# The Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle Daily Service



## rtabern (Oct 30, 2009)

I just got back from a trip on the Coast Starlight and got a tour of the LA crew base office in LA Union Station earlier this week. I did chat with a couple of managers and the topic of the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle came up (imagine that!) The managers I spoke with confirmed that in early April 2010 there will be a daily train running from Chicago to Los Angeles via Little Rock-Dallas-San Antonio-El Paso-Tucson. The train will be LA crew base staffed thru San Antonio OR Dallas-Fort Worth (undecided yet) at which point the Chicago crew will take over. From the chat with the managers, it seems like a lot of details still have to be worked out. It's not clear if this "new" daily train will retain the Texas Eagle or Sunset Limited name for the whole route. I was a little surprised by this because that "could" mean the Sunset Limited would come to Chicago. WOW. But it did sound like they would keep the Texas Eagle name all the way CHI-LAX.

Things seemed very sketchy for service from San Antonio to New Orleans... or Orlando?

The managers I spoke with say they believe whatever happens SAS-NOL or SAS-ORL... that train... will no longer be Los Angeles crew-based... that route will probably be taken over by a New Orleans-based crew.

They also say the SAS-NOL run will be a day-train with no full-service lounge or diner. There was some suggestion there could be 2 seperate day trains being established... one SAS-NOL and then another NOL-ORL.

Just some insight I got on my visit at LAUPT.


----------



## MattW (Oct 30, 2009)

Interesting indeed. While I personally would prefer a daily Sunset Limited LAX-ORL, I guess I can live with daily CHI-LAX via SAN and a daily SAN-NOL train. If anything, I'm being selfish because one of my career goal-options is to work for the Storm Prediction Center in Norman, OK and this would likely give me daily service ATL-NOR.

Whatever happens, it means that Amtrak is one again on people's minds and can only really get better from here short-term!


----------



## cpamtfan (Oct 30, 2009)

This service has been discussed for a while now. From my stand point, I don't see how/why Amtrak is making another daily CHI-LAX, and why not a daily NOL-LAX Sunset? I mean the Sunset has never really been a "daily" train, and now they somehow comeup with a daily CHI-LAX train on a longer run? It is a very confusing idea.

My idea is to atleast have through cars from the NOL-SAS stub train bound for LAX (like what the TE does now), and possibly a future extension of the CONO, Sunset Stub, or new, unknown train.

Name probably won't be Texas Eagle, maybe a former name (i.e. Golden State, etc.), although the current TE+SL route uses up a good bit of Texas for their journeys  .


----------



## amtrak51 (Oct 31, 2009)

How about naming it "The Sunset Eagle"


----------



## DET63 (Nov 1, 2009)

Combine _Golden State_ with _Texas Eagle_ and get _Golden Eagle_.


----------



## rolfecms (Nov 1, 2009)

rtabern said:


> The managers I spoke with confirmed that in early April 2010 there will be a daily train running from Chicago to Los Angeles via Little Rock-Dallas-San Antonio-El Paso-Tucson.


I don't recall this route possible being part of the Amtrak review of extending the Sunset to Florida. Did someone at Amtrak just think this up?


----------



## haolerider (Nov 1, 2009)

rolfecms said:


> rtabern said:
> 
> 
> > The managers I spoke with confirmed that in early April 2010 there will be a daily train running from Chicago to Los Angeles via Little Rock-Dallas-San Antonio-El Paso-Tucson.
> ...


This concept has been discussed for months and there are several threads on this board discussing the change. I don't have the time to look them up this moment, but this is not a new idea and has nothing to do with the study to extend the Sunset to Florida.


----------



## Agent "X" (Nov 1, 2009)

haolerider said:


> rolfecms said:
> 
> 
> > rtabern said:
> ...



Umm....wasn't there alot of "buzz" about the Sunset, Texas Eagle, and/or service east of NOL a few months ago? And there were too many threads containing new/additional/expanded service, some of which people swore was going to take place imminently. Where are those users now, and better yet...where is that extra service/stub train, service east of NOL...etc? Nuthin's changed. Too often I've seen individuals here get caught up in rumors and read too much into the slightest details. Most recently, there was yet another thread discussing soon to be service east of NOL (a favorite topic within) and that was based on some conductors or engineers being hired with Jacksonville as a crew base.

"I'll beleive it when I see it"


----------



## henryj (Nov 1, 2009)

I know it's going to happen because Nostradamas predicted it.


----------



## NetJetAmtrak (Nov 1, 2009)

Well, I do wish they would start a Tucson-Phoenix-Flagstaff service....That would be cool and make my railfanning more fun here in TUS.  Start off with 4 trips a day and offer full dining and sleeper service...LOL. Tucson is a great place for a base! In fact, they should move Beech Grove, IN work all to Tucson! Fixing trains in 80 degree wheather and sunshine in November has got to be more fun!


----------



## ScottC4746 (Nov 2, 2009)

rtabern said:


> I was a little surprised by this because that "could" mean the Sunset Limited would come to Chicago. WOW. But it did sound like they would keep the Texas Eagle name all the way CHI-LAX.


Perhaps what they could do with the name is Sunset Limited 1/2 LAX-NOL and Sunset Ltd. with a similar number LAX-CHI much like the EB 7/8 CHI-SEA EB 27/28 CHI-PDX


----------



## Donctor (Nov 2, 2009)

ScottC4746 said:


> rtabern said:
> 
> 
> > I was a little surprised by this because that "could" mean the Sunset Limited would come to Chicago. WOW. But it did sound like they would keep the Texas Eagle name all the way CHI-LAX.
> ...


But the "Sunset Limited" name doesn't tell new riders anything about the train. The "Texas Eagle" name _does_. I know this isn't a major issue, and is based heavily in personal preference, but I still wouldn't like the "Sunset Limited" to be running CHI-LAX. Not that I'm opposed to the train itself; it's the name I mind.


----------



## O'Neal Hart (Mar 27, 2010)

havn't this been established for a while now?


----------



## had8ley (Mar 28, 2010)

WOW !!! And away we go AGAIN !!! Only thing I see in the latest rumor mill is the crew change somewhere mid-stream. I can hear the howling now when the LA crew gets on and the Chicago crew didn't do what they wanted done and vice-versa. Besides, the lodging and labor costs are going to sky rocket with two different crews for one train. The old Sunset (for those of you who remember when it went to Miami) had an LA crew that stayed on the train for a whole week. If you left LA Sunday night you didn't get back to LA until the following Sunday, IF you were lucky!


----------



## had8ley (Mar 28, 2010)

Amtking said:


> ScottC4746 said:
> 
> 
> > rtabern said:
> ...


Well you are right about the name meaning something. Only thing is "Texas Eagle" went from St. Louis to El Paso via Mopac/T&P where you had to change to the Sunset, Golden State or a mail train. From El Paso west it was Sunset Limited territory.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Mar 28, 2010)

DET63 said:


> Combine _Golden State_ with _Texas Eagle_ and get _Golden Eagle_.



This is no yay or nay here, just my memory responding.

I think Golden Eagle has been used before, but not for trains, for buses. Yeah, I think Trailways (long distance) bus used that for some of it's schedules eons ago.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Mar 28, 2010)

Nothing really new here, except for the crew change issue. Amtrak is negotiating with Union Pacific to establish daily service along the LA-NO route. The Texas Eagle would run from Chicago to Los Angeles via San Antonio, while a coach (with either a sightseeer lounge or a CCC, depending on the rumor) from San Antonio to New Orleans. Start time will depend on the UP negotiations. I've heard at the end of September, I doubt if there would be anything sooner. Sunset East is a separate issue, largely unresolved.


----------



## jis (Mar 28, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> Nothing really new here, except for the crew change issue. Amtrak is negotiating with Union Pacific to establish daily service along the LA-NO route. The Texas Eagle would run from Chicago to Los Angeles via San Antonio, while a coach (with either a sightseeer lounge or a CCC, depending on the rumor) from San Antonio to New Orleans. Start time will depend on the UP negotiations. I've heard at the end of September, I doubt if there would be anything sooner. Sunset East is a separate issue, largely unresolved.


Just curious.... so does this imply that the Sunset Limited name will be retired for the time being? Or will there be some drop off cars, perhaps a through coach at least that would continue to carry that moniker?


----------



## alanh (Mar 28, 2010)

NetJetAmtrak said:


> Well, I do wish they would start a Tucson-Phoenix-Flagstaff service....That would be cool and make my railfanning more fun here in TUS.  Start off with 4 trips a day and offer full dining and sleeper service...LOL. Tucson is a great place for a base! In fact, they should move Beech Grove, IN work all to Tucson! Fixing trains in 80 degree wheather and sunshine in November has got to be more fun!


Yeah, but fixing trains in 105F degree weather in July isn't. :blink:

As cool as it might be, the FLG-PHX service over the Peavine would pretty slow. Slow running Flagstaff to Ash Fork is why the mainline was rerouted to the north, and the Ash Fork - Wickenburg line got the Peavine name due to all the curves. The last passenger service was in 1969, though Prescott was bypassed in 1962.

According to a 1963 timetable it took 8-8½ hours, with a half to one hour layover at Williams Jct. Average speed between Phoenix and Williams was 38mph.


----------



## daveyb99 (Mar 29, 2010)

had8ley said:


> WOW !!! And away we go AGAIN !!! Only thing I see in the latest rumor mill is the crew change somewhere mid-stream...


OK, so what is the advantage of this.

The extended _Texas Eagle_ route is only ~2750 miles longer than CZ.

Why could one crew not take the who trip, spend a day in LA, then return - kinda like a flight crew.

Or is this some kind of experiment on improving crew usage.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 29, 2010)

Here we go again. This post contains no information we haven't bandied about a long time ago. Such as in November of 2009, which is when this post died before O'Neil inexplicably brought it back from the grave.

Second, I assume you guys ALL know that nothing is happening with this next schedule change, which will happen fairly soon. They lack even an agreement with UP, they have no pure logistics figured out, or any of that.


----------



## Donctor (May 16, 2010)

Disclaimer: I know this horse has been killed, beaten, and subsequently picked apart by buzzards.

When UP agrees and Amtrak begins running the Eagle and Sunset (or whatever the hell they'll be called), there will finally be a good use for two of the CCCs. The SAS-NOL day train can actually use them in an appropriate setting. An "appropriate setting" being a situation where people don't ***** about the lack of a full diner.


----------



## AlanB (May 16, 2010)

Amtking said:


> Disclaimer: I know this horse has been killed, beaten, and subsequently picked apart by buzzards.
> When UP agrees and Amtrak begins running the Eagle and Sunset (or whatever the hell they'll be called), there will finally be a good use for two of the CCCs. The SAS-NOL day train can actually use them in an appropriate setting. An "appropriate setting" being a situation where people don't ***** about the lack of a full diner.


They won't be "bitching" about the lack of a full diner because they'll be too busy crying over the loss of their sleepers on this route.


----------



## rtabern (May 16, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Amtking said:
> 
> 
> > Disclaimer: I know this horse has been killed, beaten, and subsequently picked apart by buzzards.
> ...


I'd be crying too... I wouldn't take a train from NOL-SAS without a sleeper!!!

(Part of the reason I did Train #1 NOL-LAX on my trip in March... I doubt it will be around in 2011)


----------



## MikeM (May 16, 2010)

rtabern said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Amtking said:
> ...


I think the most appropriate use for a CCC is on a train I'm not riding...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 17, 2010)

Dear god, we have a bunch of nutball traditionalists on here who want name trains for the sake of it all.


----------



## had8ley (May 17, 2010)

"Buzz" is a four letter word...RR'ers call it sand house probably because that's all it's worth~ a grain of sand. I seriously doubt we see Chicago to LA this year. Yeah, I know, there were those that jumped on this when it first was discussed; I even think some had called trying to make a reservation !!!


----------



## Donctor (May 17, 2010)

had8ley said:


> "Buzz" is a four letter word...RR'ers call it sand house probably because that's all it's worth~ a grain of sand. I seriously doubt we see Chicago to LA this year. Yeah, I know, there were those that jumped on this when it first was discussed; I even think some had called trying to make a reservation !!!


"I want to be on the inaugural run!!!"


----------



## Palmland (May 17, 2010)

Nothing wrong with a daytime Sunset from New Orleans to San Antonio. My frequent trips on the Palmetto are an enjoyable ride - in business class. So, I do hope Amtrak figures out how to take a couple Superliner coaches and put nice 2/1 seating in them with wif-fi and a few other amenities.

The CCC would be perfect for that train, as they would on the Cardinal, if Amtrak does in fact upgrade it to a Superliner train to DC. I rode in one on the Capitol and it was fine, but a real waste not to be using the nice counter (bar?) and seating area in the lounge end.


----------



## cpamtfan (May 17, 2010)

Palmland said:


> So, I do hope Amtrak figures out how to take a couple Superliner coaches and put nice 2/1 seating in them with wif-fi and a few other amenities.



Um, I know there is a slight chance they'll do this, but in all reality it probably won't.


----------



## George Harris (May 17, 2010)

Palmland said:


> Nothing wrong with a daytime Sunset from New Orleans to San Antonio. My frequent trips on the Palmetto are an enjoyable ride - in business class. So, I do hope Amtrak figures out how to take a couple Superliner coaches and put nice 2/1 seating in them with wif-fi and a few other amenities.


Huge difference in run time versus road time on the two routes.

Palmetto: 829 miles in 15 hours, right at 55 mph, including all stops.

Sunset Route: 573 miles in 15 hours, right at 38 mph, including stops. Admittedly a day train could probably be faster

According to Mapquest, the drive time and distance New York to Savannah is 13h19m and 813 miles. In reality if you do any stops at all, the train can be the faster way.

Also according to Mapuest, the drive time and distance from New Orleans to San Antonio is 8h39m and 545 miles. The situation is made worse by the connectivity to New Yrok from places north and east of it to the complete lack of the same into New Orleans, particularly given anyone going to western LA or to any Texas point would bypass New Orleans altogether by going around the north side of the Lake on I-12.

Plus there are two other trains on the Plametto route, so if daytime both ways is not your cup of tea, you can go one way overnight.


----------



## jis (May 17, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Huge difference in run time versus road time on the two routes. Palmetto: 829 miles in 15 hours, right at 55 mph, including all stops.
> 
> Sunset Route: 573 miles in 15 hours, right at 38 mph, including stops. Admittedly a day train could probably be faster


So true. Basically it is comparing what is one of the fastest LD trains with one of the slowest.


----------



## henryj (May 17, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Palmland said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing wrong with a daytime Sunset from New Orleans to San Antonio. My frequent trips on the Palmetto are an enjoyable ride - in business class. So, I do hope Amtrak figures out how to take a couple Superliner coaches and put nice 2/1 seating in them with wif-fi and a few other amenities.
> ...


I make the same argument about the NOL to Orlando extension of the Sunset and everyone thinks that one doesn't matter. You can drive NOL to Orlando in about 10 hours or less. It took almost 20 by train. There are many day trains run by Amtrak that are slower than driving. People ride them anyway. Once the train goes daily ridership will pick up substantially. Currently, running only three times a week, it's like no service at all and the times are atrocious, particularly for Houston. The changes proposed will be a breath of fresh air down here and I think the new train will be well patronized..........that is if Amtrak lets people know about it. Currently, most people in Houston don't even know we have rail service.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 17, 2010)

I have heard numerous assurances that if a through sleeper is warranted, there will be a through sleeper, at least tri-weekly. However, most people at Amtrak think they will lose little or no ridership due to the loss of a sleeper (even the stubborn rail fans will eventually ride it anyway) and will gain a lot of ridership due to the presence of trains at important markets during better calling times more frequently, and that is just between SAS and NOL.

They also expect to pick up considerable ridership due to the daily operation of the Texas Eagle all the way to LA. They sincerely think that this will increase financial and ridership performance along the entirety of the two routes, and lay the foundation for a financially sensible extension of the CONO to JAX or ORL.

I tend to agree with them. I think that anyone who disagrees needs to spend less time reading _Great American Streamliners_ and more time looking at modern day transit patterns.


----------



## AlanB (May 17, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I have heard numerous assurances that if a through sleeper is warranted, there will be a through sleeper, at least tri-weekly. However, most people at Amtrak think they will lose little or no ridership due to the loss of a sleeper (even the stubborn rail fans will eventually ride it anyway) and will gain a lot of ridership due to the presence of trains at important markets during better calling times more frequently, and that is just between SAS and NOL.


That's funny, as not only have I not heard such assurances, but the entire reason for this plan according to all documents that Amtrak has released is the fact that they don't have enough sleepers to make the Sunset daily on it's own. If they can't make the Sunset daily with sleepers, while continuing the 3 day a week through sleepers off the Eagle, then there is no way that they can do the opposite.

And if they can do it, then there is no reason to kill the Sunset, as we can then have the best of both worlds. A daily Sunset and 3 day a week service on the Eagle to LA.



Green Maned Lion said:


> They also expect to pick up considerable ridership due to the daily operation of the Texas Eagle all the way to LA. They sincerely think that this will increase financial and ridership performance along the entirety of the two routes, and lay the foundation for a financially sensible extension of the CONO to JAX or ORL.


I'm quite certain that they will pick up ridership west of San Antonio. I have no doubt of that.

I'm far from convinced however that they will pick up any ridership east of SAS, and in fact am worried that they will lose both ridership and revenue on that end. And I'm not convinced that the gains west of SAS will offset the loss east of SAS.



Green Maned Lion said:


> I think that anyone who disagrees needs to spend less time reading _Great American Streamliners_ and more time looking at modern day transit patterns.


Not only have I never riden a pre-Amtrak LD train, I don't own that book and have never read it either. And I do look at modern day transit patterns all the time.


----------



## rtabern (May 17, 2010)

Palmland said:


> Nothing wrong with a daytime Sunset from New Orleans to San Antonio. My frequent trips on the Palmetto are an enjoyable ride - in business class. So, I do hope Amtrak figures out how to take a couple Superliner coaches and put nice 2/1 seating in them with wif-fi and a few other amenities.
> The CCC would be perfect for that train, as they would on the Cardinal, if Amtrak does in fact upgrade it to a Superliner train to DC. I rode in one on the Capitol and it was fine, but a real waste not to be using the nice counter (bar?) and seating area in the lounge end.


I guess more people have a tolerance for coach that I do. Ok, it's not horrible... much better than the bus or sitting in those uncomfortable airplane seats... however I don't think personally I would want to spend 15 hours in coach either.

I ride the train several times a month down to Lincoln and out to Galesburg. Going down one way I have to ride in coach Horizon equipment (I always will ride back the other way on the Eagle or SWC so I can sit in the SSL) -- and honestly after about 5 or 6 hours in coach I am at my limits... especially on a totally packed train full of college students. 

I couldnt imagine a 15 hour trip... well, if I "had to" travel SAS-NOL I would do it... but I would never take it "for fun" or as part of a vacation which is the main reason I do Amtrak.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 18, 2010)

When all is said and done, I hope this doesn't happen. I'm glad that UP hasn't jumped on board as of yet. All Amtrak has to do is make #2 run at its old, 11:00pm-ish departure time out of LAX, and I'd be a happy camper. Eventually down the road, perhaps additional weekly frequencies can be added. But the loss of the sleeper between SAS-NOL is ridiculous.


