News on daily Sunset (incl older east of NOL discussion)

[DSS&A]

Hi,

Here's a link to a December 16th article about the new study. Extending the City of New Orleans is a good idea or at least operate a few through sleepers and a coach on a new separate train with a very short layover.

http://m.newsherald.com/article/20151216/NEWS/151219311

 

[Caesar La Rock]

If that plan happens, will the train be called City of Orlando? Jokes aside, I like the idea to send the City of New Orleans to Orlando.

 

[Anderson]

Well, I'm looking over this report and comparing it to the 2008-mandated report. Of the five options in this report and three in the old one:
Option 1 in the old report (tri-weekly Sunset extension) has no parallel in the new report.
Option 2 in the old report (daily CONO extension to Orlando) corresponds to Alternative A1 in the new report.
Option 3 in the old report (daily stand-alone train) corresponds to Alternative C in the new report.
Alternative 2/2A has no parallel in the old report.

So, comparing alternatives:
Option 2/Alternative 1A
Option 2/2009:
Ridership: 96,100
Revenue: $9.20m
Direct Costs: $20.9m
Operating Contribution: $11.70m (no capital charges indicated)
Direct Cost Recovery: 44%

Alternative A1/2015:
Ridership: 138,300 riders
Revenue: $12.25m
Operating Commitment: $5.48m
-Implied Operating Costs of $17.73m.
Capital Expense: $3.78m
Direct Cost Recovery: 69%

Option 3/Alternative C
Option 3/2009:
Ridership: 79,900
Revenue: $5.6m
Direct Costs: $24.0m
Operating Contribution: $18.4m
Direct Cost Recovery: 23%

Alternative C/2015:
Ridership: 69,100 riders
Revenue: $4.03m
Operating Costs: $18.43m
Operating Commitment: $14.4m
Direct Cost Recovery: 21.9%

The short version is that the stand-alone train stinks almost no matter what (and as an aside, the numbers for the state train options are absolutely horrid...B's ridership, with two trains, is on par with the Hoosier State and B1 is only marginally better). However, the stats on through-operation of the CONO improve markedly. There are a few things to explain this:
-Higher ridership. One notable change is that the putative times in Orlando provide for legal connections to/from Miami in the 2015 schedule, something not there in the 2009 schedule. [1] I don't see the connecting traffic as massive, but it is likely not insubstantial (especially since it would also implicitly allow CONO pax to catch the Meteor's Thruway bus to Tampa where that might not have been allowed on the older plan).
--Better times in Florida. The WB schedule trades a longer pad at NOL for better times where possible in north Florida (Jacksonville, Tallahassee, etc.). This is probably a good trade.
--Better times New Orleans-Mobile. The new schedule basically runs between the two cities on a commuter schedule (into NOL at 0930, out of NOL at 1700).
-Lower costs. There's a $3.2m reduction in costs between 2009 and 2015 for the CONO. Some of this is down to reducing the equipment need on the train (the old plan assumed 6 cars going to Orlando all year while the present one assumes 4 cars; this likely reduces OBS expenses somewhat as well as making a dent on maintenance assumptions).


[1] The CONO's planned arrival in Orlando is 1130; this connects with the Meteor southbound, which departs just after 1300. The CONO's planned departure is 1615, which would connect from the Meteor, which arrives at 1323. On the old report, the CONO was to arrive in Orlando at 1250 (no legal connection to the Meteor southbound); you'd have a one-way connection...which would likely scupper any round-trip business.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

CONO is the street sweeper (last train out) of a short haul route. By extending it to Orlando, even a few cars, are we not causing yeld management to kick in, and mess with ridership on the northern leg?

One thinks you need to block a few cars for the longs out of Chicago. Sure you can open those seats up closer to the departure date, however how many customer will be turned away? Or do we add equipment just for the Orlando section?

Like the Lakeshore Limited, if there was a Empire Service train going west after it, how would the numbers change. Sunday out of NYC full house, with people sneaking on board, or trying to.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Here's a link to a December 16th article about the new study....

http://m.newsherald.com/article/20151216/NEWS/151219311

Here's the link to the study itself:

http://www.newsherald.com/assets/pdf/DA2111216.PDF

 

[WoodyinNYC]

From the report, "At New Orleans, passengers could connect overnight with the Sunset Limited service to Los Angeles."

