Sunset East: Good news for a change?

[RailEngr08]

In October when the sunset starts running daily out out NOL

I wouldn't beat a beat up worn out brake shoe on this one. I'm not from Missouri but I'm going to have to be at East Bridge on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday & Sunday to see it in order to be a believer. <_<

Make your plans to be there and witness,

 

[BlakeTyner]

I'm not asking Amtrak to personally show me the numbers. I'm asking Amtrak to show anyone and everyone the numbers. So far I've not seen anyone, TEMPO or anyone else, posting any numbers. I haven't even seen anyone even post that they have seen numbers from Amtrak. That's my problem with this whole thing. Amtrak just seems to be running around saying that this is a good idea and no one, not even TEMPO, has publicly said that they've seen numbers that suggest that it really is a good idea. Everyone just seems to be assuming that because it's daily, that will make everything perfect. And by the way TEMPO would only have had Texas numbers, not the numbers for the entire runs of both trains.
We are talking about loosing revenue, big time revenue on the Sunset Limited here when sleepers are cut. I'm just asking for anyone to show me that running daily coach service is going to attract enough ridership to cover that loss. I'm not convinced that it will be. And that has nothing to do with "where I'm from." I don't need to be from Texas to understand lost revenue! Not to mention that I'm not interested in what's best for Texas; I'm interested in what's best for Amtrak and all the states currently being served by the trains in question.

As for the calling times, that's not being fixed because Amtrak is creating a daily train. That's being fixed because Amtrak is cutting out the 8 hours of padding that UP insisted they add to the running time several years back. That can be cut out of the schedule without regard to whether we run things status quo, run a daily Sunset, or go with this plan under discussion.

And if the daily stub does fail to make enough money and Amtrak turns around and asks Texas to help pay for it, I'm pretty sure that the bulk of Texan's won't see that as a positive.

The HF costs Texas what, a million bucks per year? And we're finally waking up--Texas DOT has a new position--Rail Director. If Amtrak wanted to transition the cost of the stub to the state, I don't think there'd be a ruckus against it.

Amtrak has publicly stated that they expect the daily Texas Eagle to LA to boost ridership by over 100,000 passengers. (First link in the "Inside Amtrak" section of their website--"Long Distance Trains Running Strong."

It's a good plan, IMO. The TE north of San Antonio benefits, too, from the upgrade to a full diner once again, staffed between AUS and SAS.

 

[had8ley]

In October when the sunset starts running daily out out NOL

I wouldn't beat a beat up worn out brake shoe on this one. I'm not from Missouri but I'm going to have to be at East Bridge on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday & Sunday to see it in order to be a believer. <_<

Make your plans to be there and witness,

I'll be there with bells, whistles and a camera; hope it's not for naught. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[haolerider]

But again I've seen no numbers from Amtrak that show that this will indeed be a positive for the riders, frankly all signs point to this being a positive for Amtrak only. They get rid of the dreaded Sunset Limited name that everyone associates with failure, they get to start charging Texas for the stub train eventually, they save on some equipment, and they quiet a very vocal railfan group in California. If someone has numbers that show otherwise, I'll gladly shut up. But until then, I'll continue to say that I believe that this is a bad idea. And that's not nostalgia talking.

Apparently the TEMPO people that manage the Eagle think this is a good idea and I gather people living in Texas think it's a good idea. You 'aren't from around here' as they say so you just don't and will never understand it. I don't think Amtrak is obligated to 'show you the numbers' just because you pontificate on here. I am sure TEMPO has plenty of numbers as they have been working on this for years. The 'dreaded Sunset Limited' has been limping along three times a week for way too long. It comes through Houston, the largest city in Texas at 4:40am and 9:13pm the few days it operates. Most people don't even know Houston has rail service. TXDOT has set up a rail orientated group to work on future studies and if Amtrak decides to make us pay then we will just have to find a way to do that. It isn't the first and won't be the last corridor train in Texas, but it certainly will start a positive trend for the future.

I'm not asking Amtrak to personally show me the numbers. I'm asking Amtrak to show anyone and everyone the numbers. So far I've not seen anyone, TEMPO or anyone else, posting any numbers. I haven't even seen anyone even post that they have seen numbers from Amtrak. That's my problem with this whole thing. Amtrak just seems to be running around saying that this is a good idea and no one, not even TEMPO, has publicly said that they've seen numbers that suggest that it really is a good idea. Everyone just seems to be assuming that because it's daily, that will make everything perfect. And by the way TEMPO would only have had Texas numbers, not the numbers for the entire runs of both trains.

