A Different Sunset/Eagle Proposal?

[Bob Dylan]

We've been discussing this: Since the CONO and Eagle have been run through the CHI crews have been doing a poor job of cleaning/maintence! After the journey from NOL-SAS back to CHI or vice versa these train sets have had some funky cars, one of our members in NOL and the OBS on the Eagles have told me that they are receiving the cars in poor shape when they come on duty! There's not much done in SAS on the overnight layover except switching on the days that the Sunset runs to LAX! This train consistently runs out of supplies/food etc. on the way North back to CHI from SAS! Especially bad are the restrooms and the roomettes, they are in real need of cleaning/repairs most days!

This is not the OBS fault, the supervisors and route managers are not doing their jobs, hence funky/maintence poor train sets consistently! Lots of complaints have gone to Amtrak but so far not much seems to have been done!

 

[NativeSon5859]

Thankfully, this is all just talk until the plan is approved by UP. I've heard that they are def holding up this plan. Hopefully they'll continue to do so.

When I'm taking the SL, it's usually NOL-LAX, and I can plan my trip around the Mo, We, or Fr departures. Having a one seat ride with a sleeping car the whole way EASILY outweighs daily service. The numbers posted in a previous thread mention that NOL-LAX was one of the top city pairs for the train. Why break it up? I'm quite sure things can be done to increase the current SL efficiency without breaking the route in two. Having the connection restored from the southbound CS in LAX would probably help out, for starters.

 

[Trogdor]

I still find it funny that people would rather see the long-distance train that is toward the bottom of the pack in both ridership and cost recovery stay as it is rather than offer improved frequencies that would attract new riders.

In fact, the "it may work elsewhere, but not here, because people here are 'different'" is the same type of argument that anti-rail people use when opposing new rail projects being built in cities across the country.

The argument that nobody would ride the day train from San Antonio to New Orleans, because you have the interstate and Southwest Airlines doesn't hold much water either.

A couple of weeks ago, I took a look at three trips' worth of coach boardings on train #1, and found that over 50% of the coach passengers boarding between NOL and HOS were going no further than SAS. In other words, the day train would easily work for them. Double the frequency on the route, and suddenly you have a service that a lot more people like them could use.

I, personally, have no difficulty in believing that the loss of three days' worth of sleeper revenue NOL-SAS can be more than made up with by four days' sleeper revenue SAS-LAX.

 

[jis]

A couple of weeks ago, I took a look at three trips' worth of coach boardings on train #1, and found that over 50% of the coach passengers boarding between NOL and HOS were going no further than SAS. In other words, the day train would easily work for them. Double the frequency on the route, and suddenly you have a service that a lot more people like them could use.
I, personally, have no difficulty in believing that the loss of three days' worth of sleeper revenue NOL-SAS can be more than made up with by four days' sleeper revenue SAS-LAX.

Based on info available to me so far, which arguably is as incomplete or complete as most on this forum, I tend to agree with your assessment.

 

[willyvee]

I still believe that if Amtrak can find the needed cars to make the Eagle daily, then it can find the cars to make the Sunset daily. Therefore there is no need to wait for a "perfect solution", since it's already here.

Alan, as of right now you could not run both the Sunset and Eagle daily; there is just not enough equipment. I believe the Sunset is running on 3-4 sets now, and could not run daily (LAX-NOL) without 5-6. If you were to run the Sunset LAX-NOL daily, you would have to reduce the frequency of the Eagle to less than daily.

 

[Donctor]

I still believe that if Amtrak can find the needed cars to make the Eagle daily, then it can find the cars to make the Sunset daily. Therefore there is no need to wait for a "perfect solution", since it's already here.

Alan, as of right now you could not run both the Sunset and Eagle daily; there is just not enough equipment. I believe the Sunset is running on 3-4 sets now, and could not run daily (LAX-NOL) without 5-6. If you were to run the Sunset LAX-NOL daily, you would have to reduce the frequency of the Eagle to less than daily.

The Sunset currently has four sets. It currently has enough equipment (and time) to run to Florida.

Assuming no interlining, the daily Eagle will need seven.

