# A Sunset alternative



## Palmland (Dec 10, 2022)

After reading the thread on the Sunset delays between El Paso and San Antonio (605 miles), one possible solution occurred to me: eliminate that portion of the Sunset! OK, got your attention. 

Let's assume Amtrak is successful in having a section split from the Crescent and go to Dallas. There, or in Ft. Worth, it would continue west through Midland and Odessa (much larger towns than the likes of Del Rio) and connect back into the Sunset route just east of El Paso (645 miles). This was the route of the original Texas Eagle. The current Texas Eagle would continue as it does now to San Antonio as well as the Sunset between New Orleans and San Antonio. I remember standing at the railfan window on the Sunset as we passed the junction with this line. I asked the AC who was there it it was still active and he said it certainly was. It appeared to be well maintained for the short distance I could see it. No doubt the Permian Basin oil activity on the line has boosted traffic.

This will provide a much faster way for those going from the southeast or midwest to the southwest. At El Paso it would continue on to LA as does the Sunset. This saves the current incredibly slow 10 hour trek for the 314 miles between Dallas and San Antonio for those heading west of there. The trade off: Houston loses a direct connection but Dallas and all points in the southeast and midwest gain a faster one. Hopefully Amtrak or Texas Central can provide the Houston to Dallas link.


----------



## zephyr17 (Dec 11, 2022)

I am all for using the former T&P.


----------



## west point (Dec 11, 2022)

Palmland: However the Sunset should connect at El Passo. That would require an earlier departure from NOL. As well UP needs more 15,000 foot sidings HOU - SAS. UP needs it anyway to speed up freight traffic and get out of Amtrak's way. The 210 miles between HOU and SAS should not take ~ 6 hours-


----------



## Shanson (Dec 12, 2022)

And this wouldn't be good for us in Austin, either.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 12, 2022)

Palmland said:


> After reading the thread on the Sunset delays between El Paso and San Antonio (605 miles), one possible solution occurred to me: eliminate that portion of the Sunset!


I wonder why none of the threads that suggest we abandon active tracks ever includes trains that are local to the author.



Palmland said:


> This will provide a much faster way for those going from the southeast or midwest to the southwest.


What does it do for the people who live along the current route that you so graciously offer to give away on their behalf?


----------



## jis (Dec 12, 2022)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I wonder why none of the threads that suggest we abandon active tracks ever includes trains that are local to the author.
> 
> 
> What does it do for the people who live along the current route that you so graciously offer to give away on their behalf?


Indeed! The thought did occur to me that those who really wish to go fast from the Southeast or Midwest to Southwest are likely to head to MCO or MSY or DFW or IAD etc.. It really is important for LD trains to serve the intermediate points well to serve a unique purpose and that cannot be achieved by withdrawing service and robbing Peter to pay Paul. Just IMHO of course.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 12, 2022)

jis said:


> Indeed! The thought did occur to me that those who really wish to go fast from the Southeast or Midwest to Southwest are likely to head to MCO or MSY or DFW or IAD etc.. It really is important for LD trains to serve the intermediate points well to serve a unique purpose and that cannot be achieved by withdrawing service and robbing Peter to pay Paul. Just IMHO of course.


This!


----------



## ehbowen (Dec 12, 2022)

Instead of 'either/or', what say we start pushing 'both/and'? (Not to mention improving the current service as we add!)

There is plenty of a market for passenger trains over the former SP, T&P, MoPac, and I would add AT&SF in Texas and the Southwest...if only they were equipped and operated right, and if prospective passengers were aware of them.


----------



## Palmland (Dec 12, 2022)

In response to your comments, @Devil's Advocate:



Devil's Advocate said:


> I wonder why none of the threads that suggest we abandon active tracks ever includes trains that are local to the author.



My post from when I lived in Camden, SC


Palmland said:


> Notelvis, your selection certainly has appeal to me as a resident of SC, near Columbia. A train from Asheville to FL might be a stretch, but I think it could really be two trains: one that NC DOT is trying to get going - from Asheville to Charlotte via Salisbury; and a second one from Charlotte to FL that could well be a rerouted Silver Star. It baffles me why Amtrak doesn't pursue this. Certainly ridership from Charlotte to FL would be much greater than via the metropolises of Southern Pines, Hamlet, and my Camden.





Devil's Advocate said:


> What does it do for the people who live along the current route that you so graciously offer to give away on their behalf?


No doubt the citizens of the three stops on the Sunset between San Antonio and El Paso (total population 41,000) wouldn't be happy. Those on just the larger cities on the T&P route (total population 395,000) would probably welcome it.


----------



## jis (Dec 12, 2022)

I guess that thing that I did not understand is why the service from NOL must terminate at SAS. What is it that would argue against running it to ELP and connect with the train from FTW. Seems like an unnecessary removal of service to me. Surely providing service to 395K + 41K is better than removing service from 41K and providing service only to 395K? Afterall when we are dreaming should we not dream for the best for most?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 12, 2022)

Palmland said:


> In response to your comments, @Devil's Advocate: My post from when I lived in Camden, SC No doubt the citizens of the three stops on the Sunset between San Antonio and El Paso (total population 41,000) wouldn't be happy. Those on just the larger cities on the T&P route (total population 395,000) would probably welcome it.


Why did you leave El Paso (pop. ~ 1M) and San Antonio (pop. ~ 2.5M) out of your double-down retort? I've used the Sunset to travel between these two cities dozens of times and while I did want better service from the host I did not want to travel through FTW to get it. You would have to give away hundreds of Camden's to equal the potential impact of what is proposed in your unsolicited giveaway.



ehbowen said:


> Instead of 'either/or', what say we start pushing 'both/and'? (Not to mention improving the current service as we add!) There is plenty of a market for passenger trains over the former SP, T&P, MoPac, and I would add AT&SF in Texas and the Southwest...if only they were equipped and operated right, and if prospective passengers were aware of them.


I would strongly prefer we add more passenger connections to Corpus Christi, Eagle Pass, Laredo, and Austin than to reroute the Sunset. With perpetually clogged highways and two rail lines in service SAS-AUS could become a very useful and highly productive commuter corridor in the future.


----------



## Palmland (Dec 12, 2022)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Why did you leave El Paso (pop. ~ 1M) and San Antonio (pop. ~ 2.5M) out of your double-down retort?


Those are the only three cities that would lose service. 

El Paso service would arguably be improved if heading to the Midwest or southeast. San Antonio would still have service but would require a Dallas connection. Certainly not ideal but again the larger population potential of the Midwest and southeast would be better served. Intrastate Texas would be better served by being a part of the frequent daily service as envisioned in Amtrak’s Connect plan.


----------



## west point (Dec 13, 2022)

How about extending the Heartland flyer to El Paso? would enable good connnections to Eaglet and new Meridian train both ways?


----------



## Anderson (Dec 15, 2022)

jis said:


> I guess that thing that I did not understand is why the service from NOL must terminate at SAS. What is it that would argue against running it to ELP and connect with the train from FTW. Seems like an unnecessary removal of service to me. Surely providing service to 395K + 41K is better than removing service from 41K and providing service only to 395K? Afterall when we are dreaming should we not dream for the best for most?


I would not only agree with this point but also note that a NOL-ELP service could add a few stops along the way. For example, that 41k is mostly Del Rio. Why is there no stop at Uvalde? Or Hondo? (I'll grant that a lot of towns aren't large enough to justify stops, but I feel like there are a few that are big enough to cut it. And of course, there's the stretch between Houston and San Antonio which could probably justify 2-4 stops.)

That having been said, NOL-SAS can be run with day train equipment. NOL-ELP can't.


----------