Of course, future daily service on the Sunset Limited is an unhatched chick. But it might not be much help to the revived service east of New Orleans.

That phrase "connect overnight" reveals an awkwardness in the likely schedules. Currently, the westbound Sunset departs New Orleans at 9 a.m. But the study has the extended CONO arriving from Orlando at 9:30 a.m. That's temptingly close to a real same-day connection, but it would require tweaking the timetables by a couple of hours to make it happen reliably.

The PRIIA study of the Sunset Ltd/Texas Eagle back in 2010 looked at a thru train Chicago-San Antonio-L.A., with a shuttle New Orleans-Lafayette-Houston-San Antonio. Their Sunset Shuttle would depart NOLA at 9:45 a.m. and arrive in San Antonio at 11:10 p.m. to meet the Eagle for a cross-platform connection before the Eagle headed west at 1:10 a.m. So there's not much room for tweaking the Shuttle schedule, unless it can be speeded up. (The Sunset Ltd. does about 45 mph over this segment now.)

Eastbound is even more problematic. The Sunset now leaves San Antonio at 6:25 a.m., arriving in NOLA at 9:40 p.m. (In the PRIIA study, it was depart 7:50 a.m., arrive 9 p.m. Obviously the PRIIA team thought a faster trip was possible, but that was probably before talking with the UP and BNSF.) If the CONO will be departing NOLA at 5 p.m. to Mobile and Orlando, passengers from Lafayette, Houston, San Antonio, and points west will indeed be looking at an "overnight connection". Such a thing could happen in worse places, but most riders would probably prefer to keep on moving on.

The solution, of course, would be more Amtrak, or much faster Amtrak: A Sunset Shuttle from San Antonio arriving reliably in NOLA by mid-afternoon would not be impossible with enuff investment. Or a second, earlier train leaving San Antonio without holding for the Eagle's arrival from L.A. and El Paso. Those trains could be the basis of corridor service with several daily runs linking two big Texas cities with the two Louisiana cities. Wouldn't the population totals justify it? Well, I'll try to keep this corridor on my ranked To-Do list, if that worthy project comes back to life.

 

[neroden]

Here's a different idea: suppose

(a) the PRIIA Texas Eagle / daily Sunset Limited combination was implemented (it'll be a while, so assume UP's built a lot of double track)

(b) the preferred option, extending the CONO to Florida, in the Gulf Coast study was implemented

© Sunset Shuttle was rescheduled to get good times on the New Orleans end.

CONO Eastbound arrive NOLA 3:32PM, depart 5:00PM

CONO Westbound arrive NOLA 9:30AM, depart 1:45PM

Crescent Westbound arrive NOLA 7:32 PM

Crescent Eastbound depart NOLA 7:00 AM

Hmmm. I don't see a way to get a good connection to all of those trains with a single train west. Just not possible.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Here's a different idea: suppose

(a) the PRIIA Texas Eagle / daily Sunset Limited combination was implemented (it'll be a while, so assume UP's built a lot of double track)

(b) the preferred option, extending the CONO to Florida, in the Gulf Coast study was implemented

© Sunset Shuttle was rescheduled to get good times on the New Orleans end.

CONO Eastbound arrive NOLA 3:32PM, depart 5:00PM

CONO Westbound arrive NOLA 9:30AM, depart 1:45PM

Crescent Westbound arrive NOLA 7:32 PM

Crescent Eastbound depart NOLA 7:00 AM

Hmmm. I don't see a way to get a good connection to all of those trains with a single train west. Just not possible.

I agree (and I tried): http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65927-proposal-for-extending-crescent-to-sas-improving-te-schedule/

Even in 1977 when they had the through cars from NYP to LAX, the train waited overnight in NOL in both directions.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19770622&item=0036

The combo from NYP to LAX via NOL was 4 days while the combo from NYP to LAX via KCY was 3 days.

This is back when the SL was LAX to MIA:

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0030

You can choose to match up the SL with the Crescent or the TE but not both without drastically changing either the Crescent or the TE. I'd argue the NOL connection with the Crescent (and CONO) is more important than the TE connection at SAS.