We are talking about loosing revenue, big time revenue on the Sunset Limited here when sleepers are cut. I'm just asking for anyone to show me that running daily coach service is going to attract enough ridership to cover that loss. I'm not convinced that it will be. And that has nothing to do with "where I'm from." I don't need to be from Texas to understand lost revenue! Not to mention that I'm not interested in what's best for Texas; I'm interested in what's best for Amtrak and all the states currently being served by the trains in question.

As for the calling times, that's not being fixed because Amtrak is creating a daily train. That's being fixed because Amtrak is cutting out the 8 hours of padding that UP insisted they add to the running time several years back. That can be cut out of the schedule without regard to whether we run things status quo, run a daily Sunset, or go with this plan under discussion.

And if the daily stub does fail to make enough money and Amtrak turns around and asks Texas to help pay for it, I'm pretty sure that the bulk of Texan's won't see that as a positive.

Alan: I really don't think Amtrak has an obligation to show anyone the numbers. They are actually quite proprietary and are not "for public consumption". If Congress wants the numbers I can assure you they will get them, but they certainly will not be posted on a railfan website for everyone to pick apart - as only railfans can do. Calling times are actually being fixed based on a different departure time from LA and that change has gone into the calculation of the additional 100,000 passengers. We all want to see everything, almost as though railfans have to approve the actions of Amtrak. If that were the case, there would be even less accomplished, since everyone has their own opinion and/or agenga.

 

[AlanB]

Alan, I suspect that what upsets you is that you're afraid you might have to ride the train from NOL to SAS at some point and be forced, against your snobish dignity, to do so in coach.

First, be careful I'm not going to take many more insults from people on this topic. Had you said that to anyone else on the forum, your post would already be gone. And unlike you, when I was a kid, my family couldn't afford to travel by train in any class, much less sleeper.

Second, while I won't deny that when I travel now I do tend to book the highest level of service that Amtrak offers on any given route. However, while I've never gone overnight in coach and don't want to, don't confuse that with wanting to avoid a train because it doesn't have sleeper class. Especially this train, which is one that the odds are good that I will never ride again, or at least for many years now. The Sunset due to geography is not a train that is all that useful to me, in any form. But I can and do ride trains for hours that don't have sleeper class. I've done the Maple Leaf several times, a ride that would be comparable to the proposed stub train.

Finally, my concern with the loss of the sleeper here is the nearly $4 billion in revenue that the Sunset sleepers took in last year. The single sleeping car, coupled with a few rooms sold in the Trans/Dorm provided almost half the entire revenue that the Sunset generated last year. That's a lot of dough for a cash strapped company, and a lot of revenue for one of the poorest performing trains in the system. If by taking the existing Sunset daily we achieved even a 25% increase in sleeper revenue, and the odds are we'd do much better than that, we're talking $5M in revenue.

I for one would like to see some evidence of a study that at least indicates that by running a daily stub train with cheaper coach tickets than are currently sold, that enough increased ridership will be forthcoming to not only offset that $4M loss but cover the added expenses of a daily train. I'm looking at real numbers here and seeing nothing from Amtrak that contradicts the simple conclusions that I've reached. So many others seem to be looking no further than the words "daily service" without looking at anything else.

I'm all for daily service when it makes sense. I've been advocating for a daily Cardinal and a daily Sunset for years. Ever since taking the Eagle daily showed what could happen. But I'm not for daily service when it results in a down grade in service, could lead to a train that is currently part of the National Network becoming a State sponsored train, and when at least so far no one can show the world that these changes won't reduce ridership and revenue.

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak has publicly stated that they expect the daily Texas Eagle to LA to boost ridership by over 100,000 passengers. (First link in the "Inside Amtrak" section of their website--"Long Distance Trains Running Strong."

Yes, I've seen that number thrown around too. But has anyone ever seen the study that produced that number?

 

[AlanB]

Alan: I really don't think Amtrak has an obligation to show anyone the numbers. They are actually quite proprietary and are not "for public consumption". If Congress wants the numbers I can assure you they will get them, but they certainly will not be posted on a railfan website for everyone to pick apart - as only railfans can do. Calling times are actually being fixed based on a different departure time from LA and that change has gone into the calculation of the additional 100,000 passengers. We all want to see everything, almost as though railfans have to approve the actions of Amtrak. If that were the case, there would be even less accomplished, since everyone has their own opinion and/or agenga.

Let’s put aside the fact for a minute that we taxpayers are the owners of Amtrak and therefore technically entitled to the info, remember that the DOT holds the Amtrak stock in trust for Congress and the American people.