 

[AlanB]

I still find it funny that people would rather see the long-distance train that is toward the bottom of the pack in both ridership and cost recovery stay as it is rather than offer improved frequencies that would attract new riders.

I'm not in favor of keeping the Sunset as is. And I'm not in favor of the current plan for the Eagle either. I'm in favor of taking that equipment being earmarked for the Eagle to go daily and instead using it to make the Sunset daily. That would increase the Sunset's revenue and get it out of the bottom of the pack without depriving those along the route of a one seta ride or a drop in the levels of on board service currently available.

 

[AlanB]

I still believe that if Amtrak can find the needed cars to make the Eagle daily, then it can find the cars to make the Sunset daily. Therefore there is no need to wait for a "perfect solution", since it's already here.

Alan, as of right now you could not run both the Sunset and Eagle daily; there is just not enough equipment. I believe the Sunset is running on 3-4 sets now, and could not run daily (LAX-NOL) without 5-6. If you were to run the Sunset LAX-NOL daily, you would have to reduce the frequency of the Eagle to less than daily.

As of right now we don't have the equipment to run the Eagle to LA daily either.

If we can find the equipment to make the Eagle daily, why can't we find the equipment to make the Sunset daily?

 

[NativeSon5859]

I still find it funny that people would rather see the long-distance train that is toward the bottom of the pack in both ridership and cost recovery stay as it is rather than offer improved frequencies that would attract new riders.
In fact, the "it may work elsewhere, but not here, because people here are 'different'" is the same type of argument that anti-rail people use when opposing new rail projects being built in cities across the country.

The argument that nobody would ride the day train from San Antonio to New Orleans, because you have the interstate and Southwest Airlines doesn't hold much water either.

A couple of weeks ago, I took a look at three trips' worth of coach boardings on train #1, and found that over 50% of the coach passengers boarding between NOL and HOS were going no further than SAS. In other words, the day train would easily work for them. Double the frequency on the route, and suddenly you have a service that a lot more people like them could use.

I, personally, have no difficulty in believing that the loss of three days' worth of sleeper revenue NOL-SAS can be more than made up with by four days' sleeper revenue SAS-LAX.

I'm far from anti-rail. I am anti-breaking up the Sunset. I'm looking at this from the New Orleans perspective and really I don't see the positives overwhelmingly outweighing the negatives. But we're going back and forth because there are people fully for this proposal and people against it. People have strong opinions on either side and that's fine. I'm done stating my case. This is all just talk anyway until UP gives the OK, and right now there's no guarantee that they will. Again...thankfully.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I prefer the idea of a daily Sunset as well. If timed correctly people could transfer between the Sunset and the Eagle with relative ease. Apparently some folks can't stand the thought of having to leave one sleeper and walk a few feet over to another, but it wouldn't bother me and seeing all the hub and spoke airline passengers traveling much greater distances from gate to gate and terminal to terminal it presumably doesn't bother most other folks either. I also agree that if you can find enough extra hardware to stretch the Eagle to daily toward the coast then you could just call it the Sunset. The whole doubling up of train names never made any sense to me either, or to the reservation system apparently.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'm comparing what we have now to the proposed day train. That comparison shows that we lose a sleeper and a diner.

Alan, you are losing a sleeper, gaining a business class car, losing a sightseer, and swapping a Cross Country Cafe diner/lounge for an Amdiner. In sum total, you are mostly losing the large windows of the sightseer lounge, and gaining more comfotable BC seats for your day trip in place of the less comfortable slabs-they-call-seats in the sleeping cars.

As for the conclusion that the Eagle's through cars carry more pax, that's simply not possible. Taking Amtrak's own numbers from last year and subtracting out the sleepers shows that the average Sunset Limited carries about 203 passengers. Even assuming that some people don't ride the full length and that seats are turned over, there is no way that a single coach capable of carrying 75 people can be carrying more than the Sunset Limited.
Looking at sleeping car numbers, the Sunset averaged 49 pax per trip, again more than the single Eagle through sleeper is capable of carrying. And I know that on my recent trip, not only was our sleeper sold out, rooms were sold into the Trans/Dorm also. That makes it impossible for the Eagle's through sleeper to have been carrying more sleeping car pax.