----------



## henryj (May 18, 2010)

AlanB said:


> I'm far from convinced however that they will pick up any ridership east of SAS, and in fact am worried that they will lose both ridership and revenue on that end. And I'm not convinced that the gains west of SAS will offset the loss east of SAS.


I hear this all the time. And things like I won't ride it without a sleeper. Think about what you are saying. Running daily means four more trains a week and now at reasonable times. There is no way they will loose ridership. They can't help but gain ridership. Currently the consist from NOL is 6 cars, sleeper, trans-dorm, diner, SSL, and two coaches. The two coaches have a capacity of at least 130 persons. The sleeper never more than 30 since many of the roomettes are single occupied. So if now you are running a two or three coach train with business class and no sleeper you are probably increasing weekly capacity 90 to 180 percent. It's all a day trip. Many of the passengers will be going part way such as Houston to SAS or Houston to NOL which is not a 15 hour trip. The proposed schedule is 8am to 10pm in each direction. Most people would not opt for an expensive sleeper anyway. The only thing that could cause this to fail is a lack of promotion by Amtrak. It's a great leap forward for this route. Finally reliable daily service at reasonable times. The service can't help but attract more passengers, many who probably have never used the train before. What they can do if the equipment is available is add an additional sleeper and coach in San Antonio to the Eagle. Running round trips from SAS to LA would require less equipment to maintain daily service, probably three or four cars instead of five or six needed to go all the way to NOL.


----------



## George Harris (May 18, 2010)

henryj said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Palmland said:
> ...


Yes, the Sunset east was not really that fast. However, there is far more to a erstored Sunset East than New Orleans to Orlando passengers. Those may be fairly few. New Orleans or points east to Jacksonville and on to points northeast would probably far exceed New Orleans to Orlando. The comparison between end to end dirving and train times is somewhat of a "straw man" type of arguement.

When it was running, apparently the Sunset East had creditable ridership into the time that huge lateness arriving from west New Orleans hurt it severly.

With the requirements for PTC coming into play, the train could now be running up to 79 mph on much of the "Dark" territory between Flomaton AL adn Tallahassee FL, whic would allow some speedup.


----------



## Palmland (May 18, 2010)

George Harris said:


> Palmland said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing wrong with a daytime Sunset from New Orleans to San Antonio. My frequent trips on the Palmetto are an enjoyable ride - in business class. So, I do hope Amtrak figures out how to take a couple Superliner coaches and put nice 2/1 seating in them with wif-fi and a few other amenities.
> ...



So true George. But it's the hours on board, not the miles, that determine whether you can tolerate coach. As noted, I could handle a daytime Sunset from San Antonio - if they make an effort at a decent business class. Perhaps use two of the CCC cars. One unchanged for coach passengers as their lounge as well as dining for all and the other half lounge and, where the table are, replace with business class seats. That would help dispose of those cars pretty quickly.


----------



## AlanB (May 18, 2010)

henryj said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I'm far from convinced however that they will pick up any ridership east of SAS, and in fact am worried that they will lose both ridership and revenue on that end. And I'm not convinced that the gains west of SAS will offset the loss east of SAS.
> ...


Henry, with the utmost respect, I have thought about what I'm saying quite carefully. I've also gone over all the numbers available to me from the prior years dating back to 2003. I remain very concerned that ridership may well drop a bit despite the daily service, and I'm almost convinced that revenue will definitely drop from the numbers that I'm seeing.

While not a perfect example let's look at the Palmetto & Silver Palm. It's not perfect because both trains have always been daily, but one parallel is that the Palmetto serves markets during daylight hours that the Palm served at oh'dark hundred. The Palmetto currently after 4 years has only increased ridership over the Silver Palm by about 31,000 riders. Most of that can be attributed to the normal annual increases in ridership that Amtrak has been seeing; and it serves a much larger market. Revenue hasn't done much better and the Palm's numbers were before Amtrak instituted its higher sleeper prices and better revenue management practices. Compared to the Silvers however, the Palmetto's revenue is about 1/3rd that of the Meteor and a little less than 1/2 that of the Star.

In all fairness I do have to point out that expenses are also lower, which is why the Palmetto is now one of the better performing trains when looking that aspect of things. On the other hand, the Palmetto also gets to share many expenses with the other Silver's, something that the Sunset (both current & daily) doesn't get to do.



henryj said:


> What they can do if the equipment is available is add an additional sleeper and coach in San Antonio to the Eagle. Running round trips from SAS to LA would require less equipment to maintain daily service, probably three or four cars instead of five or six needed to go all the way to NOL.


Wait, now I'm confused here. Are you suggesting that they just run a new train from SAS to LAX? As in, cut the Sunset back to SAS and don't extend the Eagle? Otherwise, why would they want to add a coach and a sleeper to the Eagle at SAS if it's running through?

And if you're proposing that they add a coach & sleeper to the run through Eagle from the truncated Sunset, well then were back to why bother to kill the Sunset at all. If Amtrak can find the needed coaches and sleepers to tack onto the Eagle for the western portion, then they also have enough equipment to just run the Sunset daily and can continue to terminate the Eagle in SAS.


----------



## henryj (May 18, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Henry, with the utmost respect, I have thought about what I'm saying quite carefully. I've also gone over all the numbers available to me from the prior years dating back to 2003. I remain very concerned that ridership may well drop a bit despite the daily service, and I'm almost convinced that revenue will definitely drop from the numbers that I'm seeing.
> And if you're proposing that they add a coach & sleeper to the run through Eagle from the truncated Sunset, well then were back to why bother to kill the Sunset at all. If Amtrak can find the needed coaches and sleepers to tack onto the Eagle for the western portion, then they also have enough equipment to just run the Sunset daily and can continue to terminate the Eagle in SAS.


Well Alan we will just have to wait and see on this one as we will never agree. It remains to be seen whether or not the UP will even cooperate. It means many more passenger trains to clog up their freight railroad which is at capacity already. As for the sleepers, I was just suggesting that they keep a sleeper and coach in SAS to tack on to the Eagle for peak periods to pick up passengers coming over from NOL. There is a presidence for this now as in an earlier post it was determined that a sleeper lays over for the Eagle at certain times, so the facilities exist in SAS to do something like that. I think when I counted up the equipment there was a surplus sleeper or two and they might eventually get a few more from the rebuilds going on. It would be better of course if the stub trains could carry through cars from NOL. I remain hopeful that something positive will happen to this service as what we have now is just an abomination.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 18, 2010)

I remain fascinated that increasing service on the NOL-LAX routing from tri-weekly to daily can be construed by otherwise intelligent people as "killing" a train.

A daily train is useful transportation along a route served by other mechanisms. A tri-weekly train is a tourist curiosity. This service modification is turning the tourist curiosity that is the Sunset Limited into a realistic transportation alternative. Mr. Burden, I am willing to bet you good money that not only will the ridership between NOL and SAS increase, but will do so explosively, when this modification goes into effect.

I also expect, and am willing to bet, that the in total amount of money lost by operating the Sunset and Texas Eagle in their current form is substantially more than the SAS-NOL and CHI-SAS-LAX trains combined.


----------



## AlanB (May 19, 2010)

henryj said:


> Well Alan we will just have to wait and see on this one as we will never agree. It remains to be seen whether or not the UP will even cooperate. It means many more passenger trains to clog up their freight railroad which is at capacity already. As for the sleepers, I was just suggesting that they keep a sleeper and coach in SAS to tack on to the Eagle for peak periods to pick up passengers coming over from NOL. There is a presidence for this now as in an earlier post it was determined that a sleeper lays over for the Eagle at certain times, so the facilities exist in SAS to do something like that. I think when I counted up the equipment there was a surplus sleeper or two and they might eventually get a few more from the rebuilds going on. It would be better of course if the stub trains could carry through cars from NOL. I remain hopeful that something positive will happen to this service as what we have now is just an abomination.


Thanks for the explanation on the sleepers! 

And I really and sincerely hope that I'm wrong, as if I'm right it could well be the death knell for the Sunset or what's left of it. I'm not trying to be difficult or obstinate on this, but we've already seen Amtrak kill off part of the Sunset with a little help from Katrina, and the Sunset and its name are an albatross around their neck. Everyone points to the Sunset as the big money looser.

I for one am not sure that the market between NOL & HOU and HOU & SAS is there, even with daily service instead of the crappy 3 day a week service. Much less that it is enough to sustain things with the partial loss of through coach & sleeper passengers to destinations west of SAS that will occur when people are not only forced to change trains after 11:00 PM. And the revenue from those sleepers is substantial.

I also don't see Amtrak spending mega bucks, if any, advertising things if it indeed does happen. TEMPO perhaps may, and who knows maybe even Texas DOT will.

I'm sorry but I just don't have a good feeling about this plan based upon what I'm seeing and have access to in terms of older Sunset numbers. Were we talking about a daily Sunset with through cars and sleeper(s), I would have no reservations and would be behind it 100%. But I just don't see the truncated Sunset becoming the next California service or the next Downeaster, or any other examples like that. Maybe I'm wrong, and I truly hope so.


----------



## jis (May 19, 2010)

AlanB said:


> I also don't see Amtrak spending mega bucks, if any, advertising things if it indeed does happen. TEMPO perhaps may, and who knows maybe even Texas DOT will.


I think what is dearly needed is a SLeMPO or something for Sunset Limited that will play the same role for that train that TEMPO plays for the Texas Eagle.


----------



## delvyrails (May 19, 2010)

When the train goes daily, the LA connection with the Coast Starlight needs to be restored in both directions. Currently the missed connection makes travel between the Bay Area and Southern Arizona inconvenient via Amtrak.

That's one of Amtrak's largest currently-unserved LD travel markets. It's in the low thousands daily. Amtrak should enjoy its share.


----------



## Donctor (May 19, 2010)

henryj said:


> As for the sleepers, I was just suggesting that they keep a sleeper and coach in SAS to tack on to the Eagle for peak periods to pick up passengers coming over from NOL. There is a presidence for this now as in an earlier post it was determined that a sleeper lays over for the Eagle at certain times, so the facilities exist in SAS to do something like that. I think when I counted up the equipment there was a surplus sleeper or two and they might eventually get a few more from the rebuilds going on. It would be better of course if the stub trains could carry through cars from NOL.


What exactly is "peak period" on the Sunset/Eagle? If peak is winter, I imagine whatever surplus sleepers are around would be better used as the three DEN sleepers on the CZ and, if there are five additional ones, as an extra sleeper on the Empire Builder. The CZ sleepers may not be an issue, as it certainly seems possible that the sleepers required for DEN (and a fourth sleeper from CHI) are added to the CS during the CS's peak.


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 19, 2010)

jis said:


> I think what is dearly needed is a SLeMPO or something for Sunset Limited that will play the same role for that train that TEMPO plays for the Texas Eagle.


There is (or was) an organization called SMART for the Sunset, but I'm not sure what happened there.


----------



## henryj (May 19, 2010)

BlakeTyner said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I think what is dearly needed is a SLeMPO or something for Sunset Limited that will play the same role for that train that TEMPO plays for the Texas Eagle.
> ...


Well Blake, I can tell you what happenned. SMART is dominated by Florida people that have blinders on and can only see the route between NOL and Florida. They apparently don't care a hoot about anything west of NOL. They have done nothing to promote or improve the existing service. All they do is gripe about the loss of the Sunset Limited east. The group still exists and has a group site on Yahoo. If you go read it you will see what I mean. They don't care about daily service or restoring service to Phoenix or improving the timing to connect with the CS, nothing. All they care about is restoring the tri-weekly Sunset to Florida. They have become irrevelant in the big picture. Amtrak reps will not meet with them or attend their meetings. Originally, NARP indorsed them, but now just ignores them. Based on Amtrak's stated future plans the should change their name to CONOMART as they will have nothing to do with the new daily service on the Eagle/Sunset. When they threw us under the bus, we replace them with the SUNSET LIMITED WEST group on Google.

http://groups.google.com/group/sunset-limited-west?hl=en


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 19, 2010)

henryj said:


> Well Blake, I can tell you what happenned. SMART is dominated by Florida people that have blinders on and can only see the route between NOL and Florida. They apparently don't care a hoot about anything west of NOL. They have done nothing to promote or improve the existing service. All they do is gripe about the loss of the Sunset Limited east. The group still exists and has a group site on Yahoo. If you go read it you will see what I mean. They don't care about daily service or restoring service to Phoenix or improving the timing to connect with the CS, nothing. All they care about is restoring the tri-weekly Sunset to Florida. They have become irrevelant in the big picture. Amtrak reps will not meet with them or attend their meetings. Originally, NARP indorsed them, but now just ignores them. Based on Amtrak's stated future plans the should change their name to CONOMART as they will have nothing to do with the new daily service on the Eagle/Sunset. When they threw us under the bus, we replace them with the SUNSET LIMITED WEST group on Google.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sunset-limited-west?hl=en



I remember you telling me about that, and I joined the Google group a while back (thank you for the invite, BTW.) I think you're probably right about CONOMART--that seems to be the most realistic option for restoring service to Florida--assuming the Sunset/Eagle change happens, and I'm convinced that it will.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 19, 2010)

SMART is mostly interested in getting service restored between New Orleans and Orlando...and who can blame them for that? That's not to say that they've been successful, but they have, or have had, some very knowledgeable people in the group. Amtrak probably decided to stop meeting with them because the company probably ran out of excuses as to why the Sunset East hasn't been restored. SMART probably got the cold shoulder for trying to keep Amtrak honest...but to their credit, at least they tried to get things going and spur some interest along the coast. And that's not an easy thing to do in states like LA, MS, AL...where passenger rail isn't exactly a high priority. As for the daily Sunset, I'm mostly concerned with how this affects New Orleans, and I am not convinced for a second that this will be a big benefit to the city. But I've already explained my opinion in previous threads so I won't go there again.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 19, 2010)

My experience is that the SMART people aren't very smart in that they don't recognize politics and how to work around them. They just sit and whine and ask for something Amtrak thinks is a bad idea, citing numbers that don't make sense. They have come to look like total morons.

Doesn't matter if you are or not. Sounding like a bunch of one-track loons gets you ignored. As a certain group in Essex county has been learning recently.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 19, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> My experience is that the SMART people aren't very smart in that they don't recognize politics and how to work around them. They just sit and whine and ask for something Amtrak thinks is a bad idea, citing numbers that don't make sense. They have come to look like total morons.
> Doesn't matter if you are or not. Sounding like a bunch of one-track loons gets you ignored. As a certain group in Essex county has been learning recently.


What's your experience with them if you don't mind me asking? I know a few of them and the one's I know are pretty much the exact opposite as what you say they are. Just curious. FYI, when the group was active, at least for a time, they did more than just "sit and whine and ask"...they actually came up with ideas. The fact that Amtrak didn't agree with them is another story. Everyone knows Amtrak botched the whole Sunset East ordeal and the company has sure looked liked total morons from time to time with the lame excuses given and what not.


----------



## DowneasterPassenger (May 20, 2010)

delvyrails said:


> When the train goes daily, the LA connection with the Coast Starlight needs to be restored in both directions. Currently the missed connection makes travel between the Bay Area and Southern Arizona inconvenient via Amtrak.
> That's one of Amtrak's largest currently-unserved LD travel markets. It's in the low thousands daily. Amtrak should enjoy its share.


When you say "restored", did that connection ever exist in the first place?

WB you can make a connection from the SL to either the Coast Starlight or the San Joaquins. EB is where you run into having to spend the night in LA. I've always thought that the solution was to add the Coast Daylight or another late-night San Joaquin.


----------



## delvyrails (May 20, 2010)

SanJoaquinRider said:


> delvyrails said:
> 
> 
> > When the train goes daily, the LA connection with the Coast Starlight needs to be restored in both directions. Currently the missed connection makes travel between the Bay Area and Southern Arizona inconvenient via Amtrak.
> ...



Before the SP/UP freight congestion issue. the old Sunset Limited schedules (pre-8am Los Angeles westbound arrival, post-11pm eastbound depature) did connect in both directions with the Coast Starlight.

Long before Amtrak's time when there were two or more daily trains in each direction on each route, there were additional connections available at Los Angeles. Finally if you go back a century or more, the Sunset Limited itself operated as a New Orleans-Los Angeles-San Francisco through train, which linked SP's eastern terminus with its headquarters city.


----------



## Donctor (May 20, 2010)

delvyrails said:


> Long before Amtrak's time when there were two or more daily trains in each direction on each route, there were additional connections available at Los Angeles. Finally if you go back a century or more, the Sunset Limited itself operated as a New Orleans-Los Angeles-San Francisco through train, which linked SP's eastern terminus with its headquarters city.


I believe it was NOL-LAX-SFO until 1930-ish, and once again 1935-ish through 1941 or 1942. From the little I've read on SP, the LAX-SFO leg was suspended because of the Depression, then restored when the economy improved slightly, and then eliminated when WWII started.


----------



## Donctor (May 20, 2010)

NativeSon5859 said:


> FYI, when the group was active, at least for a time, they did more than just "sit and whine and ask"...they actually came up with ideas. The fact that Amtrak didn't agree with them is another story. Everyone knows Amtrak botched the whole Sunset East ordeal and the company has sure looked liked total morons from time to time with the lame excuses given and what not.


I don't know if I agree that Amtrak "botched the whole Sunset East ordeal," or anything similar. Yes, Amtrak should have come out and said "we don't have the funding necessary to run this train without cutting something else, and even if we do, we can't/don't want to dedicate our limited resources to restoring a service that will cause us to lose money that won't be recovered by fares paid by whatever passengers we gain." But it's not like their intentions were unclear.

As it stands right now, Amtrak needs no additional equipment to run the Sunset to Orlando. The Sunset uses the same number of consists it used when it ran to Florida; the dwell time in NOL was the only real equipment change. (Of course, I'm ignoring the loss of access to Sanford.)


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 20, 2010)

NativeSon5859 said:


> What's your experience with them if you don't mind me asking? I know a few of them and the one's I know are pretty much the exact opposite as what you say they are. Just curious. FYI, when the group was active, at least for a time, they did more than just "sit and whine and ask"...they actually came up with ideas. The fact that Amtrak didn't agree with them is another story. Everyone knows Amtrak botched the whole Sunset East ordeal and the company has sure looked liked total morons from time to time with the lame excuses given and what not.


My experience is listening to their tripe. I've read so much of it from so many different sources, it makes me want to puke. They came up with ideas, which honestly made limited sense given reality, and then kept harping on them. They were not willing to compromise, discuss, or even listen to what Amtrak had to say on the matter.

As for how Amtrak looks? Not like a moron. They look, perhaps, like a callous enterprise running their business by financial numbers and political considerations, ignoring an area of the country that has historically not given a hoot about their existence, and placing their money in areas where they think they will be successful.