I for one can't imagine what's so proprietary about a study that shows potential ridership changes with these proposed route changes. Within the past year or so Amtrak has already released 5 other such studies for the Sunset East, the 3C's route, the Pioneer, the North Coast Hiawatha, and the Pennsylvania services study. So I can't imagine why the Texas Eagle/Sunset Study should be so confidential. Not to mention that with Texas and TEMPO being so active in promoting the Eagle and keeping said train going all these years, surely they are entitled to know how these changes will affect things.

Now I don't disagree that with such info public, we railfans would indeed be picking it apart. And I certainly don't believe that Amtrak needs the approval of the railfan base to do something. But if something is so good for Amtrak and all concerned, then surely at least some info could be released. It’s the lack of info that concerns me the most, especially when looking at other numbers that are public; there is doubt that this is the best thing for all concerned.

 

[had8ley]

Alan, I suspect that what upsets you is that you're afraid you might have to ride the train from NOL to SAS at some point and be forced, against your snobish dignity, to do so in coach.

Finally, my concern with the loss of the sleeper here is the nearly $4 billion in revenue that the Sunset sleepers took in last year. The single sleeping car, coupled with a few rooms sold in the Trans/Dorm provided almost half the entire revenue that the Sunset generated last year.

I'm afraid George Pullman would arise from the dead if one of his sleepers could pull in four Billion :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Alan, I suspect that what upsets you is that you're afraid you might have to ride the train from NOL to SAS at some point and be forced, against your snobish dignity, to do so in coach.

First, be careful I'm not going to take many more insults from people on this topic. Had you said that to anyone else on the forum, your post would already be gone. And unlike you, when I was a kid, my family couldn't afford to travel by train in any class, much less sleeper.

Alan, the truth of the matter is, your position on this subject, or more specifically, the way you have gone about justifying it has been steadfastly lowering my overall opinion of you. That is a statement, not an insult, by the way.

I have listed several situations that, in my opion, represent parallels that argue against your point. You have dimissed them with little more than "This is different," without a single item added that, in my opinion, qualifies as even the slightest justification that this is different. I have pointed out differences between this and the Cardinal and you say they don't matter. The only valid thing, in my mind, that you have said, and I admit it, is with regards to the size of Chicago versus Washington. I am steadfastly running out of any other thing I can think of for your feeling this way but the one I have specified.

Now, let me try again by specifying why I think this is different and will work.

1. As where in Chicago there is no way to get from, Say, New York to Kansas City without a transfer, there is no way under this plan to get from LA to New Orleans without transfer. Thus people will do it. With the Cardinal, there is the LSL without transfer from New York, and the Pennsylvanian (much faster with transfer) from points south. Passengers from points south of Philly would find the Capitol with transfer faster and cheaper then the Cardinal. Case in Point: There was no signifigant ridership increase as a result of the National Chief.
   
2. The increase from the Texas Eagle going daily is more substantial than the Cardinal extending to New York.
   
3. The equipment this frees up will allow Amtrak to operate other trains with more cars, and the revenue from that can not be discounted.
   
4. The situation of this train, and Texas's attitude towards passenger rail, means that Amtrak is not going to be able to pull a Sunset fundingwise with the stub train. Otherwise, why didn't Amtrak just do that with the Lake Shore Limited?
   

Lastly, Alan, while you have not insulted me in words, you have done so with your attitude during this entire discussion. If you can insult me one way, I think I am fully justified doing it to you another way.

 

[BlakeTyner]

Let’s put aside the fact for a minute that we taxpayers are the owners of Amtrak and therefore technically entitled to the info, remember that the DOT holds the Amtrak stock in trust for Congress and the American people.
I for one can't imagine what's so proprietary about a study that shows potential ridership changes with these proposed route changes. Within the past year or so Amtrak has already released 5 other such studies for the Sunset East, the 3C's route, the Pioneer, the North Coast Hiawatha, and the Pennsylvania services study. So I can't imagine why the Texas Eagle/Sunset Study should be so confidential. Not to mention that with Texas and TEMPO being so active in promoting the Eagle and keeping said train going all these years, surely they are entitled to know how these changes will affect things.

Now I don't disagree that with such info public, we railfans would indeed be picking it apart.

Well, there's always information that even the 'owners' don't get to see--Coke stockholders don't get access to to delicious formula for the soft drink.

I think you probably hit on at least part of the answer with the last part that I quoted, there. Amtrak being a governmental corporation leads to all of the politics that goes along with such things. It can be as simple as a train running to a certain congressional district (The Hilltopper comes to mind) or as complex as states bickering over who pays for what in corridor service.

