22 Texas Eagle or 422 Texas Eagle? Quick answer?

[cpotisch]

Per the OP, this has to close to the top in the most asked question here. Is it 421/422 in the computer system because its only three days a week?

It’s just to distinguish the CHI-LAX Eagle/Sunset through-service from the standard CHI-SAS Eagle. I don’t think that it simply being thrice-weekly would necessitate its own numbering.

 

[the_traveler]

Actually it does.

On the days that the TE operates to/from LAX, the full sleeper is 421/422 and the trans-dorm is 21/22. On the other 4 days, both are 21/22 only.

 

[cpotisch]

Actually it does.

On the days that the TE operates to/from LAX, the full sleeper is 421/422 and the trans-dorm is 21/22. On the other 4 days, both are 21/22 only.

I know that. But in and of itself, the fact that you can only go west of SAS three days a week, wouldn’t not necessitate its own numbering. It’s the fact that it’s a special through-car situation that necessitates different numbering.

 

[the_traveler]

It does, because 4 days a week there is no train 421/422. Thus you can not book a room on 421/422 on those 4 days at all.

 

[cpotisch]

It does, because 4 days a week there is no train 421/422. Thus you can not book a room on 421/422 on those 4 days at all.

You’re using circular logic. If it was just that three days a week the TE continues on to LAX as its own full train (which it is not), then there would be no need for the 421/422 numbering on top of the standard 21/22. It’s the fact that only certain cars continue past SAS as part of the Sunset, that requires having 21/22 AND 421/422.

 

[the_traveler]

Try to make a res from CHI to DAL on Sunday 1/27 (a day the TE goes to LAX). It gives options for both 21 and 421. (In fact, 21 is available but 421 is sold out.) Now try Monday 1/28 (where it just goes to SAS) - it only gives 21(because “train 421” does not operate that day).

 

[ehbowen]

You’re using circular logic. If it was just that three days a week the TE continues on to LAX as its own full train (which it is not), then there would be no need for the 421/422 numbering on top of the standard 21/22. It’s the fact that only certain cars continue past SAS as part of the Sunset, that requires having 21/22 AND 421/422.

I have to agree with cpotisch. If the Sunset Limited was moved to a daily schedule NOL-LAX (Oh, to dream!) and the current situation with the through cars to Chicago via SAS and D-FW continued unchanged, the Texas Eagle would still have to operate as Trains 21/421 and 22/422 to distinguish between the cars which operated differing itineraries. Think about it: The extra coach which operates CHI-STL runs 7 days a week, and it has its own "train number" (321/322).

 

[bratkinson]

I know that. But in and of itself, the fact that you can only go west of SAS three days a week, wouldn’t not necessitate its own numbering. It’s the fact that it’s a special through-car situation that necessitates different numbering.

I think there's actually 2 big reasons the through cars are treated as a separate train...and they hold true for 27/28 and 448/449, too:

1.  For passengers going through to destinations not on the 'base' train number, it guarantees they are in the correct car(s) when they board and thus, will not have to change cars in the middle of the night or anywhere along the way.  A one-seat ride is preferable to move all your stuff enroute for passengers.

2.  As I understand it, the Amtrak reservation system is based on ARROW, which they purchased or licensed from an airline.  Airplanes cannot have two terminating cities for the same flight, nor can they have intermediate stops available to some passengers only (such as Springfield MA on train 48/49 to/from NYP if it were all one flight/train number).  Put another way, the antique by todays' standards computer system is 'too dumb' (eg, not programmed) to handle such situations.  As a former author and marketer of licensed software, the customer/licensee NEVER gets a copy of the source code unless they really want to pay through the nose.  The same is true for professional photographers NEVER providing all their shots nor their RAW files, either.

 

[cpotisch]

Try to make a res from CHI to DAL on Sunday 1/27 (a day the TE goes to LAX). It gives options for both 21 and 421. (In fact, 21 is available but 421 is sold out.) Now try Monday 1/28 (where it just goes to SAS) - it only gives 21(because “train 421” does not operate that day).

I’m not at all arguing with that, Dave, and I never was. I’m just saying that the fact that that it goes to LAX three days a week in and of itself would not require the separate 421/422 numbering. It is the fact that it is a through-car service that necessitates a 421/422.

 

[cpotisch]

On 12/26/2018 at 7:24 PM, cpotisch said:
You’re using circular logic. If it was just that three days a week the TE continues on to LAX as its own full train (which it is not), then there would be no need for the 421/422 numbering on top of the standard 21/22. It’s the fact that only certain cars continue past SAS as part of the Sunset, that requires having 21/22 AND 421/422.

I have to agree with cpotisch. If the Sunset Limited was moved to a daily schedule NOL-LAX (Oh, to dream!) and the current situation with the through cars to Chicago via SAS and D-FW continued unchanged, the Texas Eagle would still have to operate as Trains 21/421 and 22/422 to distinguish between the cars which operated differing itineraries. Think about it: The extra coach which operates CHI-STL runs 7 days a week, and it has its own "train number" (321/322).