:blink: I know you are confused by this, but I can't believe you are that lost.

I am not talking about passenger loadings over the entire route. I'm talking about passenger loadings PRECISELY at San Antonio. Statistics show that the Texas Eagle's sleeper departs San Antonio, both hooked to the Sunset heading west, and to the Eagle heading north, than the Sunset's own sleeper tends to contain when it departs San Antonio, east or west. That is, upon departing SAS 421's contains more passengers than 1's, 422's more than 2's.

When you factor into account that the train SAS-NOL would be a day train, we have to realize that it would compound that scenario. There are many sleeper passengers who ride a sleeper because of the fact they are going to be asleep for the run. I would never ride sleeper for a run I wasn't sleeping on.

Thankfully, this is all just talk until the plan is approved by UP. I've heard that they are def holding up this plan. Hopefully they'll continue to do so.

The enemy of your enemy should never be your friend, no matter how desperate you are.

Secondarily, realize that if we simply made the Sunset daily, the CHI-SAS-LAX would lose their one-seat-ride. More importantly, the STL-LAX passengers would lose it.

 

[willyvee]

I still believe that if Amtrak can find the needed cars to make the Eagle daily, then it can find the cars to make the Sunset daily. Therefore there is no need to wait for a "perfect solution", since it's already here.

Alan, as of right now you could not run both the Sunset and Eagle daily; there is just not enough equipment. I believe the Sunset is running on 3-4 sets now, and could not run daily (LAX-NOL) without 5-6. If you were to run the Sunset LAX-NOL daily, you would have to reduce the frequency of the Eagle to less than daily.

As of right now we don't have the equipment to run the Eagle to LA daily either.

If we can find the equipment to make the Eagle daily, why can't we find the equipment to make the Sunset daily?

The Eagle daily to LA would take 7 sets, and it currently uses 4. 3 trainsets from the SL would need to be used to make the Eagle daily to LA. You cannot make the sunset run daily as of right now without taking trainsets from the Eagle, reducing it to less-than-daily frequency. Then, the burdens of the Sunset would be transferred to the Eagle.

 

[Donctor]

When you factor into account that the train SAS-NOL would be a day train, we have to realize that it would compound that scenario. There are many sleeper passengers who ride a sleeper because of the fact they are going to be asleep for the run. I would never ride sleeper for a run I wasn't sleeping on.

Won't the "day train" have a schedule over twelve hours?

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just asking.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

When you factor into account that the train SAS-NOL would be a day train, we have to realize that it would compound that scenario. There are many sleeper passengers who ride a sleeper because of the fact they are going to be asleep for the run. I would never ride sleeper for a run I wasn't sleeping on.

Won't the "day train" have a schedule over twelve hours?

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just asking.

I'd suspect so. I'd figure 13 hours or so. It takes about 15 hours now, but a heck of a lot of that is padding that won't be so important once the train is not running through to LAX.

 

[jis]

When you factor into account that the train SAS-NOL would be a day train, we have to realize that it would compound that scenario. There are many sleeper passengers who ride a sleeper because of the fact they are going to be asleep for the run. I would never ride sleeper for a run I wasn't sleeping on.

Won't the "day train" have a schedule over twelve hours?

Yep. Sort of like the Palmetto does, or the Maple Leaf. If any trains are introduced from NYP to any of the 3C Corridor cities they would also be more than 12 hours. In this day and age, indeed, even without going whole hog HSR, it should be possible to run a 13 to 14 hour day train New York to Chicago too.

 

[AlanB]

I'm comparing what we have now to the proposed day train. That comparison shows that we lose a sleeper and a diner.

Alan, you are losing a sleeper, gaining a business class car, losing a sightseer, and swapping a Cross Country Cafe diner/lounge for an Amdiner. In sum total, you are mostly losing the large windows of the sightseer lounge, and gaining more comfotable BC seats for your day trip in place of the less comfortable slabs-they-call-seats in the sleeping cars.