Let's say Amtrak released the study that provided the basis of that 100k figure. Maybe I'm showing my cynical side, but I have to think of Twain's quote about lies, damned lies, and statistics--not on Amtrak's part, but based upon the idea that some railfan groups would tout the study as the holy grail of their particular train, while others could use the very same numbers to rip Amtrak management apart for what's NOT included in the study, or how they were more pessimistic about another route, or any number of other things.

Were it me, and I'm the big dog at Amtrak, I'd release the absolute bare minimum of information. Truthfully, I would probably have even played the fleet plan close to the vest (which, according to the Trains Mag article, they did for years--I think the term used was "an internal wish list.") You have to figure that Boardman is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. Some of the idiotic questions from the Trains Town Hall Meeting proved that point.

You take the same sort of folks that are wondering about an all dome train, or an extra Superliner train stationed along the EB route, and give just a little bit of official information, and extrapolate what would happen. I'd love to see the study, too, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't matter. Heck, I'd love to see one of those $1,000 hammers from the Cold War, too.

About the only thing we can infer given the current information is that a) such a study exists, and b) the bean counting was good enough to pass muster with the Amtrak board--the folks who do matter. Candidly, I believe that, handled correctly and with local revenue management, the new TE can best all 15 LD trains. The improved on-time performance has already proven that if you run it (relatively cleanly, with consistency, and on-time) they will come. They have come.

Just my .02.

 

[AlanB]

I have listed several situations that, in my opion, represent parallels that argue against your point. You have dimissed them with little more than "This is different," without a single item added that, in my opinion, qualifies as even the slightest justification that this is different. I have pointed out differences between this and the Cardinal and you say they don't matter. The only valid thing, in my mind, that you have said, and I admit it, is with regards to the size of Chicago versus Washington. I am steadfastly running out of any other thing I can think of for your feeling this way but the one I have specified.

So are you saying that you don't understand my response below to your prior post and how it is different than the circumstances here?

I don't despute that a single-seat ride is preferable to a transfer. But would you care to tell me which of the following produced a bigger increase: the Texas Eagle going daily or... the Cardinal being extended to NYC?

But mainly because it's not a valid and fair comparison. We're not talking about just extending one train or taking another train daily. We're talking about gutting the revenue earning potential of the Sunset Limited to extend the Eagle on a daily basis to LA.

You gave me an example and asked me to choose which produced a bigger revenue increase. We both know that the Eagle going daily created a bigger increase than the run through Cardinal. But with respect, so what?

Neither of those two examples also involved cutting service on one train for the betterment of another, so again as I said "it's not a fair comparison." Sorry! Yes, the daily Eagle west of San Antonio (SAS) will make more money than the 3 day a week Sunset does. But will that be enough to offset the loss of revenue from dropping a diner and sleepers east of SAS? I'm not sure and I haven't seen anything that suggests that it will.

As where in Chicago there is no way to get from, Say, New York to Kansas City without a transfer, there is no way under this plan to get from LA to New Orleans without transfer. Thus people will do it. With the Cardinal, there is the LSL without transfer from New York, and the Pennsylvanian (much faster with transfer) from points south. Passengers from points south of Philly would find the Capitol with transfer faster and cheaper then the Cardinal. Case in Point: There was no signifigant ridership increase as a result of the National Chief.

Agreed, people will do the shuffle because there is no other choice. The problem is that just like happened with the Boston section of the LSL, fewer people will do that shuffle. And we don't know if the increased ridership brought on by going daily will be enough to offset the loss due to the required shuffle.

The increase from the Texas Eagle going daily is more substantial than the Cardinal extending to New York.

Agreed. It will be true if for no other reason than you've got 7 days worth of ridership west of SAS as opposed to 3 days north of DC. But I do believe that we will see more ridership west of SAS no matter what. My concern is what happens to ridership east of SAS. That's the worry.

The equipment this frees up will allow Amtrak to operate other trains with more cars, and the revenue from that can not be discounted.

Actually we're not really sure about this. The original statements indicated that this plan would not free up any equipment, but the recent statements made at the Town Hall seem to contradict that. What it does do for sure is to allow the wreck repairs to go to other trains, instead of those cars possibly being needed for a daily Sunset and no changes to the Eagle.

And I do agree with you that the revenue from those cars cannot be discounted. But we also don't know for sure that those cars couldn't do as well revenue wise on a revamped, daily Sunset. Additionally while maximizing revenue is indeed important, we also shouldn't be discounting one of Amtrak's primary missions, which is to be the National Passenger Railroad.

The situation of this train, and Texas's attitude towards passenger rail, means that Amtrak is not going to be able to pull a Sunset fundingwise with the stub train. Otherwise, why didn't Amtrak just do that with the Lake Shore Limited?