That's sensible, not moronic. It just happens to suck for you. I'm not saying that I don't want a train running on the Gulf Coast route. I just am tired, and I know of people in Amtrak who agree with me, of people who sit around complaining about the loss of this direct route or this run through train, about the loss of the great hoard of people who wanted to travel between the boring deserts of the Southwest, across the boring kudzu of the gulf coast, and into the dilapidated swampy commercialization of Florida in three days time when they could bypass all this marvelous scenery quickly using other methods.

These nutballs are, clearly, the meat of intercity rail travel. Yeah, that's like saying the people that fly to Russia to spend 7 days running the Rossiya are the meat and potatoes of Russian State Railways business.

Amtrak knows that operating the service in other ways that capitalize on the intermediate traffic is how they are going to financially grow this train. Run through sleepers would be nice. Maybe if they have the equipment to place them on these trains a few times a week, it would make sense.

There are 4848 miles of track that, prior to Katrina, covered the Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle, and City of New Orleans. Instead of trying to preserve a train JAX-LAX hard headedly, they are better off figuring the best combination of trains to run over them, taking into account what rail is today.


----------



## zephyr17 (May 20, 2010)

As far as Amtrak's reasoning for not resuming the Sunset east of NOL, your analysis may well be largely true, GML.

However, assuming it is true, then Amtrak should stop the charade and file 180 discontinuation notices on the Sunset east of NOL. And take whatever heat is associated with that. They should either run the train, or formally discontinue it and go through the correct process, channels, notifications, and public comment.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 20, 2010)

zephyr17 said:


> As far as Amtrak's reasoning for not resuming the Sunset east of NOL, your analysis may well be largely true, GML.
> However, assuming it is true, then Amtrak should stop the charade and file 180 discontinuation notices on the Sunset east of NOL. And take whatever heat is associated with that. They should either run the train, or formally discontinue it and go through the correct process, channels, notifications, and public comment.


There are about 200 reasons why that makes less sense than what they are doing now. And most of them, quite honestly, will probably end up in the rail travelers favor.


----------



## jis (May 21, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > As far as Amtrak's reasoning for not resuming the Sunset east of NOL, your analysis may well be largely true, GML.
> ...


I agree. After you have done a full shutdown with 180 day notice it will take zillions more to start up again, that is zillions more than if you had not done a full official shutdown using 180 day notice. For one thing the right to run a train on that route is retained until you have done a full shutdown. After that it is back to square one.


----------



## printman2000 (May 21, 2010)

jis said:


> I agree. After you have done a full shutdown with 180 day notice it will take zillions more to start up again, that is zillions more than if you had not done a full official shutdown using 180 day notice. For one thing the right to run a train on that route is retained until you have done a full shutdown. After that it is back to square one.


That makes me wonder...

Has Amtrak not done 180 notices because they did not want to deal with all the political stuff that would come from that OR with the mindset of keeping the route available for service?

I guess you could say both, but I assumed it was more because of the first choice.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 21, 2010)

printman2000 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. After you have done a full shutdown with 180 day notice it will take zillions more to start up again, that is zillions more than if you had not done a full official shutdown using 180 day notice. For one thing the right to run a train on that route is retained until you have done a full shutdown. After that it is back to square one.
> ...


I would say it is sum of many things, although I think the political fallout is strong... but not as strong as most think.


----------



## mfastx (May 21, 2010)

Personally, I don't really have a problem with Amtrak discontinuing the Sunset to Florida, I just wish they would remove that section from their route map, or stop saying it's "suspended indefinately." That just annoys the crap out of me, I mean we all know it's not going to come back all of the sudden, just remove it from the website!

LOL I get mad over the dumbest things.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2010)

Amtrak has plans for several new trains but not enough coaches to run the Sunset daily.


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 21, 2010)

mfastx said:


> Personally, I don't really have a problem with Amtrak discontinuing the Sunset to Florida, I just wish they would remove that section from their route map, or stop saying it's "suspended indefinately." That just annoys the crap out of me, I mean we all know it's not going to come back all of the sudden, just remove it from the website!
> LOL I get mad over the dumbest things.


That's kind of the point here, though. If they do that--if they officially post the 180 day notice and discontinue the service officially, then they lose the right to run _any passenger train whatsoever_ on that route. They would have to negotiate for it--the federal law says the freight companies *must* allow Amtrak to run passenger trains *at the present level of service.* That means that, if there is *no* service on a route, the freight company can say "no" to Amtrak; the law would not make them take a train.

Reading between the lines, it looks like Amtrak wants a train down there--just not a transcontinental Sunset Limited.

My personal feeling is that eventually Amtrak will extend the City of New Orleans from New Orleans to Florida some day. Or, if the states pony up the funds, they'll run whatever the states want run.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2010)

Amtrak believes if they kill the Sunset, all criticism will go away. Warped logic.

Amtrak must fix the Sunset as best defense to criticism.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 22, 2010)

Guest said:


> Amtrak believes if they kill the Sunset, all criticism will go away. Warped logic.Amtrak must fix the Sunset as best defense to criticism.


You got it wrong. They are attempting to fix the service. To best utilize the areas served, though, they believe they need to change the situation, and a transcontinental single train called the Sunset Limited is not the best use of their resources to serve that area. I personally agree.


----------



## AlanB (May 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak believes if they kill the Sunset, all criticism will go away. Warped logic.Amtrak must fix the Sunset as best defense to criticism.
> ...


I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that the Sunset Limited isn't the best use of resources to serve that area, however no service is certainly not the best way to fix the service. One should continue to run what one has until such time as things can indeed be made better.

After all, we're not talking about discontinuing what's left of the Sunset as well as the Eagle while we get ready to revise that service.


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak believes if they kill the Sunset, all criticism will go away. Warped logic.Amtrak must fix the Sunset as best defense to criticism.
> ...


Once again I find myself in agreement with GML!  I love the Sunset Ltd., it was my first LD train,first time in a diner etc.  (SP, pre-Amtrak) but for economic and time keeping reasons re-starting LAX-FLA same train service is not feasible! Once the daily CHI-LAX and SAS-NOL stub trains are in place I look for Amtrak to run the CONO through to Florida, Jacksonville is as far as it needs to go, the Silver Trains or even another Florida train if such ever happens, can serve the Southern Florida market! To me this makes the most sense, and as to Alans concerns about the stub train, Alan is right 99.99% of the time but as the old saying goes," we'll see?" :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:


----------



## AlanB (May 22, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> Once the daily CHI-LAX and SAS-NOL stub trains are in place I look for Amtrak to run the CONO through to Florida, Jacksonville is as far as it needs to go, the Silver Trains or even another Florida train if such ever happens, can serve the Southern Florida market! To me this makes the most sense, and as to Alans concerns about the stub train, Alan is right 99.99% of the time but as the old saying goes," we'll see?" :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:


JAX is not the place to terminate a train, as Amtrak does not want to setup shops there to maintain the trains. And I'm not even sure if there is space to put in a shop. Any train need to either terminate at Orlando for a dead head move to Sanford, or in Miami, both of which have shops and comissaries to restock the trains.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak believes if they kill the Sunset, all criticism will go away. Warped logic.Amtrak must fix the Sunset as best defense to criticism.
> ...


The Sunset ran in 3 of the 4 largest states. Amtrak ran the train tri-weekly, very dumb. So the solution is to kill the train

in the 4th largest state, kill a LD train in the second largest state replaced with a stub train to compete with I-10 and Southwest

airline. I sure it makes sense on planet kookoo.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


You by chance wouldn't happen to agree with killing the Sunset because it benefits your area?


----------



## Trogdor (May 22, 2010)

Guest said:


> The Sunset ran in 3 of the 4 largest states. Amtrak ran the train tri-weekly, very dumb. So the solution is to kill the trainin the 4th largest state, kill a LD train in the second largest state replaced with a stub train to compete with I-10 and Southwest
> 
> airline. I sure it makes sense on planet kookoo.


The route has been 3x weekly since prior to Amtrak's existence. Not saying that justifies Amtrak's continued operation of the train with the same frequency, just pointing out that it wasn't Amtrak that downgraded the frequency.

One could also point out that, despite it running in three of the four largest states, the ridership was still quite weak. Amtrak doesn't have the equipment to run the whole route daily at this time (which would be the preferred option).

Therefore, Amtrak faces the decision of serving the entire route with crappy service, or serving a portion of the route with reasonably good service, and restoring service to the rest of the route when the equipment availability will permit (remember, Amtrak has a fleet plan available for review, all it needs is money, so call your congresspersons).

As for your comment about "[competing] with I-10 and Southwest airline (sic)," the NOL-SAS stub train will follow the same routing as the current Sunset Limited between those two cities. If running seven days a week isn't competitive, then how would running three days per week be?

Maybe on this "planet kookoo" of which you speak, a week only has three days?


----------



## GG-1 (May 22, 2010)

Aloha

What I have never understood about 3 time a week Scheduling is how does this type of schedule serve customers? What does make sense to me is Mon-Fri and/or Sat-Sun(Holiday) scheduling. I do realize that in LD Service there may be some reason to consider the end points.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > The Sunset ran in 3 of the 4 largest states. Amtrak ran the train tri-weekly, very dumb. So the solution is to kill the trainin the 4th largest state, kill a LD train in the second largest state replaced with a stub train to compete with I-10 and Southwest
> ...


Amtrak had 39 years and dozens of chances to daily this route.



> One could also point out that, despite it running in three of the four largest states, the ridership was still quite weak. Amtrak doesn't have the equipment to run the whole route daily at this time (which would be the preferred option).


It was weak because of the tri-weekly service by Amtrak. This route done correctly could easily mirror EB numbers.



> Therefore, Amtrak faces the decision of serving the entire route with crappy service, or serving a portion of the route with reasonably good service, and restoring service to the rest of the route when the equipment availability will permit (remember, Amtrak has a fleet plan available for review, all it needs is money, so call your congresspersons).


The stub train is crappy service for those traveling beyond SAS or NOL. What is the point of traveling in between SAS-NOL with a cheap SWA and fast IH-10.



> As for your comment about "[competing] with I-10 and Southwest airline (sic)," the NOL-SAS stub train will follow the same routing as the current Sunset Limited between those two cities. If running seven days a week isn't competitive, then how would running three days per week be?
> Maybe on this "planet kookoo" of which you speak, a week only has three days?


Tri-weekly LD and a daily stub is both undesired service. The tri-weekly LD is the lesser evil. The stud train will flopleaving no service to Houston. In this area, Amtrak means vacations and long trips, not business hops.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 22, 2010)

Guest said:


> The Sunset ran in 3 of the 4 largest states. Amtrak ran the train tri-weekly, very dumb. So the solution is to kill the trainin the 4th largest state, kill a LD train in the second largest state replaced with a stub train to compete with I-10 and Southwest
> 
> airline. I sure it makes sense on planet kookoo.


I hate to use the term incidental when referring to train customers, because it reminds me of George Warrington referring to off-peak riders as incidental on NJ Transit. But I can't think of a better word.

For Amtrak, long-distance coast-to-coast riders are incidental to their business. These riders are generally one of three types: Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos. They are a tiny number, and while they do tend to generate an impressive amount of revenue (they tend to go sleeper and/or buy food aboard), they are not the growth market. I hate flying because it is unpleasant. So much so I'd rather spend 6 days of my valuable time going from New York to the west coast and back than 12 hours. This makes me crazy. Old farts who don't want to fly because it scares them are, likewise, crazy.

Rail fans will ride trains regardless of how inconvenient or insensible they are to ride. If a railfan plans on riding the Sunset, they will do it if they have to change trains never, once, or ten times, if it runs once a week, or 3 times a week, or 7 days a week. Highly elastic market. I mean, dear god, they road the remnants of the Nancy Hanks II.

Tourists? Well to a tourist, how inconvenient can it possibly be to have to change trains in the historic and tourist oriented cities of San Antonio and New Orleans? Excellent excuse to get out for a day or two and see the sights.

The meat of the market is now people who are traveling relatively short distances. The Carolinian and Palmetto get pretty decent ridership with no sleeper, and no diner. The Lynchburger is coming close to covering its costs and it doesn't even haul a baggage car. Those of us going from Washington to Richmond, well being rail fans, we'd take the Silver Metoer or Silver Star most likely. But most customers don't. They take a Regional. They don't care what service the train has.

Amtrak is being intelligent about this. They will attract more riders running a day train between New Orleans and San Antonio every day than a sleeper train all the way to Los Angeles (where most NOL passengers have no desire to go, particularly) three times a week.

You argue three of the largest states.. ok. New York is the 3rd largest state, by population. It has one sleeper train running through it locally (Forget the ones that originate in New York City and promptly leave it for the beautiful state of New Jersey!). It has a bunch more that run through it, and they carry more passengers than that LD does.

In addition, if Amtrak is looking to create a serious competition with I-10 and SWA, they are not going to do it with a bunch of Superliner slugs (slowest rated cars in the system, at 100 mph!) hauled by a diesel locomotive over Union Pacific trackage with enough padding to save my life if I jumped free fall off the Empire State Building, no matter how many days a week it runs.

But they will get a hell of a lot more passengers locally if they know the train is going to run daily then if it is running tri-weekly. Planning your trips around a train running three times a week is outrageously inconvenient. Few people do it.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > The Sunset ran in 3 of the 4 largest states. Amtrak ran the train tri-weekly, very dumb. So the solution is to kill the trainin the 4th largest state, kill a LD train in the second largest state replaced with a stub train to compete with I-10 and Southwest
> ...


What about the traveler, which is neither tourist or railfan. I see travelers 90% of the time get on and off the Sunset. Someone going from Houston to El paso

or Houston to LA for whom it does not interest them to tour San Antonio. I'm sure there are railfans and tourist, but I see travelers 90%.



> I hate flying because it is unpleasant. So much so I'd rather spend 6 days of my valuable time going from New York to the west coast and back than 12 hours. This makes me crazy. Old farts who don't want to fly because it scares them are, likewise, crazy.
> Rail fans will ride trains regardless of how inconvenient or insensible they are to ride. If a railfan plans on riding the Sunset, they will do it if they have to change trains never, once, or ten times, if it runs once a week, or 3 times a week, or 7 days a week. Highly elastic market. I mean, dear god, they road the remnants of the Nancy Hanks II.
> 
> Tourists? Well to a tourist, how inconvenient can it possibly be to have to change trains in the historic and tourist oriented cities of San Antonio and New Orleans? Excellent excuse to get out for a day or two and see the sights.
> ...


Maybe you have a bunch of railfans riding the Carolinian and Palmetto.


> Amtrak is being intelligent about this. They will attract more riders running a day train between New Orleans and San Antonio every day than a sleeper train all the way to Los Angeles (where most NOL passengers have no desire to go, particularly) three times a week.


25% of Houston riders going west are going to LA. 22% to El paso. The vast majority of Houston riders going west ride past SAS.

And I'm sure many of them aren't interested in stopping in SAS to tour the city.



> You argue three of the largest states.. ok. New York is the 3rd largest state, by population. It has one sleeper train running through it locally (Forget the ones that originate in New York City and promptly leave it for the beautiful state of New Jersey!). It has a bunch more that run through it, and they carry more passengers than that LD does.


New York has 50 million trains, Texas has 3 trains. Does it really makes sense to you to compare? think before you answer.



> In addition, if Amtrak is looking to create a serious competition with I-10 and SWA, they are not going to do it with a bunch of Superliner slugs (slowest rated cars in the system, at 100 mph!) hauled by a diesel locomotive over Union Pacific trackage with enough padding to save my life if I jumped free fall off the Empire State Building, no matter how many days a week it runs.


Exactly, Amtrak can't compete with SWA and IH-10 in speed. So why would anyone take Amtrak between SAS and NOL unless they are Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos.And according to you, "They are a tiny number, they are not the growth market. "



> But they will get a hell of a lot more passengers locally if they know the train is going to run daily then if it is running tri-weekly. Planning your trips around a train running three times a week is outrageously inconvenient. Few people do it.


Then Amtrak should run the Sunset daily, not kill it.


----------



## Ryan (May 22, 2010)

Guest said:


> Then Amtrak should run the Sunset daily, not kill it.


Yet somehow you consider daily service to be killing it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 22, 2010)

Guest said:


> What about the traveler, which is neither tourist or railfan. I see travelers 90% of the time get on and off the Sunset. Someone going from Houston to El pasoor Houston to LA for whom it does not interest them to tour San Antonio. I'm sure there are railfans and tourist, but I see travelers 90%.


Of course. And they will be much happier that their train is now running daily!



Guest said:


> Maybe you have a bunch of railfans riding the Carolinian and Palmetto.


No, statistically its point-to-point travelers. Railfans riding the Palmetto's route are more likely to travel on the more lavishly equipped Silver Meteor or, if they are going to Savannah, the Silver Star.



Guest said:


> 25% of Houston riders going west are going to LA. 22% to El paso. The vast majority of Houston riders going west ride past SAS. And I'm sure many of them aren't interested in stopping in SAS to tour the city.


I don't know where you get your numbers from, but it isn't Amtrak. I sincerely doubt there are any cities non-endpoint where you have a pecentage over 20 getting on in one and getting off in another, off the Northeast Corridor.



Guest said:


> New York has 50 million trains, Texas has 3 trains. Does it really makes sense to you to compare? think before you answer.


Respectfully, I ask you to follow your own advice. New York's abundance of trains show a distinct transit pattern. Texas would benefit from point-to-point corridors, but in absence of them the point to point traveller is more likely to chose the once-a-day stub than a tri-weekly Sunset Limited.



> Exactly, Amtrak can't compete with SWA and IH-10 in speed. So why would anyone take Amtrak between SAS and NOL unless they are Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos.And according to you, "They are a tiny number, they are not the growth market. "


If Amtrak is operating in a market to serve only railfans, tourists, and cuckoos at a loss of hundreds of dollars a passenger, I, one of the biggest proponents of public transit I know of, want the train doing it stricken off of my tax bill. If this daily service train which would much better serve the transit rider, does not see a major increase in ridership, then I hope Amtrak does kill the train.

Amtrak is in the business of serving our nations transportation needs. Not catering to railfans. I believe Amtrak to be honestly serving a need. If there is a train that doesn't serve a serious need, it does not belong in the system.



> Then Amtrak should run the Sunset daily, not kill it.


Quite clearly, expanding the service along the Sunset's route from tri-weekly to daily is tantamount to killing it. I swear to god, I am sick of the self-centered nuts who want to place an albatross around Amtrak's neck, both politically and financially, to avoid riding in an open coach during the day.

GET REAL!


----------



## AlanB (May 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> For Amtrak, long-distance coast-to-coast riders are incidental to their business.


The $411.5 Million in revenue that Amtrak collected last year from the LD riders is not only not incidental, it's more than what Amtrak collected from the short haul trains that you're promoting. Collecting $98 on average per LD passenger vs. $26 per short haul passenger isn't incidental.