This!!! Thank you for translating what I was trying to say! Thank you!

 

[John Santos]

I don't think the limitations of the booking software has much if anything to do with the fact that some trains have multiple numbers for the same physical train.  Someone very recently posted copies of the current CONO schedule and the schedule from 1947 in a different thread.  The 1947 schedule had about 4 different train numbers for the cars that went from CHI to NOL, and the cars originating or separating for different starting points or destinations, such as St Louis.  The main train was 1/2 and the other cars were 201/202. 301/302, etc.  So the numbering scheme originated long before computerized ticketing.

I want to call the different pieces of the train "sections" (e.g. the SAS section of the TE and the LAX section),  but at least in the distant past, the term "section" referred to to a whole separate train following immediately after the first train with the same route, stops and destinations, used when the first train was full.  I read somewhere that 2nd, 3rd and sometimes even 4th sections were not uncommon on busy trains like the 20th Century Limited.

Also, in the past, splitting or joining trains at intermediate stations was far more common than it is today.  AMTRAK only has 3 such trains (that I know of), the LSL, EB and TE/SL.   I don't know if for the few trains where some of the coaches don't go all the way, they use separate numbers for the non-through coaches, or if they just tell people which car to board based on their destinations, and then announce that if you are continuing on, you need to move all your self and your carry-ons to another car as  you approach the station where they are about to detach a car.

 

[bratkinson]

Also, in the past, splitting or joining trains at intermediate stations was far more common than it is today.  AMTRAK only has 3 such trains (that I know of), the LSL, EB and TE/SL.   I don't know if for the few trains where some of the coaches don't go all the way, they use separate numbers for the non-through coaches, or if they just tell people which car to board based on their destinations, and then announce that if you are continuing on, you need to move all your self and your carry-ons to another car as  you approach the station where they are about to detach a car.

If I recall correctly, both the Silver Star and Silver Meteor would split/join sections in Florida...one to MIA and the other to TPA/St Pete/Clearwater.  I think the Floridian split as well.  Some splits occurred at JAX, others in the middle of nowhere at Auburndale.  I think the reason the Auburndale splits ended was the switch to HEP that  was beyond the conductor/assistant conductor job descriptions.  Then they gave up the splits entirely in JAX maybe 10-15 years ago.  Perhaps it was even longer considering the road-railer games at JAX back then.

As far as dropping/adding cars along the way, I know train 321/322 is the CHI-STL coach dropped/added at STL.  I've witnessed that multiple times at STL.  There's sometimes a CHI-MSP coach behind 27/28, summer only, I think.  I don't know what train numbers they use for that car, though.

 

[cpotisch]

I don't know if for the few trains where some of the coaches don't go all the way, they use separate numbers for the non-through coaches, or if they just tell people which car to board based on their destinations, and then announce that if you are continuing on, you need to move all your self and your carry-ons to another car as  you approach the station where they are about to detach a car.

There are two cases in the Amtrak system of short turned cars having their own numbering: the year round 321/322 STL-CHI coach on the Texas Eagle, and the peak season 807/808 MSP-CHI coach on the Empire Builder.

There are also multiple cases in the Amtrak system of cars without their own train number being short turned to serve high demand segments, but I can only think of two off the top of my head. There are the NYP-WAS coaches that run every day on the Palmetto, and the occasional CHI-KCY extra coach on the Southwest Chief.

 

[Thirdrail7]

I think there's actually 2 big reasons the through cars are treated as a separate train...and they hold true for 27/28 and 448/449, too:

1.  For passengers going through to destinations not on the 'base' train number, it guarantees they are in the correct car(s) when they board and thus, will not have to change cars in the middle of the night or anywhere along the way.  A one-seat ride is preferable to move all your stuff enroute for passengers.

There is truth to this...assuming they were in those cars to begin with. You can ride another section of the same train and move to the appropriate section at another point.

2.  As I understand it, the Amtrak reservation system is based on ARROW, which they purchased or licensed from an airline.  Airplanes cannot have two terminating cities for the same flight, nor can they have intermediate stops available to some passengers only (such as Springfield MA on train 48/49 to/from NYP if it were all one flight/train number).  Put another way, the antique by todays' standards computer system is 'too dumb' (eg, not programmed) to handle such situations.  As a former author and marketer of licensed software, the customer/licensee NEVER gets a copy of the source code unless they really want to pay through the nose.  The same is true for professional photographers NEVER providing all their shots nor their RAW files, either.

I'm not sure this has a valid application. While that may be true, they had the same system in place and there plenty of unreserved trains that split. They also had through numbers. I'm specifically thinking of the  SPG shuttles, which used to split/combine with their main train NHV. 

At any rate, I believe John Santos has the closest application. It is left over from when trains ran into different sections. While it isn't really as necessary these days, there are "probably"  sections of trains that are listed with different numbers strictly from an accounting point of view....whether you can see them or not.

The NHV cutoff comes to mind.  it is numberless in the timetable. During the outage in NYP, 89 originally had a separate number for 51's connecting passengers.

I think we're straying though.