There may be other reasons that I'm not even thinking of as to why Amtrak didn't try pulling the Boston LSL, but two that come to mind are:

1) The name of the train wasn't changed.

2) Amtrak doesn't want to risk Massachusetts retaliating by pulling Amtrak's control over the Mass owned NEC. Texas has no such leverage, nor does Louisiana.

Regarding Texas' attitude towards passenger rail, frankly I'd think their decision to help fund the Heartland Flyer might well give someone at Amtrak heart that they can get Texas to fund the stubie. Texas could have left Oklahoma holding the bag when Federal funding ran out, but they didn't. So what little history there is suggests that if Amtrak pulls funding for the stubie, that they can expect that Texas will step up to the plate.

 

[henryj]

Finally, my concern with the loss of the sleeper here is the nearly $4 billion in revenue that the Sunset sleepers took in last year. The single sleeping car, coupled with a few rooms sold in the Trans/Dorm provided almost half the entire revenue that the Sunset generated last year. That's a lot of dough for a cash strapped company, and a lot of revenue for one of the poorest performing trains in the system. If by taking the existing Sunset daily we achieved even a 25% increase in sleeper revenue, and the odds are we'd do much better than that, we're talking $5M in revenue.

Alan, I have found over time it is folly to argue with you as you have your mind made up. But being an old 'bean counter' I just couldn't help but do some calculations. I calculated the revenue from a full coach(with downstairs sold also) vs a full sleeper between NOL and SAS and between NOL and LAX. I used fares far into the future to try and get a reasonable base fare. One thing I found is I need to make some reservations quick for my trip to Tacoma in August as the train is selling out fast. <_< Anyway, NOL to SAS a sleeper generates about $6,644 vs a coach generating $5,032. NOL to LAX a sleeper generates about $13,251 vs a coach $10,064. Those are daily numbers. So over a 365 day year the difference between an NOL to SAS sleeper vs coach would be about $588,380. Between NOL and LAX the difference is about $1,163,255. But really there are so many variables and what if's that these figures don't mean much. The Eagle of course will have sleepers between SAS and LAX so the large figure for the whole distance is moot. The only missing revenue is the $588k and that is assuming a full car of 40+ passengers which rarely happens and a daily schedule vs the current three times a week. For the current three times a week train you only loose 3/7ths of that or about 250k, It would not take that many extra coach passengers to make that up. And, if the schedule is for the stub train to run at normal hours vs the current abortion of a schedule it is questionable if that many passengers would opt for the very expensive sleeper for a day trip assuming the stub train carried a through sleeper when they could make the NOL to SAS portion of the trip for only $68. So my conclusion is that the missing revenue is not nearly as onerous as you make out. Certainly not anything like 4 billion or million or whatever you mean't. Oh, and it only takes about 10 additional coach passengers a day to make that up. Should be a no brainer.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

So are you saying that you don't understand my response below to your prior post and how it is different than the circumstances here?

I don't despute that a single-seat ride is preferable to a transfer. But would you care to tell me which of the following produced a bigger increase: the Texas Eagle going daily or... the Cardinal being extended to NYC?

But mainly because it's not a valid and fair comparison. We're not talking about just extending one train or taking another train daily. We're talking about gutting the revenue earning potential of the Sunset Limited to extend the Eagle on a daily basis to LA.

Sleeper cars carry their freight, yes. We know that. But... the low bucket between LAX and SAS is $190 or so, I believe. The lowest I've seen is $211, but I think there is a bucket below that. Lets use $190. It gives you the advantage the lower it goes, anyway.

Now, right now the low bucket between LAX and NOL is $236 according to the System Timetable. So if a person were travelling between LAX and NOL, what Amtrak has lost in revenue is... $46. But wait. They have discussed business class being on this train, a journey of 574 miles (which, by the way, is more than the minimum for Amtrak to be allowed to fund it themselves). The price of BC between NYP and Toronto is $28, between Baltimore and St. Albans (both fairly comparable distances, no?) is $37. So lets say Amtrak will charge $32 for BC. Figuring that 2/3rds of passengers will go for BC, the loss of revenue is $25 for a one person occupied room, $4 for one occupied by two.

In addition, the train will have a CCC which, in general, offers the possibility of a full meal. Which even the BC passengers will have to pay for. So, really, I could see the overall revenue going up just as easily as I could see it going down.