Green Maned Lion said:


> The Carolinian and Palmetto get pretty decent ridership with no sleeper, and no diner. The Lynchburger is coming close to covering its costs and it doesn't even haul a baggage car. Those of us going from Washington to Richmond, well being rail fans, we'd take the Silver Metoer or Silver Star most likely. But most customers don't. They take a Regional. They don't care what service the train has.


That's because of how Amtrak prices things, that is to say that in general Amtrak prices the LD's in such a way as to discourage people riding them for local travel in places where Regionals or Short Hauls overlap the service.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak is being intelligent about this. They will attract more riders running a day train between New Orleans and San Antonio every day than a sleeper train all the way to Los Angeles (where most NOL passengers have no desire to go, particularly) three times a week.


Most NOL passengers have no desire to go to Houston or San Antonio 3, 4, 5, or more times a week.



Green Maned Lion said:


> But they will get a hell of a lot more passengers locally if they know the train is going to run daily then if it is running tri-weekly.


Normally in most locales, I would agree with that idea. I'm unfortunately not so sure of that in this case.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Planning your trips around a train running three times a week is outrageously inconvenient. Few people do it.


This I do agree with; in fact the same problem plagues the Cardinal.


----------



## henryj (May 22, 2010)

Guest said:


> What about the traveler, which is neither tourist or railfan. I see travelers 90% of the time get on and off the Sunset. Someone going from Houston to El paso or Houston to LA for whom it does not interest them to tour San Antonio. I'm sure there are railfans and tourist, but I see travelers 90%.
> The meat of the market is now people who are traveling relatively short distances. The Carolinian and Palmetto get pretty decent ridership with no sleeper, and no diner. The Lynchburger is coming close to covering its costs and it doesn't even haul a baggage car. Those of us going from Washington to Richmond, well being rail fans, we'd take the Silver Metoer or Silver Star most likely. But most customers don't. They take a Regional. They don't care what service the train has
> 
> 25% of Houston riders going west are going to LA. 22% to El paso. The vast majority of Houston riders going west ride past SAS.
> ...



Actually, this is a most interesting and informative discussion even if I don't agree with everything said. GML is making a lot of sense here. One question I have for Guest is where do you get your stats? I have done a lot of research on the Sunset Limited, but I have never found stats that indicate what percentage of passengers boarding at a location are going where. Regardless, Houston's boardings are pitifully small for a city of 5 million people. Most don't even know we have passenger rail in Houston. Houston's boardings are about the same as San Antonio and smaller than Tucson. A daily train to San Antonio and New Orleans running during daylight hours will no doubt attrack more passengers then the current service which comes through Houston at odd hours three times a week. I think Amtrak has a good idea here as the Houston to New Orleans route has also been identified as a high speed corridor. The service may start out rather slow, but it's a start that can only be improved on. I see no reason for the LD passengers to be affected. These people have made a conscious decision to take the train and will still take it even if they have to change trains in San Antonio. Meanwhile many more people will be attracted to rail service, people making short trips to and from towns along the way.


----------



## AlanB (May 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> > Exactly, Amtrak can't compete with SWA and IH-10 in speed. So why would anyone take Amtrak between SAS and NOL unless they are Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos.And according to you, "They are a tiny number, they are not the growth market. "
> 
> 
> If Amtrak is operating in a market to serve only railfans, tourists, and cuckoos at a loss of hundreds of dollars a passenger, I, one of the biggest proponents of public transit I know of, want the train doing it stricken off of my tax bill. If this daily service train which would much better serve the transit rider, does not see a major increase in ridership, then I hope Amtrak does kill the train.


All short haul trains are doing is rearranging the deck chairs. We're shifting the funding from the Fed to the states.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak is in the business of serving our nations transportation needs.


And that means providing service that may or may not be financially viable. Amtrak is charged with providing service to the Nation.



Green Maned Lion said:


> > Then Amtrak should run the Sunset daily, not kill it.
> 
> 
> Quite clearly, expanding the service along the Sunset's route from tri-weekly to daily is tantamount to killing it. I swear to god, I am sick of the self-centered nuts who want to place an albatross around Amtrak's neck, both politically and financially, to avoid riding in an open coach during the day.
> ...


The albatross is already there, no one is placing it around Amtrak's neck at this point in time. It was hung there in 1971 when Congress formed Amtrak and mandated that they run trains.

And I for one take umbrage at being called a self-centered nut. This has never been about my having to ride in coach during the day. In fact the odds of my riding the Sunset as is; with daily full service trains; or under this new plan anytime in the next 10 years is unlikely. This is all about that any numbers that I can find do not support the conclusion that this is a good idea for Amtrak; and at least so far Amtrak isn't providing any numbers to counter things. And there are others who also question the wisdom of the Eagle/Sunset plan.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I don't know where you get your numbers from, but it isn't Amtrak. I sincerely doubt there are any cities non-endpoint where you have a pecentage over 20 getting on in one and getting off in another, off the Northeast Corridor.


Amtrak posted the numbers on the website.


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > New York has 50 million trains, Texas has 3 trains. Does it really makes sense to you to compare? think before you answer.
> ...


Texas would only give up the trucks if the regioinal trains were +150 mph. The Amtrak stub train SAS-NOL will average 38 mph. Can we agree that is a noticable difference?



> > Exactly, Amtrak can't compete with SWA and IH-10 in speed. So why would anyone take Amtrak between SAS and NOL unless they are Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos.And according to you, "They are a tiny number, they are not the growth market. "
> 
> 
> If Amtrak is operating in a market to serve only railfans, tourists, and cuckoos at a loss of hundreds of dollars a passenger, I, one of the biggest proponents of public transit I know of, want the train doing it stricken off of my tax bill. If this daily service train which would much better serve the transit rider, does not see a major increase in ridership, then I hope Amtrak does kill the train.


Well this is exactly what the stub train will do. In the end Amtrak will be forced to kill the stub and SAS-NOL will have no train. No train

to Houston which is what I said many times on this plan. GML, please school henyri



> Amtrak is in the business of serving our nations transportation needs. Not catering to railfans. I believe Amtrak to be honestly serving a need. If there is a train that doesn't serve a serious need, it does not belong in the system.


If you took the Sunset tri-weekly numbers and applied them to the Sunset as a daily train, Sunset would be doing better than manyof the daily LD trains. The problem is the tri-weekly, not the train. Do you not agree?



> > Then Amtrak should run the Sunset daily, not kill it.
> 
> 
> Quite clearly, expanding the service along the Sunset's route from tri-weekly to daily is tantamount to killing it. I swear to god, I am sick of the self-centered nuts who want to place an albatross around Amtrak's neck, both politically and financially, to avoid riding in an open coach during the day.
> ...


Amtrak needs something around it's neck because every decade the system gets smaller.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 22, 2010)

AlanB said:


> The $411.5 Million in revenue that Amtrak collected last year from the LD riders is not only not incidental, it's more than what Amtrak collected from the short haul trains that you're promoting. Collecting $98 on average per LD passenger vs. $26 per short haul passenger isn't incidental.


Alan, just because the passenger rides a long distance train does not mean they are a long distance passenger. A person riding the Lake Shore Limited from Buffalo to Erie is riding an LD train a short distance. Statistically, that is the bulk of LD train revenue.



AlanB said:


> Most NOL passengers have no desire to go to Houston or San Antonio 3, 4, 5, or more times a week.


Naturally. But they would like to go to Houston or San Antonio on any given day they like and return on any other given day they like. Which they can not do now!

Actually, the comment you are making is childish.



AlanB said:


> Normally in most locales, I would agree with that idea. I'm unfortunately not so sure of that in this case.


It has been conclusively proven that if you give people a convenient daily and reliable service at reasonable prices, they will ride it. If you give passengers a train that is slow as hell, prone to snowballing delays along the length of its route, and only runs sometimes, they will tend to ignore it. Texans are responding to this proven reality.



AlanB said:


> This I do agree with; in fact the same problem plagues the Cardinal.


Which is why Amtrak is apparently pretty deadly serious to take the Cardinal Superliner and Daily within the next 12 months. Whether it happens or not, this is the intent. Boardman, from what I hear, has made a firm decision that tri-weekly trains have no place in a real transit network and is intent, along with many of the other upper management, to get rid of them by taking the two remaining triweekly trains daily.


----------



## AlanB (May 22, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The $411.5 Million in revenue that Amtrak collected last year from the LD riders is not only not incidental, it's more than what Amtrak collected from the short haul trains that you're promoting. Collecting $98 on average per LD passenger vs. $26 per short haul passenger isn't incidental.
> ...


Statistically that is not the case that the bulk of the LD pax on the LSL is riding a short distance. If you have stats that prove that wrong, then please produce them.



Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Most NOL passengers have no desire to go to Houston or San Antonio 3, 4, 5, or more times a week.
> ...


I don't see a huge market in that, certainly not one that is going to offset the lost revenue from the sleepers.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Actually, the comment you are making is childish.


There was nothing childish at all in my remark. I'm simply stating that I don't believe that there is a market there, regardless of the type of service.



Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Normally in most locales, I would agree with that idea. I'm unfortunately not so sure of that in this case.
> ...


It's been proven in areas where there is already strong ridership. This is not an area with strong ridership.

As for the slow train, the new one won't be any faster. And the delays argument went out the window months ago. In fact, right now the Sunset is currently one of Amtrak's best performing LD trains for OTP.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

henryj said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > What about the traveler, which is neither tourist or railfan. I see travelers 90% of the time get on and off the Sunset. Someone going from Houston to El paso or Houston to LA for whom it does not interest them to tour San Antonio. I'm sure there are railfans and tourist, but I see travelers 90%.
> ...


The information was posted on Amtrak website.



> I have done a lot of research on the Sunset Limited, but I have never found stats that indicate what percentage of passengers boarding at a location are going where. Regardless, Houston's boardings are pitifully small for a city of 5 million people. Most don't even know we have passenger rail in Houston. Houston's boardings are about the same as San Antonio and smaller than Tucson. A daily train to San Antonio and New Orleans running during daylight hours will no doubt attrack more passengers then the current service which comes through Houston at odd hours three times a week. I think Amtrak has a good idea here as the Houston to New Orleans route has also been identified as a high speed corridor. The service may start out rather slow, but it's a start that can only be improved on. I see no reason for the LD passengers to be affected. These people have made a conscious decision to take the train and will still take it even if they have to change trains in San Antonio. Meanwhile many more people will be attracted to rail service, people making short trips to and from towns along the way.


A stub train, SAS-NOL, will only attract railfans. GML agrees the number of railfans are small. Houston will lose passengere rail service

with this move. IH-10 70MPH, Amtrak 38 mph, who do you think will ride?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 23, 2010)

AlanB said:


> As for the slow train, the new one won't be any faster. And the delays argument went out the window months ago. In fact, right now the Sunset is currently one of Amtrak's best performing LD trains for OTP.


My understanding is this will eliminate much of the padding. Which... will make it faster.



Guest said:


> The information was posted on Amtrak website.


Link me.



> A stub train, SAS-NOL, will only attract railfans. GML agrees the number of railfans are small. Houston will lose passengere rail service with this move. IH-10 70MPH, Amtrak 38 mph, who do you think will ride?


You are simply mistaken.


----------



## Donctor (May 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > As for the slow train, the new one won't be any faster. And the delays argument went out the window months ago. In fact, right now the Sunset is currently one of Amtrak's best performing LD trains for OTP.
> ...


Your understanding is, as of right now, incorrect.

The UP stuff, at least partially, does well right now because freight business is down. The padding was necessary before, and no longer is. That doesn't mean it won't be necessary in the future. It also doesn't mean that the host RRs will give Amtrak whatever time is ideal. Amtrak is aware of this; knowing about it and getting the host roads to cooperate are two very different things.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 23, 2010)

It boils down to this. GML and a couple of select others have no clue as to how the New Orleans market works. They can pretend they do, but they don't. What might work in other parts of the country wouldn't necessarily work down here. The daily Sunset will by no means be a guaranteed hit just because it gains four more weekly frequencies. And on a personal note....GML, really, I have to laugh at a great deal of what you say, which is unfortunate, because you seem knowledgeable. Are you on the Amtrak payroll? Did they hire you to defend their name, regardless if it makes sense or not? You're right, and everyone else is wrong...that's how it tends to work once you get into a discussion on here. And if you read something from someone which doesn't make sense to *you*, you come across as amateurish and are quick to bash the poster or the post itself. Hardly professional. We all have our opinions on here. Stick to yours but don't resort to childish antics, like labeling the people at SMART. What's the point of that? Have a nice day.


----------



## Ryan (May 23, 2010)

Rather than bash other posters, how about you instead spend your time explaining why New Orleans is the unique snowflake of transit paterns.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 23, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Rather than bash other posters, how about you instead spend your time explaining why New Orleans is the unique snowflake of transit paterns.


Bashing? Hardly.

I've already explained why this won't work in previous threads. Speaking from a strictly Louisiana standpoint, there's virtually no demand for intrastate travel in Louisiana for daily service between NOLA and Schreiver, New Iberia, Lafayette, and Lake Charles. NOL-BTR is pretty much the biggest intrastate market, but there's no train service in the market. People in New Orleans are fiercely loyal to Southwest Airlines when it comes to travel between NO and Houston. 10 flights a day...plus 12 flights by Continental. The vast majority of the non-Southwest passengers drive. It's a 6 hour drive but can be done in less time depending on the time of day. It's a 9 hour train ride. Most of the traffic between NO and Houston is business related...it's one of the few business-oriented markets from NO. Business travelers won't take the train even if it's daily. It's too long of a ride. Amtrak will get the scraps...which isn't much. And the lack of a Sleeping car will turn off passengers who are going past San Antonio. Amtrak might pick up a few more people paying bottom bucket prices to Houston based on the daily frequency, but if that would outweigh the loss of Sleeper revenue, I'd be greatly surprised.


----------



## jis (May 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I hate to use the term incidental when referring to train customers, because it reminds me of George Warrington referring to off-peak riders as incidental on NJ Transit. But I can't think of a better word.
> For Amtrak, long-distance coast-to-coast riders are incidental to their business.





> Alan, just because the passenger rides a long distance train does not mean they are a long distance passenger. A person riding the Lake Shore Limited from Buffalo to Erie is riding an LD train a short distance. Statistically, that is the bulk of LD train revenue.


I think you are wrong on both counts. The reason I think so follows. However, I am willing to be educated if you can show plausible concrete evidence otherwise.

Well. on the first count if you seriously think that only coast to coast passenger are long distance passengers and the rest are short distance ones, you need to do a slight definition adjustment. To be a long distance rider you don't have to go coast to coast. By current definition all that you have to do is travel more than 600 miles.

Without taking any position on the matter of SSL I would just like to bring to the attention of the gathered certain statements made by Emmet Fremaux who is in charge of running Amtrak's Product Development and Marketing.

He is quoted in the latest issue of PTJ by Karl Zimmerman, noted writer in this subject area, as saying that "This is a new day for long distance trains , recognized as essential to Amtrak's mission." He went on to state further that LD trains at present account for 42% of revenue system-wide, 44% of passenger miles, and 39% of train miles.

Admittedly this includes revenues from both short and long distance passengers carried by the train. Given the mix of typical car allocation to short vs. long distance on the LD trains my impression is that no more than a third of the seats are allocated for shorts, which would suggest that the other two third are going medium and long distance, may not be coast to coast, but long distance nevertheless. The fact that the average distance traveled by an LD train passenger was 626 miles in 2008 appears to support my contention that very likely a majority of LD passengers actually traveled long distance.

Furthermore, if you take into consideration connected journeys, a proportion of the shorts on one train are likely connecting to become a long distance traveler on a connecting train, typically through Chicago. So at least to me it is not at all obvious that long-distance riders are incidental to the business. I would like to see more substantiating evidence to be convinced.

In the ridership figures presented in the latest issue of PTJ, LD trains grew full 3 percentage points more than the SD trains, and 3.8 percentage points more than the NEC. Of the LD trains, the much maligned SSL grew by 25.7% the highest of all trains (not just LD trains), barring just the Piedmont. So this would suggest that the LD market is currently growing faster than the SD and NEC market, and it would be foolhardy of Amtrak to treat it as "incidental to its business". Fortunately Emmet, who actually runs the thing as opposed to armchair quarterbacking the thing like us here, realizes this apparently. 

Interestingly SSL's ridership numbers projected to daily service would make its ridership greater than that of the Capitol Limited and equal to that of CONO. Also interestingly, the Cardinal is essentially in the same situation as the SSL, its projected ridership as a daily train would have it be a better performer than the Capitol Ltd. So if only ridership number were used, perhaps the Capitol Limited should be canceled and its cars used to make the SSL and Cardinal daily, and extend the Pennsylvanian with a few Viewliners and and Diner Lite to Chicago to restore Chicago - Pittsburgh - Philly - New York service. Afterall, the Pennsylvanian by itself already carries more passengers than the Capitol, and its ridership grew by 6 percentage points more than that of the Capitol!  .

But when you throw in revenue numbers which are skewed a lot by those fat cat old farts, as GML put it, who insist on paying huge fares in sleepers and who otherwise were stated to be incidental, and the fact that the Cap does not have to exclusively bear the cost of any significant station on the route it travels, and involves no split/join en route, makes the Cap look much better as a financial performer. But that is yet another story, that will wait for another posting another day.


----------



## AlanB (May 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > As for the slow train, the new one won't be any faster. And the delays argument went out the window months ago. In fact, right now the Sunset is currently one of Amtrak's best performing LD trains for OTP.
> ...


The padding going away is because of the UP double tracking, lower freight volume, and the new laws that give the FRA some teeth to enforce the rules against freight interferrence. It will go away without regard to any changes to the Sunset Limited.


----------



## henryj (May 23, 2010)

NativeSon5859 said:


> I've already explained why this won't work in previous threads. Speaking from a strictly Louisiana standpoint, there's virtually no demand for intrastate travel in Louisiana for daily service between NOLA and Schreiver, New Iberia, Lafayette, and Lake Charles. NOL-BTR is pretty much the biggest intrastate market, but there's no train service in the market. People in New Orleans are fiercely loyal to Southwest Airlines when it comes to travel between NO and Houston. 10 flights a day...plus 12 flights by Continental. The vast majority of the non-Southwest passengers drive. It's a 6 hour drive but can be done in less time depending on the time of day. It's a 9 hour train ride. Most of the traffic between NO and Houston is business related...it's one of the few business-oriented markets from NO. Business travelers won't take the train even if it's daily. It's too long of a ride. Amtrak will get the scraps...which isn't much. And the lack of a Sleeping car will turn off passengers who are going past San Antonio. Amtrak might pick up a few more people paying bottom bucket prices to Houston based on the daily frequency, but if that would outweigh the loss of Sleeper revenue, I'd be greatly surprised.