There is little point in continuing to debate what is or isn't lost, even though I personally would still consider the sleeping car to be far superior to a BC car, when the Sunset can simply be made to run daily with sleepers. That, other than leaving Amtrak with a name it doesn't want, would be the superior choice all around. We have daily service and greater revenues than what we'll get from the Eagle plan.

And seeing as how we don't currently have a Superliner BC car, much less any plans for one, who knows if Amtrak will actually deliver such a car should this plan happen.

As for the conclusion that the Eagle's through cars carry more pax, that's simply not possible. Taking Amtrak's own numbers from last year and subtracting out the sleepers shows that the average Sunset Limited carries about 203 passengers. Even assuming that some people don't ride the full length and that seats are turned over, there is no way that a single coach capable of carrying 75 people can be carrying more than the Sunset Limited.
Looking at sleeping car numbers, the Sunset averaged 49 pax per trip, again more than the single Eagle through sleeper is capable of carrying. And I know that on my recent trip, not only was our sleeper sold out, rooms were sold into the Trans/Dorm also. That makes it impossible for the Eagle's through sleeper to have been carrying more sleeping car pax.

:blink: I know you are confused by this, but I can't believe you are that lost.

I am not talking about passenger loadings over the entire route. I'm talking about passenger loadings PRECISELY at San Antonio. Statistics show that the Texas Eagle's sleeper departs San Antonio, both hooked to the Sunset heading west, and to the Eagle heading north, than the Sunset's own sleeper tends to contain when it departs San Antonio, east or west. That is, upon departing SAS 421's contains more passengers than 1's, 422's more than 2's.

My response was to this:

In fact, there are times when the through coach AND through sleepers are carrying more passengers than the entirety of the Sunset Limiteds other cars.

The numbers show that statement to be false.

When you factor into account that the train SAS-NOL would be a day train, we have to realize that it would compound that scenario. There are many sleeper passengers who ride a sleeper because of the fact they are going to be asleep for the run. I would never ride sleeper for a run I wasn't sleeping on.

I would, and have done so, that is to ride a sleeper for just a day trip. And there are others who would also do so too. I've met some in my various trips over the years.

But again, all Amtrak needs do is to run a daily Sunset to get the best of both worlds, instead of this convoluted Eagle plan that downgrades service to existing markets.

 

[AlanB]

I still believe that if Amtrak can find the needed cars to make the Eagle daily, then it can find the cars to make the Sunset daily. Therefore there is no need to wait for a "perfect solution", since it's already here.

Alan, as of right now you could not run both the Sunset and Eagle daily; there is just not enough equipment. I believe the Sunset is running on 3-4 sets now, and could not run daily (LAX-NOL) without 5-6. If you were to run the Sunset LAX-NOL daily, you would have to reduce the frequency of the Eagle to less than daily.

As of right now we don't have the equipment to run the Eagle to LA daily either.

If we can find the equipment to make the Eagle daily, why can't we find the equipment to make the Sunset daily?

The Eagle daily to LA would take 7 sets, and it currently uses 4. 3 trainsets from the SL would need to be used to make the Eagle daily to LA. You cannot make the sunset run daily as of right now without taking trainsets from the Eagle, reducing it to less-than-daily frequency. Then, the burdens of the Sunset would be transferred to the Eagle.

You cannot take away 3 of the Sunset's trainsets and still run daily service SAS-NOL, it will require 2 trainsets to remain on that route.

That said, last I knew the Sunset still had 5 trainsets assigned to it. Amtrak has never changed the allocation since discontinuing service east of NOL. It is for this reason that trainsets layover in NOL for 3 days. So with the extra cars coming out of Beech Grove thanks to the wreck repairs that are earmarked for the Eagle plan, enough can instead be sent to the Sunset to provide daily service NOL-LAX.

The only problem that would crop up would be if Amtrak were ordered to restore service east of NOL by Congress and given no funding to buy new cars for said service. However, if that happens, then the daily Eagle is going bye-bye too.

 

[Trogdor]

The Sunset Limited has four sets.

It used to need three, until the schedule change back in 2005-ish, which eliminated the same-day turn in LAX.

That said, the discussion of "trainsets" really isn't the issue, since each trainset would run with different equipment. The real question is, are there enough sleepers to run a daily NOL-LAX train and a daily CHI-SAS (with a through car to LAX) train. The answer to that is no.