You gave me an example and asked me to choose which produced a bigger revenue increase. We both know that the Eagle going daily created a bigger increase than the run through Cardinal. But with respect, so what?
Neither of those two examples also involved cutting service on one train for the betterment of another, so again as I said "it's not a fair comparison." Sorry! Yes, the daily Eagle west of San Antonio (SAS) will make more money than the 3 day a week Sunset does. But will that be enough to offset the loss of revenue from dropping a diner and sleepers east of SAS? I'm not sure and I haven't seen anything that suggests that it will.

Assuming that there is a revenue drop, which I am not at all sure of, I'd be bloody astonished if it was more than the gain from the trains running daily.

Agreed, people will do the shuffle because there is no other choice. The problem is that just like happened with the Boston section of the LSL, fewer people will do that shuffle. And we don't know if the increased ridership brought on by going daily will be enough to offset the loss due to the required shuffle.

I think you'd have to agree, though, that its an odds-on bet that it will offset it.

Agreed. It will be true if for no other reason than you've got 7 days worth of ridership west of SAS as opposed to 3 days north of DC. But I do believe that we will see more ridership west of SAS no matter what. My concern is what happens to ridership east of SAS. That's the worry.

With the improved daily calling times at San Antonio, Houston, and even Del Rio, I'd think the ridership east of San Antonio will go up substantially.

Additionally while maximizing revenue is indeed important, we also shouldn't be discounting one of Amtrak's primary missions, which is to be the National Passenger Railroad.

Right. Naturally, providing daily service through this change is going to be a detriment to the mobility of Americans.

There may be other reasons that I'm not even thinking of as to why Amtrak didn't try pulling the Boston LSL, but two that come to mind are:
1) The name of the train wasn't changed.

2) Amtrak doesn't want to risk Massachusetts retaliating by pulling Amtrak's control over the Mass owned NEC. Texas has no such leverage, nor does Louisiana.

Regarding Texas' attitude towards passenger rail, frankly I'd think their decision to help fund the Heartland Flyer might well give someone at Amtrak heart that they can get Texas to fund the stubie. Texas could have left Oklahoma holding the bag when Federal funding ran out, but they didn't. So what little history there is suggests that if Amtrak pulls funding for the stubie, that they can expect that Texas will step up to the plate.

We suspect that the Texas Eagle will have its name changed to something. We have no idea what the stub train will be called. I'd give an odds-on bet there will simply be a Chicago train and a name-sharing New Orleans stub.

Second, while Louisiana has a little political clout (not much), Mississippi and Alabama have none. Texas is a whole different can of worms. Texas has the political clout that Amtrak is not gonna screw with. At 573 miles, and part of the original system plan, Amtrak is obligated to operate that route. (The Sunset East was NOT part of the original system plan, so don't bring it up.)

Remember, Amtrak pays for the operation of some of the Pacific Surfliner for the same reason.

Maybe, it is possible, if the train fails and gets itself into a worse ridership position, Amtrak might play games. I honestly would be surprised, but it could happen. But Alan, if ridership doesn't head for outerspace after this change, I'll eat my shorts.

 

[Zevzec]

Even as recently as in the 80's Ronald Reagan used the phrase "the city on a hill" to metaphorically refer to the United States. So one can surmise that this connection runs deep in the psyche of the nation.

It's a biblical reference... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill

 

[henryj]

Sleeper cars carry their freight, yes. We know that. But... the low bucket between LAX and SAS is $190 or so, I believe. The lowest I've seen is $211, but I think there is a bucket below that. Lets use $190. It gives you the advantage the lower it goes, anyway.
Now, right now the low bucket between LAX and NOL is $236 according to the System Timetable. So if a person were travelling between LAX and NOL, what Amtrak has lost in revenue is... $46. But wait. They have discussed business class being on this train, a journey of 574 miles (which, by the way, is more than the minimum for Amtrak to be allowed to fund it themselves). The price of BC between NYP and Toronto is $28, between Baltimore and St. Albans (both fairly comparable distances, no?) is $37. So lets say Amtrak will charge $32 for BC. Figuring that 2/3rds of passengers will go for BC, the loss of revenue is $25 for a one person occupied room, $4 for one occupied by two.

Maybe, it is possible, if the train fails and gets itself into a worse ridership position, Amtrak might play games. I honestly would be surprised, but it could happen. But Alan, if ridership doesn't head for outerspace after this change, I'll eat my shorts.

GML I used $136 as the coach fare between NOL and LAX as that is what comes up on the Amtrak site. Round trip is $272. Coach fare between NOL and SAS is $68. Room charges were all over the place so I went out to October to get the lowest. Fares btween NOL and SAS and between NOL and LAX were.....Roomette $105 & $241, Bedroom $311 & $522 and family room $452 and $1,033. Just rechecked this and discovered tomorrow's train is sold out for the whole distance. Amazing. Must be for spring break. It wouldn't be such a 'poor performing' train if they had enough equipment to handle the demand.