We know you love SMART and LARP and what you state is the problem with them. They are just fixated on Louisiana and don't give a hoot about the rest of the route. You really have no knowledge of the intrastate market in La or anywhere else. You are just giving us the usual negative answers we always get about anything west of NOL. As Joy Smith at Amtrak said long ago, 'forget Florida, think daily'. SWA is in every market in the southwest and west. Using your argument we can just discontinue all local train service period. People are looking for an alternative to flying. They are getting sick of the hassle. I10 is becoming increasingly congested and beat up. This daily train is a start. We need it and many more in Texas and the southwest. Instead of the continual drum beat of negativisim, why don't you try a little positive thinking. You will get your precious Florida train when the extend the CONO so quit slamming the SSL.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 23, 2010)

henryj said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > I've already explained why this won't work in previous threads. Speaking from a strictly Louisiana standpoint, there's virtually no demand for intrastate travel in Louisiana for daily service between NOLA and Schreiver, New Iberia, Lafayette, and Lake Charles. NOL-BTR is pretty much the biggest intrastate market, but there's no train service in the market. People in New Orleans are fiercely loyal to Southwest Airlines when it comes to travel between NO and Houston. 10 flights a day...plus 12 flights by Continental. The vast majority of the non-Southwest passengers drive. It's a 6 hour drive but can be done in less time depending on the time of day. It's a 9 hour train ride. Most of the traffic between NO and Houston is business related...it's one of the few business-oriented markets from NO. Business travelers won't take the train even if it's daily. It's too long of a ride. Amtrak will get the scraps...which isn't much. And the lack of a Sleeping car will turn off passengers who are going past San Antonio. Amtrak might pick up a few more people paying bottom bucket prices to Houston based on the daily frequency, but if that would outweigh the loss of Sleeper revenue, I'd be greatly surprised.
> ...


Usual negative answers? Nonsense. It's reality. I wouldn't post some fabrication for the sake of doing just that. It's not "slamming the SSL". I'm talking about the realities of the Louisiana market. Not a word I said is untrue. The SSL isn't a good alternative to flying because it's not a multi frequency, corridor train, with a fast schedule. Back in the day I was very bitter about the loss of FLA service but hey, I've accepted it. Just as I will accept this if this happens. I'm just pointing out that I think the stub train, from the standpoint of New Orleans and Louisiana, isn't the end all be all as some make it out to be.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

henryj said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > I've already explained why this won't work in previous threads. Speaking from a strictly Louisiana standpoint, there's virtually no demand for intrastate travel in Louisiana for daily service between NOLA and Schreiver, New Iberia, Lafayette, and Lake Charles. NOL-BTR is pretty much the biggest intrastate market, but there's no train service in the market. People in New Orleans are fiercely loyal to Southwest Airlines when it comes to travel between NO and Houston. 10 flights a day...plus 12 flights by Continental. The vast majority of the non-Southwest passengers drive. It's a 6 hour drive but can be done in less time depending on the time of day. It's a 9 hour train ride. Most of the traffic between NO and Houston is business related...it's one of the few business-oriented markets from NO. Business travelers won't take the train even if it's daily. It's too long of a ride. Amtrak will get the scraps...which isn't much. And the lack of a Sleeping car will turn off passengers who are going past San Antonio. Amtrak might pick up a few more people paying bottom bucket prices to Houston based on the daily frequency, but if that would outweigh the loss of Sleeper revenue, I'd be greatly surprised.
> ...


What you said is not true. IH-10 is in excellent shape. Completely rebuilt past Katy as the world largest freeway. 6 concrete lanes to Winnie with the remaining

20 miles to soon be rebuilt. 6 to 10 lanes in Beaumont. 6 lanes east of Beaumont. Construction to 6 lanes in the Orange area. 6 lanes Lake charles.

IH-10 is very fast. BTW, Joy Smith must agree with Amtrak. I know you want daily service to Houston and so do I. But not in a SAS-NOL stub train.

This train will flop. Houston riders will not ride this train for business like they do on the east coast. The Houston market needs a daily LD train.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 23, 2010)

First of all, before I respond to these posts, I want to let it be known I did not sleep at all last night. I am distinctly not firing on all cylinders here. Still, I think I can place in my arguments.



NativeSon5859 said:


> Are you on the Amtrak payroll? Did they hire you to defend their name, regardless if it makes sense or not? You're right, and everyone else is wrong...that's how it tends to work once you get into a discussion on here. And if you read something from someone which doesn't make sense to *you*, you come across as amateurish and are quick to bash the poster or the post itself. Hardly professional. We all have our opinions on here. Stick to yours but don't resort to childish antics, like labeling the people at SMART. What's the point of that? Have a nice day.


I label people and groups as I see fit. If I have one major failing in life, its that I tend to lack diplomacy.

However, I'd say you are also bashing on me with your implication that I am on the Amtrak payroll and so on. Amtrak makes a lot of mistakes, and does a lot of things wrong. I am looking at this change from the standpoint of a rail transit advocate. From that standpoint, I agree with Amtrak's plan.

I don't profess to be right. I profess to believe what I believe. I could well be wrong. My perspective will be proven right, wrong, or neither if and when this change goes into effect. You could convince me otherwise, but so far, quite frankly, I have not seen many valid arguments on this subject grounded in logic. In fact, I have seen only one, which is AlanB, and others, argument that the revenue derived from the sleeping car on its route is greater than the revenue gained by daily operation. I believe the loss from sleeper passengers will be less than the increase from daily service, but I concede the possibility.

In fact, the general argument seems to be that nobody will ever ride a coach-only train that distance/time (many people ride coach only trains every day!), and that Texas is a special entity in which people never use trains as transit, apparently, which I regard as absolute poppycock. Texas has not been served by a daily east-west train in 39+ years. I don't think anyone could realistically predict how Texans will react to an entirely different proposition from what they have.

I can only go by two things: the general transit patterns that have shown themself to be nation-and-worldwide, and the Heartland Flyer, which is essentially a stub-train to the Texas Eagle, and gets decent ridership in a similar area of the world.



jis said:


> Well. on the first count if you seriously think that only coast to coast passenger are long distance passengers and the rest are short distance ones, you need to do a slight definition adjustment. To be a long distance rider you don't have to go coast to coast. By current definition all that you have to do is travel more than 600 miles.


I think nothing of the sort. I was just attempting to point out that not all long distance train riders are long distance passengers. Further, ignoring Amtrak's definition and going with my own, I consider a long-distance passenger to be one who rides the train for more than 8 hours for a day train, or 24 hours for an overnight train. At least when I start talking about people who are "incidental" to Amtrak's business.



jis said:


> The fact that the average distance traveled by an LD train passenger was 626 miles in 2008 appears to support my contention that very likely a majority of LD passengers actually traveled long distance.


That, of course, refers to it based on Amtrak's definition. What I was really trying to point out, albeit poorly perhaps, is that people who ride trains multiple nights are generally an incidental passenger to Amtrak. There are very few of them compared to everyone else. Designing a train to the convenience of a NOL-LAX rider but to the detriment of a NOL-HOU rider is, in my mind, catering to an audience that if not incidental, is certainly not the core of Amtrak's business.



jis said:


> it would be foolhardy of Amtrak to treat it as "incidental to its business".


I completely agree, hence my disclaimer in my earlier post. What I meant to say is that riders of such long distance as LAX-NOL or LAX-ORL are relatively minor compared to passengers running much shorter distances.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> First of all, before I respond to these posts, I want to let it be known I did not sleep at all last night. I am distinctly not firing on all cylinders here. Still, I think I can place in my arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, for that, I'll apologize. I'm def not on here to make enemies, and I can at least understand your perspective, even if I don't agree with it. I try to share information on the small chunk of the world that I know and that which affects me most. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't amount to much. Appreciate you taking the time to respond.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I completely agree, hence my disclaimer in my earlier post. What I meant to say is that riders of such long distance as LAX-NOL or LAX-ORL are relatively minor compared to passengers running much shorter distances.


You should get the spin award or get a job with MSNBC. I hope no one was fooled by this slight of hand trick.

Ofcourse NOL-LAX or NOL-ORL will have fewer riders than allllllllllllllllllllll the remaining cities in between. If

NOL-LAX filled the train, then no one in the cities in between of NOL-LAX could ride. Amtrak should avoid this

at all cost. Amtrak would make more money if sleeper room A could be used from ORL-NOL, then another

paying customer from LCH-ELP, then ELP-LAX instead of 1 payer ORL-LAX. Yet you use this as your arguement

against the Sunset.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 23, 2010)

Guest said:


> You should get the spin award or get a job with MSNBC. I hope no one was fooled by this slight of hand trick.Ofcourse NOL-LAX or NOL-ORL will have fewer riders than allllllllllllllllllllll the remaining cities in between. If
> 
> NOL-LAX filled the train, then no one in the cities in between of NOL-LAX could ride. Amtrak should avoid this
> 
> ...


I'd be most sad if the average person reading this board took what I said that way, considering it was in no way what I meant. Passengers who ride Amtrak trans-continental, as it were, relatively speaking (be it LAX-NOL or CHI-LAX) or something in a similar time period (say, more than 30 hours) are a tiny percentage of Amtrak's riders. In fact, let me put it this way: There are a lot more passengers who ride Amtrak less than 500 miles than passengers who ride it more than 1500 miles. A hell of a lot more.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > You should get the spin award or get a job with MSNBC. I hope no one was fooled by this slight of hand trick.Ofcourse NOL-LAX or NOL-ORL will have fewer riders than allllllllllllllllllllll the remaining cities in between. If
> ...


Yet the 1500 mile sleeper makes money per passenger.


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I'd be most sad if the average person reading this board took what I said that way, considering it was in no way what I meant. Passengers who ride Amtrak trans-continental, as it were, relatively speaking (be it LAX-NOL or CHI-LAX) or something in a similar time period (say, more than 30 hours) are a tiny percentage of Amtrak's riders. In fact, let me put it this way: There are a lot more passengers who ride Amtrak less than 500 miles than passengers who ride it more than 1500 miles. A hell of a lot more.


I tend to agree. Here are some numbers for the Texas Eagle in NE Texas. You'll notice that the leading cities in each pair category tend to be short-to-medium distance.

*Top Destinations (plus distance) by Ridership--2009*

_Texarkana_

1) Chicago (774)

2) St. Louis (490)

3) Dallas (217)+

4) Los Angeles (1954)

5) Ft. Worth (248)+

6) Longview (90)+

7) San Antonio (542)+

8) Normal, IL (650)

36.7% of travelers from Texarkana travel 700-799 miles*

_Marshall_

1) Dallas (151)+

2) Chicago (840)

3) Ft. Worth (182)+

4) St. Louis (556)

5) Longview (24)+

6) L.A. (1888)

7) San Antonio (476)+

8) Austin (383)+

37.2% of travelers from Marshall travel 100-199 miles*

_Longview_

1) Chicago (864)

2) Dallas (127)+

3) St. Louis (580)

4) Ft. Worth (158)+

5) L.A. (1864)

6) Little Rock (230)+

7) Normal (740)

8) Springfield (679)

42% of travelers from Longview travel 800-899 miles*

_Mineola_

1) Dallas (79)+

2) Ft. Worth (110)+

3) Chicago (912)

4) Longview (48)+

5) St Louis (628)

6) San Antonio (404)+

7) Austin (311)+

8) L.A. (1816)

32.4% of travelers from Mineola travel less than 99 miles*

*Indicates the largest portion of riders for that particular station.

+Indicates non-overnight travel.


----------



## Tennessee Traveler (May 23, 2010)

All this "discussion" and I would ride and accept any Amtrak service in Nashville. As it is, being a "railfan" I fly to Chicago or other end points just to ride Amtrak. Flying to LAX this July to ride SWC back to Chicago and then the Eagle/Sunset back to LAX. Flying home to BNA(Nashville).


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 23, 2010)

Tennessee Traveler said:


> All this "discussion" and I would ride and accept any Amtrak service in Nashville. As it is, being a "railfan" I fly to Chicago or other end points just to ride Amtrak. Flying to LAX this July to ride SWC back to Chicago and then the Eagle/Sunset back to LAX. Flying home to BNA(Nashville).


We've gotten as far as getting the South Central Corridor extended from Little Rock to Memphis--does Tennessee have a rail plan? One of the things on our longer-term goals list is to make a connection of some sort into that market area.


----------



## jis (May 23, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> That, of course, refers to it based on Amtrak's definition. What I was really trying to point out, albeit poorly perhaps, is that people who ride trains multiple nights are generally an incidental passenger to Amtrak. There are very few of them compared to everyone else. Designing a train to the convenience of a NOL-LAX rider but to the detriment of a NOL-HOU rider is, in my mind, catering to an audience that if not incidental, is certainly not the core of Amtrak's business.


Well, just on that point I was just pointing out that the VP of Marketing and Product Development of Amtrak apparently tends to disagree with you. But leaving that aside, on the more general issue.....

Actually I have been pulled in two directions on this issue. On the one hand using pure passenger count, clearly as a provider of service it is reasonable to assume that more passengers served the better, I'd tend to agree with the position espoused by you in the last sentence above. But OTOH, from a revenue point of view, it is the multi-night sleeper passengers who tend to be significant contributors to the financial health of a train, and hence it may not be wise to ignore them even if in numbers they are small, and from that angle I tend to agree with Alan. This is what causes considerable reluctance on my part to accept your description of them as "incidental", and such characterization may IMHO be as flawed as Warrington's characterization of off-peak passengers.

However, I have not been able to come up with a clear analyzing principle to synthesize these two opposing things in a predictable way. Clearly the answer will depend on the specifics of each route under consideration, and I am afraid I simply don;t have enough detailed info about the route in question.

The fundamental problem in terms of economics is to come up with a utility function that accurately reflects the utility provided by a service in a measurable way, so that such can be balanced against what one is charged for such. How do you monetize the utility is the core question. Economists in all ages have struggled with this and continue to do so even in the context of the analysis of LD trains.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

BlakeTyner said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be most sad if the average person reading this board took what I said that way, considering it was in no way what I meant. Passengers who ride Amtrak trans-continental, as it were, relatively speaking (be it LAX-NOL or CHI-LAX) or something in a similar time period (say, more than 30 hours) are a tiny percentage of Amtrak's riders. In fact, let me put it this way: There are a lot more passengers who ride Amtrak less than 500 miles than passengers who ride it more than 1500 miles. A hell of a lot more.
> ...


Where did you get those numbers. I saw them a while back on amtrak's website.


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 23, 2010)

The numbers are from NARP:

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/reso.../fact_sheets_2/


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

Stub train will flop...GML you were wrong times 10....

Top city pairs by ridership, 2008

Cities Miles

1. Tucson, AZ - Los Angeles, CA 502 mi

2. New Orleans, LA - Los Angeles, CA 1995 mi

3. San Antonio, TX - Los Angeles, CA 1423 mi

4. Los Angeles, CA - Houston, TX 1633 mi

5. New Orleans, LA - Houston, TX 362 mi

6. Los Angeles, CA - El Paso, TX 818 mi

7. San Antonio, TX - New Orleans, LA 572 mi

8. Palm Springs, CA - Los Angeles, CA 106 mi

Top city pairs by revenue, 2008

Cities Miles

1. New Orleans, LA - Los Angeles, CA 1995 mi

2. San Antonio, TX - Los Angeles, CA 1423 mi

3. Los Angeles, CA - Houston, TX 1633 mi

4. Los Angeles, CA - El Paso, TX 818 mi

5. Tucson, AZ - Los Angeles, CA 502 mi

6. San Antonio, TX - New Orleans, LA 572 mi

7. New Orleans, LA - Houston, TX 362 mi

8. Tucson, AZ - New Orleans, LA 1493 mi

Quick recap, 2008

Coach/

Business First/Sleeper Total

Passengers 55,476 14,692 70,168

Average trip 832 miles 1259 miles 921 miles

Average fare $ 74.00 $260.00 $113.00

Average yield, per mile 8.9¢ 20.6¢ 12.3¢


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 23, 2010)

Woah, cap'n. The numbers don't doom the SAS-NOL train quite that badly.

If you look to the right on the Sunset page, you'll see the bars for trip distance. The biggest block is for trips of 500-599 miles (16.9%.) By comparison, only 10% of the passengers on the Sunset go the whole distance.

In fact, a whopping 48.2% of Sunset passengers travel less than 599 miles.

And if we want to look at the daily Texas Eagle, 58% of passengers travel less than 599 miles.

Short distance ridership will hold up and, most likely, improve. I'm with GML here--whatever sleeper passengers are lost from NOL-SAS are incidental. Yes, sleeper passengers account for a huge chunk of revenue (particularly as a measure of their meager ridership) but there will be added daily sleeper capacity _along the entire Eagle route_ from Chicago-LA, which will more than make up for the loss of tri-weekly sleepers from NOL-SAS.

Plus, of course, Houston will finally get daily service, and in all likelihood, better service times.

But anyway...we're just going around in circles. The proof will be in the pudding.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

BlakeTyner said:


> Woah, cap'n. The numbers don't doom the SAS-NOL train quite that badly.
> If you look to the right on the Sunset page, you'll see the bars for trip distance. The biggest block is for trips of 500-599 miles (16.9%.) By comparison, only 10% of the passengers on the Sunset go the whole distance.
> 
> In fact, a whopping 48.2% of Sunset passengers travel less than 599 miles.


No, you can't use the 599 miles because any segment of the Sunset can be 599, even those overlapping

the stub train. That is a trick GML uses.

It took about 1 sleeper passengers to nearly match 4 coach passengers.

SAS-HOS didnt make the top 8 in riders or revenue.

NOL-LAX and HOS-LAX, top 4 in both and TUC-NOL. Amtrak will lose this passenger/revenue with a stub.


----------



## Trogdor (May 23, 2010)

Everyone is focusing so much on the NOL-SAS segment that I think many of you are forgetting that there's also a San Antonio-Los Angeles segment of the route as well. That segment will benefit significantly in both ridership and revenue with daily service.

The real question is whether the increase in revenue on the new daily CHI-SAS-LAX service exceeds the loss in revenue from the NOL-SAS service. Sure, there will be some loss of revenue on that side because of the loss of sleeper passengers. Ultimately, what's important from a financial perspective is how the whole thing impacts Amtrak's bottom line, not just how one little segment's performance does.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

38% of Houston passengers, +1500 miles

46% of Houston passengers, -500 miles.

Which do you think Amtrak made the most money?

Houston

Top city pairs by ridership, 2008

City Length

1. Los Angeles, CA 1633 mi

2. New Orleans, LA 362 mi

3. San Antonio, TX 210 mi

4. Alpine, TX 597 mi

5. El Paso, TX 815 mi

6. Tucson, AZ 1131 mi

7. Lafayette, LA 217 mi

8. Ontario, CA 1594 mi

Top city pairs by revenue, 2008

City Length

1. Los Angeles, CA 1633 mi

2. New Orleans, LA 362 mi

3. Alpine, TX 597 mi

4. Tucson, AZ 1131 mi

5. El Paso, TX 815 mi

6. Ontario, CA 1594 mi

7. Maricopa, AZ 1217 mi

8. San Antonio, TX 210 mi

THE NUMBER 1 REVENUE AND PASSENGER ON THE SUNSET OUT OF NOL.