So, you take the four consists currently devoted to the Sunset, and use them on the Texas Eagle instead, to run a daily service to LA. There are plenty of coaches around to put together a couple of coach-only consists for a day train (heck, 370/371 still use Superliners, and they don't really need to).

The proposed operation can be done with current equipment. A daily Sunset on its current route cannot.

 

[AlanB]

The Sunset Limited has four sets.

Ok, I'll accept 4.

 

[henryj]

The Sunset Limited has four sets.
It used to need three, until the schedule change back in 2005-ish, which eliminated the same-day turn in LAX.

That said, the discussion of "trainsets" really isn't the issue, since each trainset would run with different equipment. The real question is, are there enough sleepers to run a daily NOL-LAX train and a daily CHI-SAS (with a through car to LAX) train. The answer to that is no.

So, you take the four consists currently devoted to the Sunset, and use them on the Texas Eagle instead, to run a daily service to LA. There are plenty of coaches around to put together a couple of coach-only consists for a day train (heck, 370/371 still use Superliners, and they don't really need to).

The proposed operation can be done with current equipment. A daily Sunset on its current route cannot.

I keep telling Allan that the Sunset has only four sets assigned, but he insists that it's five. The Eagle also has four sets plus whatever it takes to go to LAX three times a week. It takes seven sets to run the Eagle daily to LAX. That means there are at least 8 sleepers and 8 trans dorms plus maybe one or two for the Eagle service to LAX. That means there are only enough sleepers to run a daily train with one sleeper and one trans dorm from CHI to LAX. The surplus will just be move to another service or kept as spares or they could add a second sleeper occasionally during peak periods. There are not enough extra to run a daily through sleeper from NOL to LAX as it would take five. Perhaps they could add a sleeper in SAS to LAX. I am just waiting to see if they actually do anything for this route.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Meh, the people on here are going to fight about this until Amtrak takes the simplest and easiest solution to this problem.

"The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) announces the discontinuation of trains 1 and 2 along the route from New Orleans to Los Angeles, effective 180 days hence. Comments can be sent to ________ where we will look at them, point and laugh, and file them in the incinerator."

 

[AlanB]

The Sunset Limited has four sets.
It used to need three, until the schedule change back in 2005-ish, which eliminated the same-day turn in LAX.

That said, the discussion of "trainsets" really isn't the issue, since each trainset would run with different equipment. The real question is, are there enough sleepers to run a daily NOL-LAX train and a daily CHI-SAS (with a through car to LAX) train. The answer to that is no.

So, you take the four consists currently devoted to the Sunset, and use them on the Texas Eagle instead, to run a daily service to LA. There are plenty of coaches around to put together a couple of coach-only consists for a day train (heck, 370/371 still use Superliners, and they don't really need to).

The proposed operation can be done with current equipment. A daily Sunset on its current route cannot.

I keep telling Allan that the Sunset has only four sets assigned, but he insists that it's five. The Eagle also has four sets plus whatever it takes to go to LAX three times a week. It takes seven sets to run the Eagle daily to LAX. That means there are at least 8 sleepers and 8 trans dorms plus maybe one or two for the Eagle service to LAX. That means there are only enough sleepers to run a daily train with one sleeper and one trans dorm from CHI to LAX. The surplus will just be move to another service or kept as spares or they could add a second sleeper occasionally during peak periods. There are not enough extra to run a daily through sleeper from NOL to LAX as it would take five. Perhaps they could add a sleeper in SAS to LAX. I am just waiting to see if they actually do anything for this route.

Ok, so it's 4 currently and 5 would be needed.

Amtrak has 8 sleeping cars and 2 Trans/Dorms coming out of Beech Grove thanks to the wreck repairs. More than enough to get us to the 5 sets needed.

So why should the people of Louisiana and Texas settle for the inferior plan that degrades onboard services when they can not only keep the same service levels on board and obtain daily service? It's the best of both worlds.