 

[Guest]

Maybe, it is possible, if the train fails and gets itself into a worse ridership position, Amtrak might play games. I honestly would be surprised, but it could happen. But Alan, if ridership doesn't head for outerspace after this change, I'll eat my shorts.

Start looking up recipes for shorts. SAS-HOU-NOL stub will have awful numbers. I predict 3 years after this plan Houston will be the largest city

without Amtrak service.

 

[jis]

Maybe, it is possible, if the train fails and gets itself into a worse ridership position, Amtrak might play games. I honestly would be surprised, but it could happen. But Alan, if ridership doesn't head for outerspace after this change, I'll eat my shorts.

Start looking up recipes for shorts. SAS-HOU-NOL stub will have awful numbers. I predict 3 years after this plan Houston will be the largest city

without Amtrak service.

What basis are your beliefs about projected ridership number grounded on? Inquiring minds want to know.

Of course GML eating his shorts would be an interesting event in and of itself :lol:

 

[Guest]

Maybe, it is possible, if the train fails and gets itself into a worse ridership position, Amtrak might play games. I honestly would be surprised, but it could happen. But Alan, if ridership doesn't head for outerspace after this change, I'll eat my shorts.

Start looking up recipes for shorts. SAS-HOU-NOL stub will have awful numbers. I predict 3 years after this plan Houston will be the largest city

without Amtrak service.

What basis are your beliefs about projected ridership number grounded on? Inquiring minds want to know.

Of course GML eating his shorts would be an interesting event in and of itself :lol:

No time to go into details right now, but I'll make a quick list.

SAS-HOU-NOL stub train will not work because;

1. I-10 HOU-NOL by I-10 4.8 hours Amtrak 9 hours

2. Southwest Airlines

3. transfer if going west of SAS

4. transfer if going beyong NOL

5. Amtrak can sale a LD trip on a train in this region, but not an intra-regional trip unless it is HSR or a tourist type train with a steam engine on point.

6. Only a LD or HSR can work along this route.

 

[NativeSon5859]

There has been lots of talk about Texas benefiting from the stub train plan/daily TE....I'm much more concerned about NOL and Louisiana traffic. While daily service might drum up some additional short haul ridership, I guarantee you that it will KILL long distance ridership to points west of SAS from points in Louisiana, without through cars. Even a 10:00pm to 11:30pm stub train connection in SAS heading west, and a 6:30am to 8:00am connection heading east (assuming both are dead on time), won't really be all that convenient. Think about a family with kids, all sound asleep, heading from LAX to HOS...oops, sorry, it's 6:15am, time to start packing up all the car seats and bags and prepare to de-train. Or a tour group of elderly passengers, who are going to NOL to catch a cruise, sleeping soundly in their sleeping car...then having to de-train, wait over an hour, and board up again, in coach, for the trip east. This is what will happen on a daily basis. And for as many new passengers who will use the new daily service, there will be just as many put off by the transfer and, if they usually go sleeper, by the coach stub train. If the train could operate on a MUCH faster schedule between NOL and HOS, I'd say it'd get a lot of new riders. But even Greyhound is faster...and going by car will still be much, much faster...not even close. This benefits Chicago-Dallas-San Antonio-Los Angeles passengers by and large. Houston and New Orleans get daily service and new departure/arrival times, but since the train's schedule really can't be speeded up much if any, coupled with the loss of on board amenities, chances are slim that that segment...SAS-HOS-NOL...will gain any meaningful ridership.

 

[Greg]

Interesting observation here in tallahassee....for the past 3-4 months, I would see no train activity on the CSX line running through here on my way to or from work. In the past week, I have seen 5 trains. Just wondering if CSX has shifted some or all of their traffic back through here from southern georgia and why?

 

[el Guapo]

I've seen the question out there 2 or 3 times but haven't noticed a response.

When are the SAS stub changes going to take place or are they just an idea at this point?

I also have thru-sleeper reservations on #2 in late June and the thought of having to roust my family at 11pm just suuuuuckss...

 

[MikefromCrete]

I've seen the question out there 2 or 3 times but haven't noticed a response.
When are the SAS stub changes going to take place or are they just an idea at this point?

I also have thru-sleeper reservations on #2 in late June and the thought of having to roust my family at 11pm just suuuuuckss...

Sept. 30 seems to be the target date, but everything is subject to reaching an agreement with Union Pacific, depending on UP's mood, talks could drag on past that date, nothing's written in stone.