LAX....that is a lot of incidental.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> Everyone is focusing so much on the NOL-SAS segment that I think many of you are forgetting that there's also a San Antonio-Los Angeles segment of the route as well. That segment will benefit significantly in both ridership and revenue with daily service.
> The real question is whether the increase in revenue on the new daily CHI-SAS-LAX service exceeds the loss in revenue from the NOL-SAS service. Sure, there will be some loss of revenue on that side because of the loss of sleeper passengers. Ultimately, what's important from a financial perspective is how the whole thing impacts Amtrak's bottom line, not just how one little segment's performance does.


You can't combine CHI-SAS-LAX numbers with SAS-NOL. Each train will be seperate. So when SAS-NOL is reviewed and show bad numbers, the train

will be killed. GML won't lose service, Houston will.


----------



## henryj (May 23, 2010)

Guest said:


> Top city pairs by ridership, 2008City Length
> 
> 1. Los Angeles, CA 1633 mi
> 
> ...


Actually, what I see is Houston-NOL at number two and Houston to SAS at number 3 and SAS to NOL at number 6 and 7. That's a big positive for the so called stub trains. When they go daily and at decent hours you will see those numbers explode. There will be very little lost traffic going through San Antonio from either Houston or New Orleans. So what I see, inspite of all the negatory here is that daily service at decent hours will be a huge sucess.


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 23, 2010)

Guest said:


> Amtrak will lose this passenger/revenue with a stub.


They are going from 30 bedrooms and 84 roomettes per week between SAS and NOL to 1,036 coach seats per week.

NARP figures say the average sleeper fare on the Sunset is $260. Assuming sold out trains, the tri-weekly (ie current) Sunset has 114 first class tickets available, that yields $29,640 in potential sleeping car revenue.

The average coach fare on the Sunset Limited is $74. Assuming sold out trains, the proposed daily service from NOL-SAS has 1,036 coach tickets available, for a yield of $76,664 in potential coach revenue. That doesn't take into account the business class seating, which will obviously be priced above coach.

And I think I know roughly what Amtrak's methodology was regarding the 100k increase in ridership when the Sunset/Eagle combination happens.

There are approx 34,009,022 people within a 25 mile radius of the Texas Eagle.

There were 245,900 passengers on the Texas Eagle in '08.

That gives us a constant of .007% of the service area population that rides the Texas Eagle.

Now, if we combine the service areas of the Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle, we get a 25 mile radius figure of 59,381,367 people.

Using the same constant of .007% of the service population riding the train, we get 415,670 riders on the combined Sunset/Eagle.

However, we need to deduct the people between SAS and NOL. The easiest way to do this is to simply deduct the entire ridership number of the Sunset Limited, which is 70,168. 415,670-70,168 = 345,502.

Recall that the Eagle's ridership in 2008 was 245,900.

That comes out pretty darn close to a net gain of 100,000 passengers.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

henryj said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Top city pairs by ridership, 2008City Length
> ...


Yet you ignore 1. LAX, 25% of Houston riders. Those riders revenue is much more than SAS-HOS and HOS-NOL.

You also ignored 4,5,6, and 8.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

BlakeTyner said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak will lose this passenger/revenue with a stub.
> ...


All wrong. First, you can't use the current Sunset average price for the SAS-NOL and 1036 tickets for 1 coach train.

SAS-NOL price is $48 one way. No way to average $74. Your math is as fuzzy as GML.

Lets use facts and not cherry pick numbers. The data clearly says amtrak should go daily with a NOL-LAX

LD train and add sleepers. I say LAX-ORL daily.


----------



## AlanB (May 24, 2010)

BlakeTyner said:


> The average coach fare on the Sunset Limited is $74. Assuming sold out trains, the proposed daily service from NOL-SAS has 1,036 coach tickets available, for a yield of $76,664 in potential coach revenue. That doesn't take into account the business class seating, which will obviously be priced above coach.


I haven't had time to go look at those NARP numbers, so I'm not sure if that $74 number is for the area under discussion or the entire run of the Sunset.

However, either way that number will still have to be much lower with a daily train. Amtrak now needs to fill many more seats, and that means lower prices to do so. So the revenue yield will be much lower than what you've calculated.



BlakeTyner said:


> And I think I know roughly what Amtrak's methodology was regarding the 100k increase in ridership when the Sunset/Eagle combination happens.
> There are approx 34,009,022 people within a 25 mile radius of the Texas Eagle.
> 
> There were 245,900 passengers on the Texas Eagle in '08.
> ...


I don't think that you can use that .007% universally throughout Texas. The Dallas/Ft. Worth area, and for that matter I believe northern Texas, is far more amenable to rail transit than southern Texas. Houston is finally embarking on more rail transit, but San Antonio isn't doing anything yet.


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 24, 2010)

Guest said:


> Yet you ignore 1. LAX, 25% of Houston riders. Those riders revenue is much more than SAS-HOS and HOS-NOL.You also ignored 4,5,6, and 8.


It's tough to do, because all we have is the colored bar, but let's talk about those HOU-LAX numbers a bit.

We can see that 35.6% of riders out of Houston are going to LAX. The math here is easy--35.6% of 14,538 is 5,176.

Of that 5,176 that went from HOS-LAX, we see that the majority of them did so in coach. We have to guesstimate, but I'm going to be generous and say that 25% of those pax went by sleeper.

5,176x.25 = 1,294.

So in all of 2008, a grand total of 1,294 people traveled in a sleeper from Houston to Los Angeles. Assuming an average first class fare of $260, that is $336,440. Divided into weeks, we get $6,470.

All the stub train has to do is make up for that $6,470 (and that's assuming that EVERY sleeper passenger from Houston to L.A. will hereafter refuse to take the stub train to SAS and then switch to a sleeper) per week, or $924 per day, and it has recovered 100% of the "lost" sleeper revenue.

Alan:

If you like, we can use the (daily) Texas Eagle average coach price, which is $57. That yields $59,052 in potential revenue.

The .007 is pretty good, actually. The Sunset Limited, when adjusted for daily operation, gives a constant of .006. I'd be fine with using that in the ridership estimation, too.


----------



## jis (May 24, 2010)

As I have hinted before, the use of the term "incidental" is just a mere linguistic flourish to try to make a point stick, that is not sustainable by consideration of all available facts.


----------



## RTOlson (May 24, 2010)

This conversation of what ifs and what might have beens is interesting, but that's all they are right now -- hypotheses. Although I'm far removed from the situation, I would think that many of us would agree that the status quo isn't ideal, given the thrice-weekly Sunset Limited service and no service at all between New Orleans and Florida. There is also a scarcity (perceived or otherwise) that Amtrak doesn't have the equipment, resources or wherewithal to give everyone what they want.

Ultimately, I think a daily stub train between New Orleans and San Antonio is worth a shot. Also, extending the City of New Orleans to Florida may be an OK solution to restore that Southern link in a timely fashion.

No, the stub train isn't perfect, but daily, connecting service in trains that are at least more comfortable than planes may be enough to help bolster the route. I can understand the worst-case scenario that it will flop and the route will go away, but consider two factors. Amtrak is a political beast whose very existence has been on the bubble many, many times in its history. Also, Amtrak has been stubborn in not giving up the Sunset route east of New Orleans (for better or currently worse). Even if the SAS-NOL stub flops, would today's Amtrak fully give up this important connection?

At some point, people need to make a decision or start somewhere and see if it will work. For an agency long criticized for its inaction, I would rather see it take some steps and give a route a chance to succeed. If it takes those steps and finds it's not working, I hope the leadership is bold enough to make adjustments.


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 24, 2010)

Guest said:


> All wrong. First, you can't use the current Sunset average price for the SAS-NOL and 1036 tickets for 1 coach train. SAS-NOL price is $48 one way. No way to average $74. Your math is as fuzzy as GML.
> 
> Lets use facts and not cherry pick numbers. The data clearly says amtrak should go daily with a NOL-LAX
> 
> LD train and add sleepers. I say LAX-ORL daily.


Okay, revise it to the Eagle's average, $57. Or use $48. That's STILL $49,728 in potential revenue.

But here's the deal--I was being generous and taking averages straight from NARP. If we want to quibble about the cost of a coach seat between SAS-NOL, then we also get to quibble about the sleeper price. My $260 was generous; checking Arrow shows a roomette price of $181 for that segment. So both figures come down some.

And math is math. The stub train will have at least 2 Superliner coaches (74 seats each x 2 = 148) and run daily. 148 x 7 = 1,036.

And I assume your quibble is that I'm completely ignoring the option of taking the Sunset daily from LAX-ORL. That's because it will never happen. I'm just figuring things per current numbers and the current plan.

Let me concede that I was just spitballing with the numbers. To me, they don't indicate that this move is suicide on Amtrak's part. From the outset I have thought that this was the best plan with the most realistic chance of happening.

When the Eagle goes daily to L.A., and freight traffic increases, there is a very good chance that the Eagle's on-time performance will suffer greatly. That's a _very bad thing_. So I do fully admit that there are potential downsides.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

RTOlson said:


> This conversation of what ifs and what might have beens is interesting, but that's all they are right now -- hypotheses. Although I'm far removed from the situation, I would think that many of us would agree that the status quo isn't ideal, given the thrice-weekly Sunset Limited service and no service at all between New Orleans and Florida. There is also a scarcity (perceived or otherwise) that Amtrak doesn't have the equipment, resources or wherewithal to give everyone what they want.
> Ultimately, I think a daily stub train between New Orleans and San Antonio is worth a shot. Also, extending the City of New Orleans to Florida may be an OK solution to restore that Southern link in a timely fashion.
> 
> No, the stub train isn't perfect, but daily, connecting service in trains that are at least more comfortable than planes may be enough to help bolster the route. I can understand the worst-case scenario that it will flop and the route will go away, but consider two factors. Amtrak is a political beast whose very existence has been on the bubble many, many times in its history. Also, Amtrak has been stubborn in not giving up the Sunset route east of New Orleans (for better or currently worse). Even if the SAS-NOL stub flops, would today's Amtrak fully give up this important connection?
> ...


If it flops, then it is not an important connection. Too you it is a cute little gamble by Amtrak, too us our service is at risk. I don't want to bet it away.

Hopefully congress agrees.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

BlakeTyner said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > All wrong. First, you can't use the current Sunset average price for the SAS-NOL and 1036 tickets for 1 coach train. SAS-NOL price is $48 one way. No way to average $74. Your math is as fuzzy as GML.
> ...


No, 1 coach. 1 P42, 1 CCC, 1 coach. Amtrak says it might add a business coach in the future. I guess for the big business oilmen going

to NOL for business. Who needs a private jet when we got the stub train.

1 P42, 1 CCC, 1 coach...there you have it. What a waste of a 4000 hp locomotive. Logic suggest Amtrak

should use an EMD SW7 and a $800 portable generator for HEP for this train


----------



## BlakeTyner (May 24, 2010)

Guest said:


> No, 1 coach. 1 P42, 1 CCC, 1 coach. Amtrak says it might add a business coach in the future. I guess for the big business oilmen goingto NOL for business. Who needs a private jet when we got the stub train.
> 
> 1 P42, 1 CCC, 1 coach...there you have it. What a waste of a 4000 hp locomotive. Logic suggest Amtrak
> 
> should use an EMD SW7 and a $800 portable generator for HEP for this train


That disagrees with my information--everyone I've spoken to at Amtrak has said at least 2 coaches and food service (we're assuming CCC, though that's not official.)

If it is, in fact, one coach, then I'll gladly retract my previous posts.

Anyway, I'm going to bow out--ultimately, I have no idea what will happen and what the results will be.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

BlakeTyner said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > No, 1 coach. 1 P42, 1 CCC, 1 coach. Amtrak says it might add a business coach in the future. I guess for the big business oilmen goingto NOL for business. Who needs a private jet when we got the stub train.
> ...


I doubt Amtrak knows. I also heard coach upstair and business downstairs.

One more point.

For example, If all 100% passengers rode SAS-NOL for $48 one way, Amtrak would make $3,552 each way.

2 drivers from SAS-BMT, another 2 from BMT-NOL, 1 conductor SAS-BMT, 1 conductor BMT-NOL, at least 1

coach attendant and 1 in the CCC, now add fuel for a 4000 hp p42 for 573 miles. Need I say more?


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 24, 2010)

When talking about Houston city pairs, the thing to remember is that ridership last year was only 16,191. Even if HOS-NOL was one of the top city pairs, the total traffic would still be very small....possibly around 2,500 each way total for the whole year (based on the percent of pax traveling between 300-399 miles from Houston)...which equals around 17-18 per trip. So even if the service is daily, we're not talking about a huge number of potential riders here. HOS-NOL is a city pair that is just tough to be super successful by rail based on the duration of the trip and the frequency of the service. HOS-SAS was not even in the top 8 city pairs of ridership for the train in '08... the poor timings of that segment couldn't have helped...so I'd expect that market to improve some...how much is the real question. And the fares on HOS-SAS are super cheap...$64 roundtrip....so even if they got a few extra riders per trip, the additional revenue won't be all that much.

Another thing to consider...for people living in NOL, HOS, and all cities in between, since the late 1890's, this train has been a one-seat ride for points west of SAS. That could no longer be the case. Any way you slice it, it will be an inconvenience changing trains. The connecting times I heard for San Antonio are approx 1030pm to 1200am going to LAX, and 630am to 800am going to NOL. You have familes traveling with children...elderly passengers...it has the potential to be fairly inconvenient. Sure it can be done, and I'm sure some won't care, but some will...like the groups who regularly go LAX-NOL by sleeper to catch a cruise. We can only guess as to how that will affect ridership for points past SAS. Why they can't just split and add the NOL cars from/to the CHI-bound train, like what is done today with the Eagle cars, is beyond me. That whole process can be done in 1.5 hours. As of '08 HOS-LAX and NOL-LAX were two of the top 5 city pairs for the train, so this is something to consider.

Amtrak will have to do a stellar job of marketing this. I'm talking print ads, radio ads, community involvement, etc. Public perception is sometimes the hardest thing to change. The public will have to know, flat out, that this is better than what's currently offered.


----------



## jphjaxfl (May 24, 2010)

henryj said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Top city pairs by ridership, 2008City Length
> ...


I agree with your comments. When I have traveled on the Sunset LTD between New Orleans and Houston and vv, there has been surprisingly a fair amount of on/off traffic at the stations in between even with the train being tri-weekly. With daily service, that should improve. A coach train with a food service car is much less expensive to operate from the labor aspect than a train with Sleeping Cars and a full dining car. The Palmetto to and from Savannah is a similar run to New Orleans to San Antonio. It does very well specially at the smaller cities that don't have alot of alernative transportation. If the Palmetto ran 3 days per week, it would be worthless to cities along the route. Amtrak has to try something different along its routes and the plan when it actually materializes sounds like it will generate more revenue with less labor costs.


----------



## jis (May 24, 2010)

Isn't it the case that at least as it looks so far, Amtrak will have to come up with financial support for UP to complete the doubling work before any daily service can be instituted on that route?


----------



## henryj (May 24, 2010)

Guest said:


> If it flops, then it is not an important connection. Too you it is a cute little gamble by Amtrak, too us our service is at risk. I don't want to bet it away. Hopefully congress agrees.


It's a change that is long overdue. I don't know who you are or why you are so against this but it smells like SMART. I hope Congress stays out of it and it all come to fruition as planned. New Orleans, Houston and San Antonio will be the big beneficiaries of this new service. Ridership will mushroom including long distance. I think that is what you are afraid of. If it's a big success you can forget Florida being serviced ever by the SSL route.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 24, 2010)

henryj said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > If it flops, then it is not an important connection. Too you it is a cute little gamble by Amtrak, too us our service is at risk. I don't want to bet it away. Hopefully congress agrees.
> ...


"Smells like SMART?" Is SMART a four letter word around here? LOL. Come on. This is getting silly. You know as well as I do that if they are still pushing for Sunset East, they'll likely be waiting a long time...I have a strong feeling, though, that they'll take any train service between NOL-ORL at this point. But that has no bearing on this discussion. "Guest" makes some good points, as does everyone, basically. San Antonio would certainly benefit from this. Houston, New Orleans...I doubt it...but no one would know for sure until the numbers are posted. "Smells like SMART" or "Smells like TEMPO"...not sure which is worse...


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

henryj said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > If it flops, then it is not an important connection. Too you it is a cute little gamble by Amtrak, too us our service is at risk. I don't want to bet it away. Hopefully congress agrees.
> ...


I am not with SMART. Do you always need black vans and spys in your defense of this plan. I post my opinion, I don't

ride other people's coat-tail. In my opinion, this plan will end up killing passenger service to Houston. This is not the east

coast. Unless this train is +150 mph, nobody will give up their cars and business people won't give up the Gulfstream or

Piper Arrow.


----------



## AlanB (May 24, 2010)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Amtrak will have to do a stellar job of marketing this. I'm talking print ads, radio ads, community involvement, etc. Public perception is sometimes the hardest thing to change. The public will have to know, flat out, that this is better than what's currently offered.


My guess is that Amtrak's marketing will be very limited for the entire plan, and that the bulk of any monies spent will be spent on the SAS-LAX area.


----------



## AlanB (May 24, 2010)

jphjaxfl said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, what I see is Houston-NOL at number two and Houston to SAS at number 3 and SAS to NOL at number 6 and 7. That's a big positive for the so called stub trains. When they go daily and at decent hours you will see those numbers explode. There will be very little lost traffic going through San Antonio from either Houston or New Orleans. So what I see, inspite of all the negatory here is that daily service at decent hours will be a huge sucess.
> ...


One big difference between the Palmetto and this plan is that the Palmetto did not remove the sleeper option from the cities that it serves. People still have the choice of boarding a train with a sleeper, even if in some places it's at a far less convienent time.

I'm not suggesting that NOL-SAS should have two trains right away, and I'm not sure that it could support 2 at present. But again, I do have to wonder just how much affect having two trains available has on the Palmetto's numbers. A similar bounce in ridership can also be seen with the new Lynchburger.


----------



## AlanB (May 24, 2010)

henryj said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > If it flops, then it is not an important connection. Too you it is a cute little gamble by Amtrak, too us our service is at risk. I don't want to bet it away. Hopefully congress agrees.
> ...


For the record, guest's IP address is from a city in Texas that is served by the Sunset Limited.


----------



## jis (May 24, 2010)

henryj said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > If it flops, then it is not an important connection. Too you it is a cute little gamble by Amtrak, too us our service is at risk. I don't want to bet it away. Hopefully congress agrees.
> ...


Labeling and name calling is hardly a good way to credibly win an argument. I have not seen Guest mention Florida yet, so it seems to me like a big strawman has been set up and knocked down using a different strawman in the above. 

If UP does not back down from its insistence that the completion of the doubling project be paid for before any additional frequencies will be allowed on that route, I don't see how this plan can be executed without the Congress's involvement.


----------



## Donctor (May 24, 2010)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Why they can't just split and add the NOL cars from/to the CHI-bound train, like what is done today with the Eagle cars, is beyond me. That whole process can be done in 1.5 hours.