 

[AlanB]

Meh, the people on here are going to fight about this until Amtrak takes the simplest and easiest solution to this problem.
"The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) announces the discontinuation of trains 1 and 2 along the route from New Orleans to Los Angeles, effective 180 days hence. Comments can be sent to ________ where we will look at them, point and laugh, and file them in the incinerator."

My guess is that's what's going to happen anyhow. I've always believed that part of the idea behind this plan is to force the states of Louisiana and Texas to foot the bill for the money loosing Sunset. Once the train is truncated to SAS, that becomes so much easier to do. Either way Amtrak wins. They loose the Sunset name and they either get compensated for the service or cut it.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Ok, so it's 4 currently and 5 would be needed.
Amtrak has 8 sleeping cars and 2 Trans/Dorms coming out of Beech Grove thanks to the wreck repairs. More than enough to get us to the 5 sets needed.

So why should the people of Louisiana and Texas settle for the inferior plan that degrades onboard services when they can not only keep the same service levels on board and obtain daily service? It's the best of both worlds.

Enough with your nonsensical babble.

How about the passengers from:

Illinois: Joliet, Pontiac, Normal, Lincoln, Springfield, Carlinville, Alton

Missouri: St. Louis, Poplar Bluff

Arkansas: Walnut Ridge, Little Rock, Malvern, Arkadelphia, Texarkana

Texas: Marshall, Longview, Mineola, Dallas, Fort Worth, Cleburne, McGregor, Temple, Taylor, Austin

All of whom would lose THEIR tri-weekly one seat rides.

Texas Eagle proposal would lose sleeper service (replaced by BC) and one seat rides to 2 major metropolitan areas, New Orleans (1.2 million), and Houston (5.9 million) (total 7.3 million)

Under your suggested Sunset Limited plan, Bloomington-Normal (120,000), Springfield (200,000), St. Louis (2.8 million), Little Rock (862,488), Dallas-Fort Worth (6.45 million), and Austin (1.1 million) or a total of 10.43 million, would lose their one seat ride.

Now tell me, Alan, the numbers are right out there for you to read. Which plan makes more sense?

 

[AlanB]

Ok, so it's 4 currently and 5 would be needed.
Amtrak has 8 sleeping cars and 2 Trans/Dorms coming out of Beech Grove thanks to the wreck repairs. More than enough to get us to the 5 sets needed.

So why should the people of Louisiana and Texas settle for the inferior plan that degrades onboard services when they can not only keep the same service levels on board and obtain daily service? It's the best of both worlds.

Enough with your nonsensical babble.

How about the passengers from:

Illinois: Joliet, Pontiac, Normal, Lincoln, Springfield, Carlinville, Alton

Missouri: St. Louis, Poplar Bluff

Arkansas: Walnut Ridge, Little Rock, Malvern, Arkadelphia, Texarkana

Texas: Marshall, Longview, Mineola, Dallas, Fort Worth, Cleburne, McGregor, Temple, Taylor, Austin

All of whom would lose THEIR tri-weekly one seat rides.

Texas Eagle proposal would lose sleeper service (replaced by BC) and one seat rides to 2 major metropolitan areas, New Orleans (1.2 million), and Houston (5.9 million) (total 7.3 million)

Under your suggested Sunset Limited plan, Bloomington-Normal (120,000), Springfield (200,000), St. Louis (2.8 million), Little Rock (862,488), Dallas-Fort Worth (6.45 million), and Austin (1.1 million) or a total of 10.43 million, would lose their one seat ride.

Now tell me, Alan, the numbers are right out there for you to read. Which plan makes more sense?

My plan makes more sense, simply because you're wrong. Those cities you've cited wouldn't be loosing through service with my plan.

If we currently have 4 Sunset trainsets and need 5 to run daily, we have no need to steal the through cars from the Eagle to make this happen. We have 8 sleepers and 2 Trans/Dorms coming out of Beech Grove. More than enough to get us to 5 trainsets without touching the current Eagle.

We may not have enough sleepers to make through cars from the Eagle daily, unless other plans are given up for those sleepers coming out of BG, but again there is no need to curtail the current Eagle service levels or through cars. With my plan there is no need for anyone to loose their through service, while Sunset riders gain the advantage of daily service.