 

[AlanB]

el Guapo,

That hasn't been determined yet.

Many were hoping originally that the change would have already happened with this past fall's new timetable. Clearly that didn't happen. Then focus shifted to the change occurring with this spring's TT in April/May. We're getting rather close to the point where it will soon be too late for the change to happen with the spring TT. And comments made at the Town Hall meeting recently seemed to indicate that Amtrak has already given up on this spring and is looking to the fall to make the change.

But the simple answer is that no one really knows for sure, not even Amtrak. They are currently in negotiations with Union Pacific both to change the schedule on which the trains runs, and of course to obtain permission for running on the other 4 days that they currently don't run trains. Until those negotiations are completed, no one can really know or provide a realistic start date.

Amtrak can't even start hiring the extra operating crews it will need for daily service, until a deal is done. And those crews will then need training, more obs personnel will need to be hired, and a bunch of other little things before the service can run.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Interesting observation here in tallahassee....for the past 3-4 months, I would see no train activity on the CSX line running through here on my way to or from work. In the past week, I have seen 5 trains. Just wondering if CSX has shifted some or all of their traffic back through here from southern georgia and why?

In January, Fred Frailey reported on Trains News Wire that CSX has rerouted two through freight trains in both directions between New Orleans and Waycross, Ga., off the Sunset East route to a more northerly route through Manchester, Ga, leaving only local freight on the Sunset East route. Frailey reported that this move could both hurt and help any plans to restore the Sunset East. On one hand, CSX couldn't demand that Amtrak pay for improvements to expand capacity on the route, but on the other Amtrak might have to pay to have the route maintained to passenger train speeds. With only local freight on the route, CSX could reduce the maintenance needed for even through freight speeds.

 

[AlanB]

Finally, my concern with the loss of the sleeper here is the nearly $4 billion in revenue that the Sunset sleepers took in last year. The single sleeping car, coupled with a few rooms sold in the Trans/Dorm provided almost half the entire revenue that the Sunset generated last year. That's a lot of dough for a cash strapped company, and a lot of revenue for one of the poorest performing trains in the system. If by taking the existing Sunset daily we achieved even a 25% increase in sleeper revenue, and the odds are we'd do much better than that, we're talking $5M in revenue.

Alan, I have found over time it is folly to argue with you as you have your mind made up.

No, my mind isn't made up. I'm just not seeing anything that says that this is the best and only alternative available.

But being an old 'bean counter' I just couldn't help but do some calculations. I calculated the revenue from a full coach(with downstairs sold also) vs a full sleeper between NOL and SAS and between NOL and LAX. I used fares far into the future to try and get a reasonable base fare. One thing I found is I need to make some reservations quick for my trip to Tacoma in August as the train is selling out fast. <_< Anyway, NOL to SAS a sleeper generates about $6,644 vs a coach generating $5,032. NOL to LAX a sleeper generates about $13,251 vs a coach $10,064. Those are daily numbers. So over a 365 day year the difference between an NOL to SAS sleeper vs coach would be about $588,380. Between NOL and LAX the difference is about $1,163,255. But really there are so many variables and what if's that these figures don't mean much. The Eagle of course will have sleepers between SAS and LAX so the large figure for the whole distance is moot. The only missing revenue is the $588k and that is assuming a full car of 40+ passengers which rarely happens and a daily schedule vs the current three times a week. For the current three times a week train you only loose 3/7ths of that or about 250k, It would not take that many extra coach passengers to make that up. And, if the schedule is for the stub train to run at normal hours vs the current abortion of a schedule it is questionable if that many passengers would opt for the very expensive sleeper for a day trip assuming the stub train carried a through sleeper when they could make the NOL to SAS portion of the trip for only $68. So my conclusion is that the missing revenue is not nearly as onerous as you make out. Certainly not anything like 4 billion or million or whatever you mean't. Oh, and it only takes about 10 additional coach passengers a day to make that up. Should be a no brainer.

And now please go do the calculations that show what could be acheived simply by running the Sunset daily as is between NOL & LA.

The Sunset currently has 5 trainsets allocated to it. With the revised schedules out of LA, Amtrak only need find one more trainset to run the train daily. With 2 Trans/Dorms coming out of Beech Grove and 6 sleepers, that's easy to do. Heck, if they felt that they wanted the cushion, they could even find 7 trainsets.

So why are we accepting sloppy seconds when real improvements could be made by simply running the existing service as is daily? Why are we rolling the dice and hoping that people will accept a stub train?

Ps. Sorry about the typo of Billion vs. Million.