This was the TE from 1994:

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0031

First, it had through cars from DAL to HOU and second the train left CHI much later so there wasn't as long a delay as there is in 2015.

I still feel a train leaving SAS west at 2:45am and arriving in LAX at 5:35am is pretty bad. No wonder the train has such poor ridership.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

suppose ... Sunset Shuttle was rescheduled to get good times on the New Orleans end.

CONO Eastbound arrive NOLA 3:32PM, depart for FLA at 5:00PM

CONO Westbound arrive NOLA 9:30AM, depart for Memphis at 1:45PM

Crescent Westbound arrive NOLA 7:32 PM, from Atlanta.

Crescent Eastbound depart NOLA 7:00 AM, toward Atlanta.

Hmmm. I don't see a way to get a good connection to all of those trains with a single train west. Just not possible.

Not possible. And not easy to make the Sunset Shuttle part work.

Maybe for a hundred million bucks you could upgrade the tracks to get a Westbound Shuttle departure that would work with the CONO's morning arrival from Florida.

But it would take Lincoln/Wolverine corridors, Stimulus type money to get the Eastbound times to work, like, $2 Billion at least.

Meanwhile I guess some riders would take the train west, then fly back on Southwest or United out of Houston or San Antonio. But not too many would do it.

On the other hand, for people who insist on riding the train, on account of their claustrophobia or simple stubbornness or whatever, their trips will be greatly improved by the new schedule even with the "overnight connections". That's simply because there is no connection at all now, with no train from Florida to points west.

And of course, the Shuttle will run daily, which will always beat the 3-days-a-week schedule that kills the Sunset now.

Will it be worse to overnight in New Orleans than to ride to D.C., change trains to Chicago, change trains to the West Coast? Sleeper pax will have to ride coach on the Shuttle, then get space in a Viewliner in San Antonio or NOLA. But despite it all, some riders will be delighted with the re-opened Southern route.

Keeping the focus on the new proposal, I've been persuaded. I'd been annoyed with NARP for pushing so hard for a train here. But the study's conclusions make it seem reasonable to extend the CONO. So let's do it!

 

[neroden]

It'll only be extended if the states or local governments put up the money. Frankly, with THESE states involved, I'd think the local governments would be more likely.

 

[DSS&A]

Hi, If the CONO is extended , I would think that it would be considered a long distance train and the states wouldn't have to help cover the operating costs. The states and communities may be asked to rehab their station and parking facilities and some track related capacity costs to help sweeten the pot" to encourage the restart of service. Does Amtrak have enough out of service Superliner cars for this extended service that could be rehabilitated? The website on this link indicates that they may have enough.

http://trainweb.org/web_lurker/AmtrakSuperliner/

 

[neroden]

Unfortunately, an extension of the CONO would be bad for Amtrak's bottom line, according to the report: $5.48 million/year. The states would not be asked to cover overhead (as they are asked to do under PRIIA), but Amtrak would want the actual avoidable costs to be covered. Because Amtrak needs that money for a lot of other higher-priority things.

$5.48 million per year might be within the budgets of the cities & counties, if Tallahassee, Pensacola, Mobile, Pascagoula, Biloxi, Gulfport, and New Orleans all kicked in a little.

 

[jis]

All that we have to do is ,milk the NEC customers another $5.48 million and Voila! If the various Congresspeple and Senators asking for this have the balls they should tack on an addendum to the Amtrak appropriation to cover this. Originally they did say this is the reason they wanted the study done. Now we'll see if they were just bluffing Afterall it is the LD networks which should be the responsibility of the federal government in its entirety..

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Unfortunately, an extension of the CONO would be bad for Amtrak's bottom line, according to the report: $5.48 million/year. ...

Not a large number compared with losses on other Superliner trains that can run $30 or $40 million a year.

Not as close to breaking even or surplus as the single-level Eastern trains, but not a bad figure.