It is questionable as to whether the equipment for thru-cars will exist for these two trains. Yes, Amtrak can find the equipment. No, this is not the best way to use it.

And why would the NOL cars be added to the CHI-bound train? With daily service on the Eagle and the City, that wouldn't make much sense (at least not that I can figure). Running thru-cars LAX-NOL was looked at, but Amtrak doesn't have the equipment, as evidenced by the Sunset's current "tri-weekly" status.

A separate question: If Amtrak runs a CCC on the CHI-LAX Eagle, assuming the table seating has been restored, will any posters be upset about the train's lack of a "real" diner? I suppose it's something to complain about...


----------



## Donctor (May 24, 2010)

jis said:


> Isn't it the case that at least as it looks so far, Amtrak will have to come up with financial support for UP to complete the doubling work before any daily service can be instituted on that route?


UP seems to be holding this up.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 24, 2010)

Amtking said:


> NativeSon5859 said:
> 
> 
> > Why they can't just split and add the NOL cars from/to the CHI-bound train, like what is done today with the Eagle cars, is beyond me. That whole process can be done in 1.5 hours.
> ...


Regarding the cars...the NOL-bound cars would unhook from the train in SAS and vice-versa...so at least the one-seat ride is preserved....which is important. If there's not enough equipment for at least that then the change shouldn't be made until there is.

Same train service + sleeping car service along the original Sunset route greatly outweighs a daily stub train for a portion of the route in my mind. You'll be taking one step forward but two steps back if you live in Houston, or any city in Louisiana, if this comes to pass.


----------



## mfastx (May 24, 2010)

There is a reason that the NOL-SAS route doesn't do as well. People aren't going to go from NOL-SAS, most people will go from either HOU-SAS or HOU-NOL. Of course nobody's riding those routes now. People aren't going to board houston at 5:00 IN THE MORNING to get on a train that takes 7-9 hours to get to NOL, nor are they going to board at 9:30 PM to arrive at SAS at 3:00 IN THE MORNING.

People will ride the routes if boarding time is more convienent, the trains run daily, and service to NOL from HOU is shortened to around 5-6 hours.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 25, 2010)

UP is holding this up. Which, quite frankly, is an indication UP thinks it will be successful. If UP thought this would be the SAS-NOL routes deathknell, they'd be tickled pink by it- and from a freight roads perspective, a daily train is easier to handle than a tri-weekly.



Guest said:


> That is a trick GML uses.


Listen here, you myopic heel. I will say this once, and you better freakin' listen. I talk from my perspectives. I am not a politician trying to be elected, merely a person defending what he considers to be false holes driven into his argument. I am not "pulling tricks". Get it through your head. Thank you.



Guest said:


> You can't combine CHI-SAS-LAX numbers with SAS-NOL. Each train will be seperate. So when SAS-NOL is reviewed and show bad numbers, the trainwill be killed. GML won't lose service, Houston will.


Amtrak under Boardman has been showing a distinct tendency towards daily service. This is inline with those policies. Everything indicates that Boardman & Co are looking for, and expecting, large increases in ridership and long term success for Amtrak. I would be astonished- ASTONISHED- if any plans of his were meant to kill service. If this results in lower ridership numbers, it will be easy for Amtrak to backtrack.

Your thinking of the Republican appointed, lazy, dull, and unimaginative era under Alex Kummant. Now is quite different.



Guest said:


> All wrong. First, you can't use the current Sunset average price for the SAS-NOL and 1036 tickets for 1 coach train. SAS-NOL price is $48 one way. No way to average $74. Your math is as fuzzy as GML.
> 
> Lets use facts and not cherry pick numbers. The data clearly says amtrak should go daily with a NOL-LAX
> 
> LD train and add sleepers. I say LAX-ORL daily.


His logic is entirely sound. Your all wrong comment is just obnoxious. As for my math being fuzzy, my math can't be fuzzy. Why? I've used none. I am basing my statements upon various things I've picked up, and general transit patterns, the studying of which is one of the things I spend my time doing. I'm not figuring things on hard data here. I have none.

I am somewhat surprised your direct attacks on posters, me in particular have not been checked by Mods or Admins. Maybe they agree with you and thus are blind to your being distinctly officious. However, if you want to convince me or anyone else here with a functioning brain, you'd find your case better supported by arguing rationally with information, data, and cold logic. Insulting everyone around you just makes you sound like a shrill, childish, imbecile.

Furthermore, the ideal operation here is to run the Sunset Limited from MIA to LAX, daily, and the Texas Eagle from Chicago to SAS with through cars daily. Then the entire market would be served and all. Unfortunately, we are about 9 sleepers, 6 diners, 6 Sightseers, and 9 coaches short of the equipment we'd need to do that. Actually, we're possibly even short of locomotives.

Given what equipment Amtrak has, this solution, in my not-so-humble opinion, makes the most sense.



Guest said:


> No, 1 coach. 1 P42, 1 CCC, 1 coach. Amtrak says it might add a business coach in the future. I guess for the big business oilmen goingto NOL for business. Who needs a private jet when we got the stub train.
> 
> 1 P42, 1 CCC, 1 coach...there you have it. What a waste of a 4000 hp locomotive. Logic suggest Amtrak
> 
> should use an EMD SW7 and a $800 portable generator for HEP for this train


I don't know what idiot told you that information, but you can present him the official Green Maned Lion Bad Rumor Generation Dunce Cap. Amtrak would NEVER assign a 2-3 staff member diner-type all-booth food service car to a one-coach train. If Amtrak ever ran a one coach train again (and they won't, memories of the Hilltopper and Shenandoah still linger too strong) it would run it with a Superliner snack coach. All plans I have heard have called for a 3-4 car train consisting of a possible business-class car, a CCC, a coach, and a baggage-coach.



NativeSon5859 said:


> Another thing to consider...for people living in NOL, HOS, and all cities in between, since the late 1890's, this train has been a one-seat ride for points west of SAS. That could no longer be the case. Any way you slice it, it will be an inconvenience changing trains.


Any way you slice it, from the 1800s through 2004 with only a brief interruption in the late 90s, a one seat ride existed from Harrisburg to Chicago. It doesn't anymore. You have to change trains. Actually, from the 1800s until 1971, like many places, a one seat ride existed from Scranton to Chicago. They have no trains whatsofrickinever. That is what I call inconvenience.

You are getting a daily train back. Not having a daily train is a bigger inconvenience than not having a one seat ride. Why are you complaining again?


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 25, 2010)

GML, I'm just saying it's not the ideal situation by any means, and it will put off some riders who are traveling past SAS. I guarantee it will. Daily or not, how is connecting better than not having to connect? It's not complaining...it's just stating what I think. In time perhaps people would get used to it, I don't know. I just think it's a poor decision, and if they want to make the train daily, they should just wait until they have ample equipment to make the current train daily, instead of breaking the route up. Like I said, one step forward, but two steps back...daily is a good thing, loss of sleeper and one seat ride, not so much. My two cents, nothing more.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> UP is holding this up. Which, quite frankly, is an indication UP thinks it will be successful. If UP thought this would be the SAS-NOL routes deathknell, they'd be tickled pink by it- and from a freight roads perspective, a daily train is easier to handle than a tri-weekly.


Black vans and spys again. UP is not holding this bad plan up, Congress must decide on the 3 plans.



> Listen here, you myopic heel. I will say this once, and you better freakin' listen. I talk from my perspectives. I am not a politician trying to be elected, merely a person defending what he considers to be false holes driven into his argument. I am not "pulling tricks". Get it through your head. Thank you.


So am I.



> Amtrak under Boardman has been showing a distinct tendency towards daily service. This is inline with those policies. Everything indicates that Boardman & Co are looking for, and expecting, large increases in ridership and long term success for Amtrak. I would be astonished- ASTONISHED- if any plans of his were meant to kill service. If this results in lower ridership numbers, it will be easy for Amtrak to backtrack.
> Your thinking of the Republican appointed, lazy, dull, and unimaginative era under Alex Kummant. Now is quite different.


This sounds like a politican. Nobody said Amtrak is purposely trying to kill service to this region.



> His logic is entirely sound. Your all wrong comment is just obnoxious. As for my math being fuzzy, my math can't be fuzzy. Why? I've used none. I am basing my statements upon various things I've picked up, and general transit patterns, the studying of which is one of the things I spend my time doing. I'm not figuring things on hard data here. I have none.


If SAS-NOL trip is $32 per person, how is it possible to average $74 per person. FUZZY MATH.



> I am somewhat surprised your direct attacks on posters, me in particular have not been checked by Mods or Admins. Maybe they agree with you and thus are blind to your being distinctly officious. However, if you want to convince me or anyone else here with a functioning brain, you'd find your case better supported by arguing rationally with information, data, and cold logic. Insulting everyone around you just makes you sound like a shrill, childish, imbecile.


If that is not pot calling the kettle black.



> Furthermore, the ideal operation here is to run the Sunset Limited from MIA to LAX, daily, and the Texas Eagle from Chicago to SAS with through cars daily. Then the entire market would be served and all. Unfortunately, we are about 9 sleepers, 6 diners, 6 Sightseers, and 9 coaches short of the equipment we'd need to do that. Actually, we're possibly even short of locomotives.
> Given what equipment Amtrak has, this solution, in my not-so-humble opinion, makes the most sense.


Amtrak plan to start up several new trains after purchase and repairs. I am willing to tolerate tri-weekly until

those new/rebuild coaches are ready. We been waiting 39 years.



> I don't know what idiot told you that information, but you can present him the official Green Maned Lion Bad Rumor Generation Dunce Cap. Amtrak would NEVER assign a 2-3 staff member diner-type all-booth food service car to a one-coach train. If Amtrak ever ran a one coach train again (and they won't, memories of the Hilltopper and Shenandoah still linger too strong) it would run it with a Superliner snack coach. All plans I have heard have called for a 3-4 car train consisting of a possible business-class car, a CCC, a coach, and a baggage-coach.


Nobody knows...We all hear different rumors. Yours don't out weight mine.


----------



## jis (May 25, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> UP is holding this up. Which, quite frankly, is an indication UP thinks it will be successful. If UP thought this would be the SAS-NOL routes deathknell, they'd be tickled pink by it- and from a freight roads perspective, a daily train is easier to handle than a tri-weekly.


I must say that is quite a leap of logic! Primarily UP is trying to explore the possibility of getting their doubling project partly funded by government sources. As for whether they think anything will succeed or fail is mostly a construct of ours and possibly a figment of our imagination as far as I can tell.



> Amtrak under Boardman has been showing a distinct tendency towards daily service. This is inline with those policies. Everything indicates that Boardman & Co are looking for, and expecting, large increases in ridership and long term success for Amtrak. I would be astonished- ASTONISHED- if any plans of his were meant to kill service. If this results in lower ridership numbers, it will be easy for Amtrak to backtrack.
> Your thinking of the Republican appointed, lazy, dull, and unimaginative era under Alex Kummant. Now is quite different.


And yet all this is being done by Republican appointees like Boardman, and Kummant appointees like Fremaux. Do we have to bring politics into this gratuitously all the time? Not that I am Republican apologist mind you, but why bring that factor in when we are talking about Boardman, who was afterall a Republican appointee in his NY State DoT position and then at FRA too?


----------



## AlanB (May 25, 2010)

Guest said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > UP is holding this up. Which, quite frankly, is an indication UP thinks it will be successful. If UP thought this would be the SAS-NOL routes deathknell, they'd be tickled pink by it- and from a freight roads perspective, a daily train is easier to handle than a tri-weekly.
> ...


Congress must decide on the 3 plans for the Sunset east of NOL. Congress has nothing to do with the plan under discussion here to take a reduced service Sunset daily NOL-SAS and the Eagle daily west of SAS.

And rumor has it that UP is indeed holding up that later plan.



Guest said:


> > Amtrak under Boardman has been showing a distinct tendency towards daily service. This is inline with those policies. Everything indicates that Boardman & Co are looking for, and expecting, large increases in ridership and long term success for Amtrak. I would be astonished- ASTONISHED- if any plans of his were meant to kill service. If this results in lower ridership numbers, it will be easy for Amtrak to backtrack.
> > Your thinking of the Republican appointed, lazy, dull, and unimaginative era under Alex Kummant. Now is quite different.
> 
> 
> This sounds like a politican. Nobody said Amtrak is purposely trying to kill service to this region.


Boardman has also made it quite clear that he wants more state funded services and I for one have my suspicions that this is part of the plan. It would be great for Amtrak to not only get rid of the name Sunset Limited, but also the cost of running part of that train. It would also take the option from above out of Congress' hands preventing them from giving Amtrak another unfunded mandate of restoring a full length Sunset, something that could well happen. Not that Congress still couldn't order it, but it would be harder.

Mind you Congress could also order the extension of the City and not fund that too.


----------



## AlanB (May 25, 2010)

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > UP is holding this up. Which, quite frankly, is an indication UP thinks it will be successful. If UP thought this would be the SAS-NOL routes deathknell, they'd be tickled pink by it- and from a freight roads perspective, a daily train is easier to handle than a tri-weekly.
> ...


Agreed. UP isn't worried about the success of this plan. They couldn't care less if it succeeds or fails; as long as they get what they want. In fact, a daily train would be easier for UP to handle since they don’t have to worry about what day of the week it is and whether or not Amtrak will be coming along that day. It’s often been suggested that the less than daily frequency is part of the time keeping issues with the Sunset.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


If Congress choose the cheapest plan, LAX-ORL tri-weekly, then Amtrak can not stub this train.

Amtrak is waiting on Congress, not UP.



> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > > Amtrak under Boardman has been showing a distinct tendency towards daily service. This is inline with those policies. Everything indicates that Boardman & Co are looking for, and expecting, large increases in ridership and long term success for Amtrak. I would be astonished- ASTONISHED- if any plans of his were meant to kill service. If this results in lower ridership numbers, it will be easy for Amtrak to backtrack.
> ...


Amtrak should not get into the business of fixing the problem by changing the name. Fix the Sunset would be

a better option to a public doubting Amtrak competency.


----------



## AlanB (May 25, 2010)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


When Amtrak first announced this idea of a daily Eagle almost a year ago, if not already more than a year ago, they wanted it running by this Spring's Timetable. In fact IIRC, they were even hoping that they might be able to do it by last Fall's TT, although many deemed that unlikely. They weren't waiting for Congress to decide on any plans east of NOL, as they hadn't even finished the study at that time. The reason that this hasn't already happened has nothing to do with Congress. Amtrak is NOT waiting for Congress.

Besides as I noted in my subsequent post, Congress can always reverse any Amtrak decisions on a daily Eagle if they choose to restore the pre-Katrina Sunset plan. After all they hold the purse strings.

There are other factors holding up the daily NOL-SAS stub train and the daily Eagle west of SAS, but Congress is not one of those factors!


----------



## jis (May 25, 2010)

I find it absolutely fascinating nay mind boggling that some people actually think that Congress ought to be micromanaging Amtrak on a route by route basis. The last time they tried something akin to that we got Diner LIte and CCC. Congress is about the worst outfit to try to do anything of the sort. The only thing they seem to be able to manage effectively is the regular increments in their own salaries and benefits, if that.


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 25, 2010)

jis said:


> I find it absolutely fascinating nay mind boggling that some people actually think that Congress ought to be micromanaging Amtrak on a route by route basis. The last time they tried something akin to that we got Diner LIte and CCC. Congress is about the worst outfit to try to do anything of the sort. The only thing they seem to be able to manage effectively is the regular increments in their own salaries and benefits, if that.


Excellent post jis!I'll second and third and fourth etc. this, an Elephant is a mouse designed by Congress! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jis (May 25, 2010)

Guest said:


> If Congress choose the cheapest plan, LAX-ORL tri-weekly, then Amtrak can not stub this train.Amtrak is waiting on Congress, not UP.


Earlier this year I talked to one of Amtrak's VP's asking specifically if Congress had any role in the decision involving TE/Sunset west going daily, and he categorically said no, it did not. Since then nothing has changed, so it is very unlikely that Congress will choose LAX-NOL tri-weekly or anything else in the context of the LAX-SAS - NOL/CHI section.

In effect, Congress's involvement in the east is also specifically limited to how the new/restored service will get funded, which in turn depends on which option is chosen. Congress asked for a study and a plan and they got it, together with the price-tag. I would be very surprised if Congress gets back into the business of directing Amtrak about which trains to run and by implication which ones not to run, outside the immediate scope of the NOL - ORL context.

Of course Congress could choose to do anything else including directing Amtrak to discontinue the Empire Builder or the Capitol Limited and use its equipment to run Sunset Limited and all its various feeders. But I think the chances of a proverbial very hot place freezing over first is a greater likelihood.

See quote from the study below:



> Section 226 also directs Amtrak to provide “any proposals for legislationnecessary to support such restoration of service.” Amtrak does not believe that
> 
> additional authorizing legislation is required to ensure that Amtrak can restore
> 
> ...


The specific asks from Amtrak in the same document are as follows:



> In light of these conclusions, Amtrak recommends that Congress determine ifpassenger rail service should be restored between New Orleans and Orlando;
> 
> and, if so;
> 
> ...


Again note that this is pertaining to just the NOL - ORL section, and has little bearing on the rest of Sunset, except of course for the fact that if the daily Sunset West plan goes into effect they would need to find the one Super Sleeper and Food Service cars necessary in addition to coaches for the overnight NOL - ORL tri-weekly train as in option 1. This does not appear to be an insurmountable problem.

Bottom line is Amtrak is not waiting for Congress to do something for executing on the proposed changes to NOL/CHI - SAS - LAX service. The holdup is somewhere else.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2010)

jis said:


> I find it absolutely fascinating nay mind boggling that some people actually think that Congress ought to be micromanaging Amtrak on a route by route basis. The last time they tried something akin to that we got Diner LIte and CCC. Congress is about the worst outfit to try to do anything of the sort. The only thing they seem to be able to manage effectively is the regular increments in their own salaries and benefits, if that.


Congress is already micromanaging Amtrak. The TE was brought back because of congress. Florida members

of Congress wants the pre-katrina SSL. Lets not cover our eyes because we don't like it.

I still believe Congress is the key to this awful stub train. Lets wait to see how it plays out.


----------



## AlanB (May 25, 2010)

Guest said:


> I still believe Congress is the key to this awful stub train. Lets wait to see how it plays out.


The Stub train is totally off Congress' radar, they aren't considering it at all and Amtrak is not waiting for Congress. I can promise you that.

Again while it's unlikely, Congress could, if upon deciding that they want a full length Sunset, order Amtrak to undo the Stub train should it actually happen. But that would be the only way that Congress would ever factor into the decision under discussion here.

The Stub train is not being held up because Amtrak is waiting for Congress!


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > I still believe Congress is the key to this awful stub train. Lets wait to see how it plays out.
> ...


I'm not saying Congress is specifically deciding on the stub train plan. I'm saying Amtrak will not act on this

plan while the possibilty congress could order the LAX-ORL train. Amtrak will not undercut congress by doing

this plan while congress is deciding on the other 3 plans.


