No more Sunset Ltd trains 19 and 20 will run in it's place

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

Off a yahoo group

The credibility of he who originally posted this is indeedquestionable, but in this case, it might be legitimate.

I have been knowing about this proposal for more than a month now and

haven't posted it for a few reasons:

1.) I've been busy!

2.) I didn't want to be associated in any way with the stink that this

individual caused last summer on this same subject.

3.) It was only a proposal about a possibility, not an actual decision

made.

Now that this is in the realm of open discussion, I'll offer what I know.

Amtrak or some entity within Amtrak generated a proposal to abolish

the SUNSET LIMITED and replace it from New Orleans to San Antonio with

the CRESCENT and from San Antonio to Los Angeles with the TEXAS EAGLE.

This proposal was presented to the BNSF and the Union Pacific since

it would warrant their approvals.

The folks at BNSF seemed to like the idea since it kept the passenger

train (regardless of what it is called) off of the mainline during

daylight hours, meaning more flexibility for MofW crews as well as

trains. I have no information on what anyone at Union Pacific thinks.

That's really all that I know.

Part of the idea is that since the CRESCENT is more popular and

profitable, Amtrak might be able to take advantage of riders who might

want to continue westward but who feel that changing trains is too

much of a hassle. My own dark suspicion is that it is also a way of

ensuring that passenger service and/or the SUNSET LIMITED never gets

restored east of New Orleans on the Gulf Coast; the SUNSET LIMITED

can't be extended if it doesn't exist, and the train that runs along

the Sunset Route west of New Orleans would be the CRESCENT with an

already-dedicated route.

It's also supposed to help with on-time performance; since the

eastbound CRESCENT would only be coming from San Antonio and not Los

Angeles, there would be far fewer opportunities for delays. This is

part of why BNSF likes this plan; dispatchers on the BNSF portion of

the route will be able to more predictibally plan meets since there

would be fewer things that the UP would have the opportunity to do to

delay the train.

Of course, again, as far as I know, this is still only a proposal and

not an emminent plan, but that could change and could have already

changed, and I've been told by someone in management at BNSF to get my

pictures of the SUNSET LIMITED while I can. I will.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

If they did this, it would free up some Superliner equipment for a daily NOL-JAX that could connect with the Silvers north and south from JAX and give a daily through connex via CONL to CHI and westward on expanded Crescent. Hope too many people don't die laughing reading this.

 

[The Metropolitan]

Truth, Concept, or Rumor, I still don't exactly see just how this will actually work.

There is a known Viewliner crunch in which these cars are pressed into heavier service than they truly can withstand, and to now add an entire night's mileage to two pairs of these cars every other day just seems as if it would be the straw breaking the camel's back.

If the schedule was roughly based off of the existing Crescent timing, we'd be looking at about an 11:45am arrival into SAS, with departure at about 3:50pm - probably too short to turn such a train, so the result would be an overnight layover.

Such a long layover would become essential anyway due to the fact that by operating on alternating days, a tight turning train would only return to NOL to coincide with the "short turn" #19.

An example:

Presently Monday's #19 leaves NYP midafternoon, arriving NOL Tuesday evening, is turned as #20 for Wednesday Morning, and then arrives back at NYP on Thursday afternoon.

If the alternating extension were then operated in tandem with this arrangement, Sunday's #17(?) would leave NYP midafternoon, arriving NOL Monday evening, and thence arriving in SAS on Tuesday mid-morning. If it were to make a quick turnaround and leave Tuesday afternoon, it would only "bump into" the next day's #19 making it's turnaround as #20. Thus, it would have to leave (as #18?) Wednesday afternoon so as to arrive in NOL Thursday morning, and back in NYP Friday afternoon.

To be fair, appending the SAS portion would only require ONE additional trainset, as hopefully illustrated by the following ladder.

	  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA
NYP	1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4

NOL		1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4
--- 
NOL			1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4

NYP				1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4	   
  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU


  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA
NYP	1   2   3   4   5   2   1   4   3   2   5

NOL		1   2   3   4   5   2   1   4   3   2   5

SAS		 -  1   -   3   -   5   -   -   4   -   2   -
---   
SAS			-   1   -   3   -   5   -   -   4   -   2   -

NOL				2   1   4   3   2   5   1   3   4   5   2   

NYP					2   1   4   3   2   5   1   3   4   5   2
  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU

Such a move would result in one 36 hour layover per week at NOL in order to keep NOL trains from coinciding with SAS trains during the 2 back to back days of NOL operation.

Of course, you never know. If the Crescent were shortened to WAS, it could run Superliners, and free up 8 Viewliners for other services. Of course there's then the subject of whether there are enough Supers to do such an operation.

 

[Trogdor]

To be fair, appending the SAS portion would only require ONE additional trainset, as hopefully illustrated by the following ladder.

	  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA
NYP	1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4

NOL		1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4
--- 
NOL			1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4

NYP				1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4   1   2   3   4	   
  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU


  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA
NYP	1   2   3   4   5   2   1   4   3   2   5

NOL		1   2   3   4   5   2   1   4   3   2   5

SAS		 -  1   -   3   -   5   -   -   4   -   2   -
---   
SAS			-   1   -   3   -   5   -   -   4   -   2   -

NOL				2   1   4   3   2   5   1   3   4   5   2   

NYP					2   1   4   3   2   5   1   3   4   5   2
  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU  MO  TU  WE  TH  FR  SA  SU

Gee, the way you put that together, one might think you wrote schedules for a living or something.

 

[Guest_gp35_*]

Who ever wrote that does not understand the big bottle neck is Houston. Only 1 track to the west, Stafford area. 2 major yards to the East. After midnight hour trains will lose riders in the cities between NOL and Houston. Houston riders will not catch a train after midnight knowing where the station is located. Not that the station is in a bad spot, but if you take a wrong turn in the neighborhoods near the station. Bad Idea. Also Texas is trying to increase service, not destroy it which is what this plan will do. When the riders don't come, Crescent will be cut back to original NOL end without restoring Sunset. You all see what Amtrak is trying to do.

BTW, here is the Houston rail plans to ease the congestion.

http://www.houstonrailplan.com/contact.htm