The PRIIA study on the Texas Eagle/Sunset Ltd revamp to a daily schedule showed losses on the route increased by $4.5 million, or 0.5% of the total LD losses at the time. Of course, that daily train instead of a 3-days-a-week train would enjoy enormous productivity gains from crew assignments. (The daily Eagle/Sunset loss was forecast to be offset in part by a $1.5 million gain on the connecting Coast Starlight.)

But that $5.5 million from an extended CONO quickly gains 100,000+ passengers, adds considerable (if flawed) connectivity to the national system, and might neutralize some anti-Amtrak political sentiment in 3 or 4 states.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Unfortunately, an extension of the CONO would be bad for Amtrak's bottom line, according to the report: $5.48 million/year.

You know I favor expansion of the system -- the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak. Any added "train miles" divide into a fairly fixed nut of overhead costs. So added train miles from new trains reduce in some little way the overhead burden on the trains already in the system. Of course, other trains only benefit if the operating results of the new or extended train are above the average for all existing trains.

But because of various Congressional restrictions, there's very, very few places where Amtrak can easily expand. A daily Cardinal, a daily Eagle/Sunset Ltd, and restoration of the "suspended" Sunset service between New Orleans and Florida, by an extended CONO in this case.

Otherwise we'll need to get our additional "train miles" from more state-supported trains. At this point that's gonna be from California, Washington (and maybe Oregon), Illinois, Virginia, Connecticut, North Carolina, Maine, and Vermont. And except for the Roanoker and perhaps the Norfolker, no new state supported train has been announced since the Stimulus.

With the outlook for any growth in "train miles" elsewhere so limited, we should line up behind this Gulf Coast CONO and go for it.

 

[Carolina Special]

It would be nice to know what the expected capital costs would be to get this extension running. I don't believe the Amtrak study covers those.

Covering $5.5 million a year in operating costs is relatively peanuts, but if the capital cost is several hundred million? There will have to be a funding source for that.

 

[DSS&A]

Hi,

One other way to add connectivity and grow the system is the thruway bus connection between St. Louis and Centralia on the CONO. During peak travel times, a second bus would probably be needed. For a short time, this was the River Cities connecting train.

This connection can benefit the CONO with additional passengers from St. Louis to Kansas City who want to go to the Gulf Coast and Florida, especially Orlando! As ridership grows over at least a few years, a thru coach and sleeping car from Kansas City to Orlando is possible. I believe the River Cities was a sleeping car and a coach initially, but it was a single coach for many years. The ability to offer more destinations such as the also popular Gulf Coast, and Florida could be a game changer that attracts a larger ridership than in the past.

 

[west point]

Woody and others: One item to consider. If additional train miles go on a present route some economies of scale become evident.

1. Cardinal and present Sunset will have less crew costs per train mile due to better utilization. There will only be a very small increase in station keeping costs. May need a few more ticket agents over a route. There will be track charges by freight RRs and on Amtrak tracks. All the previous can be shared with another train(s). Also add car and loco mileage charges.

2. Adding a train on a present route(s) or part of route has the same advantages of #1. Examples would be a day Crescent ATL - NYP, another NYP - CHI, NYP - Florida, CHI - Denver, CHI - MSP, Phoenix / Tucson - LAX. Adding any trains to multi train routes such as the NEC, Capitol corridor, Surfliners, Cascades, WASH - Richmond, will have very little of these incremental costs.

3. Any new route has all the expenses of # 1 without being able to share the costs with any other train.

4. All those additional trains will allow for more connections. The outstanding metric of connections is CHI that has on any day 30 - 40 % of arriving passengers board another train departing from CHI. More trains as listed above will make connections at other Amtrak hubs.

HOWEVER: New trains can may add more connecting passengers instead of adding trains to present routes. The PRIIA reports do not address this metric very well. Connections to / from CHI, NYP, WASH, PHL would be improved The Sunset and Sunset east do not add to connections except at SAS, LAX and JAX. New Orleans only with an overnight stay.

Whatever is done the critical need for locos and then passenger cars needs addressing

 

[west point]

An overnight train departing NOL - JAX approximately at 2200 (10 PM ) might be a solution. Arrive NOL 0500

!. Maybe it could be called an extension of the CNO or Sunset but have a change of equipment ( Horizons ? ). Its been done before. Then at JAX you would have good connections both north and south on the Silvers. Leave to others to calculate JAX times.