----------



## AlanB (May 25, 2010)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Guest said:
> ...


Amtrak wanted this Stub train in the Spring TT and the fact that Congress is considering what to do with the eastern Sunset had nothing to do with why the Stubie isn't in the newly released TT. There are other issues that are causing the delay in getting things running, but the possibility that they might undercut Congress isn't one of those issues. Amtrak will do this as soon as certain issues are resolved without regard to where Congress is in its consideration of Sunset east.

The only way that Amtrak won't do this plan is if Congress does act before Amtrak can resolve the other issues and Congress' decision is to have a full length Sunset.

But the fact that Congress has not yet decided on Sunset East has nothing to do with the delays in getting the Sunset West plans into effect. Amtrak isn't waiting because of that pending Congressional decision on Sunset East.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 26, 2010)

Guest said:


> Black vans and spys again. UP is not holding this bad plan up, Congress must decide on the 3 plans.


Congress has nothing to do with this. Amtrak is a private corporation that happens to be owned by the Department of Transportation, and as such has presidentially appointed board members. The only thing Congress can do is preface funding on various mandates. If Amtrak manages to find its own funding source, they could thumb their nose at Congress, technically.



Guest said:


> This sounds like a politican. Nobody said Amtrak is purposely trying to kill service to this region.


You certainly implied it strongly enough.



Guest said:


> If SAS-NOL trip is $32 per person, how is it possible to average $74 per person. FUZZY MATH.


Current bucket says $86. Also, I did no math. I'll leave math to those who care enough about making an argument with the Rock of Gibraltar to expend the brain energy.



Guest said:


> If that is not pot calling the kettle black.


Correct. It isn't.



Guest said:


> Amtrak plan to start up several new trains after purchase and repairs. I am willing to tolerate tri-weekly untilthose new/rebuild coaches are ready. We been waiting 39 years.


There is fallacy in your logic. That fallacy is that the options are either this stub train or having the Sunset Limited as is. The Sunset in its current form is a financial embarrassment, and a very legitimate argument on the folly of funding long distance trains. The amount of money it loses per passenger is absolutely a joke.

You see this as killing the Sunset. How do you know that this isn't the Sunset's last chance? How do you know it won't be discontinued in its current form the next time a Republican grabs hold of the helm?



Guest said:


> Nobody knows...We all hear different rumors. Yours don't out weight mine.


Maybe not in most cases, but in this case the rumor you got is like a rumor our Government is going to have sensible transportation policy this time round. Its just ludicrous.



jis said:


> I find it absolutely fascinating nay mind boggling that some people actually think that Congress ought to be micromanaging Amtrak on a route by route basis. The last time they tried something akin to that we got Diner LIte and CCC. Congress is about the worst outfit to try to do anything of the sort. The only thing they seem to be able to manage effectively is the regular increments in their own salaries and benefits, if that.


Amen.



Guest said:


> I still believe Congress is the key to this awful I'm not saying Congress is specifically deciding on the stub train plan. I'm saying Amtrak will not act on this
> 
> plan while the possibilty congress could order the LAX-ORL train. Amtrak will not undercut congress by doing
> 
> this plan while congress is deciding on the other 3 plans.


Amtrak has historically done things to prevent Congress from hurting it through Congresses own stupidity. Amtrak has to respond to Congresses funding allotments, but they don't have to snap to like an actual government agency. The only thing Congress controls are the purse strings. Congress can deny this plan by saying they will cut funding if Amtrak goes through with it, but Congress does not need to authorize it.


----------



## jis (May 26, 2010)

Guest said:


> I'm not saying Congress is specifically deciding on the stub train plan. I'm saying Amtrak will not act on this plan while the possibilty congress could order the LAX-ORL train. Amtrak will not undercut congress by doing
> 
> this plan while congress is deciding on the other 3 plans.


This plan does not necessarily undercut any of the three options for east of NOL. All that needs to be done to satisfy option 1 is to run an overnight train with sleeping and food service three times a week between NOL and ORL, which connects with whatever comes in from the west.

So arguably, the premise of your argument is wrong.



> Congress is already micromanaging Amtrak. The TE was brought back because of congress. Florida membersof Congress wants the pre-katrina SSL. Lets not cover our eyes because we don't like it.


Yes, Congress was doing so. It also brought us CCC and Diner Lite as I mentioned in my message, and way back when it even brought us Harley's Rocket aka the Hilltopper. It has decidedly backed off from the hands on approach of late, and I, for the sake of Amtrak's health, hope it remains that way. The mere lack of Sunset East is not a good reason to get Congress involved in day to day train management. Congress's involvement should stay limited setting overall policies and funding such adequately. So just ordering Amtrak to run a train without funding such would be inappropriate for Congress, not that they might not do so anyway. Afterall unbridled egos generally lead to idiocy.

Can you imagine what will happen if Congress includes in some bill language to the effect that "Amtrak thanks for the reports on Sunset East, Pioneer, Desert Wind and North Coast Hiawatha. Now we direct you to run these and we believe you can already do so without any further funding. What do you suppose Amtrak is going to do, when it has specific direction to run just these 4 trains. Which trains do you suppose they would discontinue to be able to run these?

As far as SSL East goes, the only alternative that can be done immediately without acquiring any new equipment is the three times a week train NOL ORL, whether it be as a continuation or a separate train. So options 2 and 3 are essentially off the table for at least 4 years anyway. So in effect, anything that one wants done now, is basically option 1, and everyone knows it. In spite of that this has not stopped Amtrak to plan the changes in Sunset West and Eagle. That should be a huge hint to anyone that is paying attention. And frankly, from what I gather, the bigger fish that Florida wants to fry are the HSR and Amtrak on FEC and SunRail, with SSL East coming in a distant 4th at present.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2010)

AlanB said:


> The only way that Amtrak won't do this plan is if Congress does act before Amtrak can resolve the other issues and Congress' decision is to have a full length Sunset.


Which is exactly what is going to happen. The never ending unresolve issue excuse until after Congress decides.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (May 26, 2010)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The only way that Amtrak won't do this plan is if Congress does act before Amtrak can resolve the other issues and Congress' decision is to have a full length Sunset.
> ...


Probably not. In fact I'd put money on that not happening. Both of these plans are TOTALLY independent of each other. UP could approve this tomorrow.


----------



## AlanB (May 26, 2010)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The only way that Amtrak won't do this plan is if Congress does act before Amtrak can resolve the other issues and Congress' decision is to have a full length Sunset.
> ...


I give up; you're just not getting it.

Believe what you want, but I can assure you that what's holding this plan up has nothing to do with waiting for Congress to decide on Sunset East.


----------



## jis (May 26, 2010)

What I find interesting is that the one that came up with:



> Black vans and spys again. UP is not holding this bad plan up


now fervently believes that there are Congressional black vans and spies involved and refuses to believe what an Amtrak VP has stated categorically (that Congress is not involved). C'est la vie


----------



## George Harris (May 26, 2010)

jis said:


> . . . it even brought us Harley's Rocket aka the Hilltopper.


At least at that time Congress did demand that Amtrak run trains. All they ask now is that they bleed away money on doing studies that tend to be *at best,* much sound and fury, signifying nothing.


----------



## jis (May 26, 2010)

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > . . . it even brought us Harley's Rocket aka the Hilltopper.
> ...


That would seem to the perfect thing to do when they perpetually underfund even the sound and fury :lol:

As I said, the only thing they can actually manage positively is their own salaries and benefits :lol:


----------



## George Harris (May 26, 2010)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2010)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Then I'll eat crow. Lets see what happens.


----------



## Josiah (Jun 8, 2010)

As one from Houston, I actually had a lot of concerns about this decision myself, but I just recently read an article that answered a lot of my concerns that also seemed to be raised here:

http://www.railpac.org/2009/06/11/sunset-l...keting-meeting/

It dates back to about this time last year, but nonetheless answers the various questions that I had when I first read Rosenwald's comments in the August issue of "Trains" Magazine. As to some of the things written in this thread, I'd like to offer my two cents if that's okay.

Stubbing the train and splitting it _to_ Chicago instead of from leaves a *LOT* of room for expansion, esp. if a daily market can be established between SAS and NOL. (Perhaps one of the many towns passed between SAS and HOS could finally get a station, such as Schulenburg, the halfway mark between SAS and HOS). Such expansions could just as easily mean that we get an SAS to Orlando or Miami train, pending Rosenwald's decision on the means Amtrak wants to use to restore that service. This would strengthen their desire to make the train premier since if they didn't have to transfer cars, the layover could be very minimal (like the 40 min layover in STL currently). For now, knowing that business class will exist (hopefully in the form of Horizon/Amfleet level instead of just a Superliner coach they'll call business class) is good enough because that's the only way I'd travel (after the horrible experience of someone lighting up Mary Jane and stinking up the whole coach).

The downside I see is, in lieu the fact that I do rely on this to get to and from college in Missouri (Moberly, an hour south of LAP and an hour north of JEF on US-63), because the stubbing is from LAX, timing might prevent me from taking the train all the way home. However, if the timing is right, I guess the only other downside would be those that were formerly served in Bryan-College Station, Corsicana, and Nacogdoches no longer having an option (albeit if Amtrak is planning on extending the Heartland Flyer to either Newton and/or KCY, I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to consider whether it'd be feasible to extend it southward from Fort Worth and pick up the slack there, perhaps even giving Houston a line to Galveston (although word has it that the Gulf Coast Freight Railroad Company may actually have that ready for commuter service by 2012 alongside a northward jaunt to Hempstead). (I will also admit that I've been mulling around with an idea that would run the Sunset DAL-HOS-NOL, but have not figured out how to solve a lack of HOS-SAS under that scenario).

Two other things mentioned in the article have also got my attention.

First, a later departure for the Sunset to connect with the Starlight is fine, except for the fact that the past schedules have shown this to create horrible service time in SAS, which I think would defeat the overall purpose of "premier". Based on the current timetable in print, I highly doubt they'd do a 12 hour reversal of the times, but then again perhaps the concept of watching the sun setting while looking towards San Francisco or something could prove me wrong. It has been about 6 years since I was last on the Starlight, a trip I'll remember because the Great Dome was deadheading, and we were 12 hours late because of mud slides, detours, and what not, allowing us to look at Mt. Shasta in daylight, and arriving in LAX at 9a. Point of that: I have no means to speak of the terrain between San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, but if it's scenic enough, I suppose a sunrise over that terrain and it shinning on the Pacific might also prove me wrong, too.

The other is the idea to restore CoNO to its original Viewliner setup, minus the dome cars and everything, in order to get more equipment. I'm not certain how that would give any substantial gain given that the current CoNO consist is similar to the Eagle, minus the lounge car, so a dorm sleeper, sleeper, CCC, and 2-3 coaches depending on demand. Then again, I guess it depends on the number of sets run, and my math says at most three (one set from NOL, one set already en route to NOL, and one set already en route that I would surmise turns around because of the 12 split in NB arrival and SB departure), but I've been known to be wrong. What would be nice would be to see a more convenient connection time with the stub service in NOL in order to access the trains that head to MS & TN, and to connect HOS with D.C. and the eastern seaboard.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jun 8, 2010)

Josiah said:


> The other is the idea to restore CoNO to its original Viewliner setup, minus the dome cars and everything, in order to get more equipment. I'm not certain how that would give any substantial gain given that the current CoNO consist is similar to the Eagle, minus the lounge car, so a dorm sleeper, sleeper, CCC, and 2-3 coaches depending on demand. Then again, I guess it depends on the number of sets run, and my math says at most three (one set from NOL, one set already en route to NOL, and one set already en route that I would surmise turns around because of the 12 split in NB arrival and SB departure), but I've been known to be wrong. What would be nice would be to see a more convenient connection time with the stub service in NOL in order to access the trains that head to MS & TN, and to connect HOS with D.C. and the eastern seaboard.



FYI, the CoNO never operated with viewliners. What you are referring to was the days when it operated with Heritage fleet equipment. Heritage fleet cars were streamliner cars built in the 1940s and 1950s that were converted to head end power in the early 1980s. Most of these cars were removed from service because of the toilets emptying directly onto the tracks. A congressional mandate required that the cars be remodeled to have wasted products kept in tanks like in the superliners and Amfleets. This was too expensive, so Amtrak took them out of service. The only remaining cars Heritage fleet cars are the single level diners on the east coast trains.

Currently, Amtrak does not have enough viewliner sleeping cars to operate the CoNOL with single level equipment.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 8, 2010)

Josiah said:


> However, if the timing is right, I guess the only other downside would be those that were formerly served in Bryan-College Station, Corsicana, and Nacogdoches no longer having an option (albeit if Amtrak is planning on extending the Heartland Flyer to either Newton and/or KCY, I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to consider whether it'd be feasible to extend it southward from Fort Worth and pick up the slack there, perhaps even giving Houston a line to Galveston (although word has it that the Gulf Coast Freight Railroad Company may actually have that ready for commuter service by 2012 alongside a northward jaunt to Hempstead).


I'm somewhat confused by the reference to Bryan-College Station and Corsicana passengers. They haven't had Amtrak service since the Houston section of the Texas Eagle was cancelled in, what, the early- or mid-1990s.


----------



## Josiah (Jun 8, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> FYI, the CoNO never operated with viewliners. What you are referring to was the days when it operated with Heritage fleet equipment. Heritage fleet cars were streamliner cars built in the 1940s and 1950s that were converted to head end power in the early 1980s. Most of these cars were removed from service because of the toilets emptying directly onto the tracks. A congressional mandate required that the cars be remodeled to have wasted products kept in tanks like in the superliners and Amfleets. This was too expensive, so Amtrak took them out of service. The only remaining cars Heritage fleet cars are the single level diners on the east coast trains.
> Currently, Amtrak does not have enough viewliner sleeping cars to operate the CoNOL with single level equipment.


I blame it on being up late, but you're correct. I knew what I was thinking, and said something different. Thank you very much for the correction.



Eric S said:


> I'm somewhat confused by the reference to Bryan-College Station and Corsicana passengers. They haven't had Amtrak service since the Houston section of the Texas Eagle was cancelled in, what, the early- or mid-1990s.


My apologies for the confusion. I needed to specify that I was thinking of what would happen should they eliminate the bus that makes a stop in Nacogdoches, which gives at least those from Bryan-College Station a locale to drive to if need be. It's about the same time in transit to either Houston or Nacogdoches because of the immense amount of traffic that traverses 290 on any given day (meaning I would take the maps.yahoo.com transit time of 1:44 with a grain of salt as sometimes an extra 40 min can be tacked trying to get to 610). Eliminate the bus, not only do we still have Corsicana and Bryan-College Station out in the cold as they have been for the past 15 years, but now we leave out another city, too, via the cut of bus service under Amtrak.


----------



## Donctor (Jun 8, 2010)

Josiah said:


> The other is the idea to restore CoNO to its original Viewliner setup, minus the dome cars and everything, in order to get more equipment. I'm not certain how that would give any substantial gain given that the current CoNO consist is similar to the Eagle, minus the lounge car, so a dorm sleeper, sleeper, CCC, and 2-3 coaches depending on demand. Then again, I guess it depends on the number of sets run, and my math says at most three (one set from NOL, one set already en route to NOL, and one set already en route that I would surmise turns around because of the 12 split in NB arrival and SB departure), but I've been known to be wrong. What would be nice would be to see a more convenient connection time with the stub service in NOL in order to access the trains that head to MS & TN, and to connect HOS with D.C. and the eastern seaboard.


As Steve4031 pointed out, the _City_ was Heritage, not Viewliner. And by the end, it was not an impressive train. In September 1992, the Horizon dinette stopped operating south of Carbondale, which left the Amfleet dinette as the only food service car for most of the route. (Why? After many Amtrak's dining cars failed inspection in '92, the dinettes were needed elsewhere.) The CDL dinette was lost soon after it became a short-turn car. Historical consist notes are at the bottom of this post.

Viewliners will almost certainly not go to the CONO. There's no reason to use single-level equipment when there isn't a clearance issue. There are no extra single-level long-distance coaches in the fleet. Besides, the Viewliners will go to trains that actually need them.

–––Consist Notes–––

The CONO was not an impressive train, hence its nickname. By mid-to-late 1993, I believe the "typical" consist was:

P40DC

Heritage Baggage

Horizon Coach [CHI-CDL]

Heritage Coach [KCY-CDL-NOL; River Cities]

Heritage Coach

Heritage Dome Coach

Heritage Coach

Amfleet II Lounge (serving as a dinette)

Heritage Sleeper

_The order was eventually reversed for ease of switching at CDL._

The aforementioned equipment couldn't make it through the winter, and one equipment set became bi-level on February 16, 1994. The other two followed on March 3.

From what I understand, when the City first went "Superliner" it looked like:

P40

P40

Heritage Baggage

Hi-Level Trans-Dorm

Hi-Level or Superliner I Coach*

Hi-Level or Superliner I Coach*

Hi-Level or Superliner I Diner

Superliner I Sleeper

* At least one coach was supposed to be a Superliner with lower-level (ADA) seating.

The first consist became bi-level on February 16, 1994. The other two became bi-level on March 3, 1994.

Later in March or April (date unknown), an extra coach was assigned to each consist.

In May, the Hi-Level diners were removed–reassigned to the Desert Wind/Pioneer–and replaced with a Superliner I diner and Hi-Level lounge for all three consists.

In June, the dining car crews started cooking some of the food in the diner.

On October 30, 1994, Superliner I lounges were assigned to the City.

What I don't know is where the River Cities coach was placed when the train became bi-level. I know the thru-car was a Heritage coach until the end, which came on November 4, 1994. That may mean that the River Cities coach was a Hi-Level, but that wouldn't make much sense given that the RC was part of the Mule.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jun 8, 2010)

I believe the river cities stopped running before the superliners. I rode this once from New Orleans to KC, and it was a great trip. The river cities car was the last car on the train. I had the car to myself, accept for the crew for most of the trip. In Centraila, it was detached from the CNOL, and ran with an engine to STL, where it was attached to the Kansas City Mule. I was the only passenger. There were some dead heading crew, and the operating crew. The platform end of the car was at the rear, so when we were coming into STL, I was allowed out on the platform by the crew. They saw me looking out the rear window, and I was invited out. This was cool.


----------



## Donctor (Jun 8, 2010)

Steve4031 said:


> I believe the river cities stopped running before the superliners. I rode this once from New Orleans to KC, and it was a great trip. The river cities car was the last car on the train. I had the car to myself, accept for the crew for most of the trip. In Centraila, it was detached from the CNOL, and ran with an engine to STL, where it was attached to the Kansas City Mule. I was the only passenger. There were some dead heading crew, and the operating crew. The platform end of the car was at the rear, so when we were coming into STL, I was allowed out on the platform by the crew. They saw me looking out the rear window, and I was invited out. This was cool.


Nice. I thought the RC was gone before Superliners, but Amtrak In the Heartland said otherwise. I do believe one City consist went bi-level on 02/16/94, and the other two on 03/03/94.


----------

