their double corporated identity and its costs by eventually closing their St. Louis headquarters and moving everything to Texas.


----------



## henryj (May 8, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > saxman66 said:
> ...


yes they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_and_Pacific_Railway

http://books.google.com/books?id=56UVAAAAY...lt&resnum=9


----------