2. Plus all three inbound trains could have connections.

a. Crescent can provide connecting passengers from ATL - BHM and intermediate stations south. Note: northbound Crescent cannot changed for a delayed schedule due to the important times for BHM and ATL passengers going north.

b. City of New Orleans would provide connecting passenger from Carbondale - Memphis - Jackson

c. Sunset connections ELP, SAS, HOU, and maybe farther west.

d. JAX has too many possibilities to even begin to list.

 

[neroden]

Woody: the impression I got from the report is that the $5.48 million is actually incremental subsidy requirement. None of this overhead loading nonsense. Amtrak quite clearly states that with the route not subject to PRIIA, they aren't required to load the states' costs up with overhead, but that they still want the states to cover the real incremental operating costs.

My most recent estimates say that making the Sunset Limited daily should *reduce* subsidy requirement, and that making the Cardinal daily should *reduce* subsidy requirement. Slightly different situation; one where Amtrak should just do it as soon as possible.

Of course the wild card is capital costs, which haven't been estimated recently (for any of the above).

 

[jis]

If that plan happens, will the train be called City of Orlando? Jokes aside, I like the idea to send the City of New Orleans to Orlando.

I just pulled out my handy dandy 1965 Official Guide of the Railways and discovered that the proposed timing of the CONO extension or the stand alone train between NOL and ORL closely parallels that of the Gulf Wind which was a joint L&N and SAL operation between NOL and JAX. It connected with the Silver Meteor in JAX providing connections to both Tampa and Miami. It of course did not connect to the Sunset Limited in NOL eastbound using any reasonable definition of "connect". Westbound there was a two and a half hour connection at NOL.

Anyway, this train carried both Coaches and Sleepers, had baggage service and had a Diner (L&N from NOL to Mobile and SAL from Tallahassee to JAX), and an Obs-Lounge!

There was a train called the Louisiane between CHI and NOL which connected nicely with the Gulf Wind. The premier Panama Limited did not.

So I guess it is fair to say that the proposed NOL - ORL train basically is restoration of the Gulf Wind, extended to ORL (which of course in '65 was not as important a destination as it is today).

 

[bretton88]

Looking at this study, the presence of alternative A1 sure makes me think that Amtrak is going to try this, even without state support unless CSX asks for a boatload of money to get it started, and with the severe downturn in freight traffic, CSX might be willing to cooperate. Could Amtrak just use the slot they still have from the "suspended" Sunset Limited?

 

[neroden]

Based on the incremental subsidy numbers, Amtrak is not going to do this without state or local support. I could actually see this being funded from local support, however, it's just not much cost.

 

[bretton88]

Based on the incremental subsidy numbers, Amtrak is not going to do this without state or local support. I could actually see this being funded from local support, however, it's just not much cost.

Yeah, but an extension of a LD train does not require state support. If they weren't considering doing this by themselves, why even bother with alternative A1? Amtrak might finally be thinking of the network effect.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Looking at this study, the presence of alternative A1 sure makes me think that Amtrak is going to try this, even without state support unless CSX asks for a boatload of money to get it started, and with the severe downturn in freight traffic, CSX might be willing to cooperate. Could Amtrak just use the slot they still have from the "suspended" Sunset Limited?

Let's assume that the SL East was "suspended", in a lawyer-approved word choice, in order to preserve the slot for it to be "unsuspended" in the future. So the slot won't be the issue.

Upgrading the route will cost something, if nothing more than the $20 million (estimated 2009 dollars) to install the PTC. The study notes that CSX will likely ask for upgrades, of course, to offset the effects on the freight schedules of adding the CONO to this stretch. Then the bargaining begins, and the states could get involved. If the CSX needs or demands just happened to consist of four projects, one in each state, it might be possible to get each state to put up some money toward matching a TIGER grant of $25 million maximum per project. (The template for this is the Southwest Chief, where various public entities scrounged up the match to collect TIGER grants and upgrade the tracks.)

Agree that Alt A1 is how it's gonna go.

(I was quite disappointed to see the puny ridership figures estimated for a state-supported corridor run Mobile-New Orleans; forget it.)