Sunset Limited (East)

[Just-Thinking-51]

What timetables or years did the Sunset Limited travel to Miami?

What years did the Sunset Limted travel past NOL to FL?

Thanks in advance.

 

[the_traveler]

Both were before Katrinia. Just prior, it went to ORL. Maybe 3-5 years before that it went to MIA.

 

[jis]

The 329th(?) thread on the subject

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Thread was moved. I ask the question on the timetable heading. Just trying to find a answer to a question that came up at lunch in the dinner.

 

[chrsjrcj]

SL went to Miami in 1993.

 

[rusty spike]

April 1993 to Aug 2005 (Katrina). Originally ran all the way to Miami but later cut back to Orlando. (source: Wikipedia)

 

[Caesar La Rock]

The Sunset stopped running to Miami I think early in 1997. It terminated in Sanford, but the terminus was extended to Orlando afterward.

 

[TimePeace]

The 329th(?) thread on the subject

Didn't stop you from reading it and posting, did it. Heh.

 

[Linda T]

Well, since I can't find the other 328 posts, rather than start the 330th I thought I'd ask here.

So what is up with the SL between JAX and NOL? Will it ever be restored, or at least in the near future? I've heard it's a lack of superliner equipment, the lack of state funding, lack of freight okay, etc. anyone know what's really up with it? I'm kinda holding back some points in case it ever reopens, thanks!

 

[zephyr17]

Track was restored within a year after Katrina, and CSX told Amtrak it was ready for service. Not sure how CSX would feel about it now, though, with PTC requirements on lines hosting passenger services.

It is all on Amtrak, they didn't restore it then, and now cite high expenses. Although it is a national system train that was never officially discontinued and since it wasn't, I think Amtrak is being really disingenuous about it. If they don't want to run the train, they should post the 180 day discontinance notice and live with whatever flak they get for it. See the PRIIA report for what Amtrak thinks it needs, which a lot of people think is iinflated.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/904/671/GulfCoastServicePlanReport.pdf

 

[TimePeace]

Don't worry about starting a new topic on an old theme. It is done all the time - popular topics are "I just had the worst possible dining car service", "I just had the worst possible Sleeping Car Attendant", and the ever popular "How much should I tip?" Oh, and of course "When will they bring back the Sunset East?"

New people are finding the forum all the time and I don't blame them for posting topics that have existed a long time. When I finally have had enough of topic, I just don't read the new ones. It's simple. If it is easier for a newbie to enjoy the forum without having to carefully search out a topic before posting, I say let em do it.

 

[NE933]

And, if they would resume the damn thing we wouldn't have to ask anymore..........

 

[Devil's Advocate]

CSX Transportation, Inc., the host freightrailroad that owns nearly all of the New Orleans - Orlando route, has indicated

that it will seek significant capacity investments as a prerequisite to any service

restoration.

^ If you want to know what is going to happen with the "Sunset East" maybe you should ask CSX.

 

[Nathanael]

If you read the PRIIA report, Amtrak makes it clear that they don't like the route from Mobile to Talahassee. From Mobile to Pensacola it goes via Flomaton, which is much less direct than driving; and from Pensacola to Talahasee it doesn't have a proper signal system, which restricts trains to run no faster than 59 mph, slower than driving in that part of the country.

From Mobile to New Orleans and from Talahassee to Jacksonville, Amtrak seemed much more optimistic. However, the condition of the route from Mobile to Talahasee means that Amtrak isn't very interested in operating the train.

Amtrak has also declared its intent to get rid of three-a-week services by making them daily. The freight railroads are not cooperating. But frankly, after learning its lesson in the past, Amtrak is never going to bring back a three-a-week service; they perform terribly in financial and ridership terms.

If the states offered up sufficient money, I'm sure something could be done. Resurrecting the previous service is likely not the ideal option. A Mobile-New Orleans corridor service would require state money under PRIIA. Talahassee service wouldn't, nor would a potential route up through Birmingham or something, but unless Amtrak saw actual profit in it, Amtrak would be unlikely to do anything without state money.

I expect this route to be dead until the states or the feds decide to spend money on it. And since it's Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, that seems unlikely, though you never know. I do think Amtrak should do its legal duty and post the discontinuance notices; I'm wondering if they're not doing so for some funny reason, for instance perhaps this makes it easier to get slots back from CSX or something.

 

[Aaron]

CSX Transportation, Inc., the host freightrailroad that owns nearly all of the New Orleans - Orlando route, has indicated

that it will seek significant capacity investments as a prerequisite to any service

restoration.

^ If you want to know what is going to happen with the "Sunset East" maybe you should ask CSX.

Amtrak in the report argues that no capacity investment would be required if they were just restoring the thrice-a-week Sunset, but I'll bet CSX feels differently about that. Regardless of what CSX wants, Amtrak identifies a couple of big expenses for restoring service: >$10 million to bring the stations into ADA compliance, which they wouldn't have to spend if they leave them shuttered, and $20 million for PTC on the line, which the line wouldn't need if passenger service wasn't running on it.

Whether those estimates or the estimates of other costs are accurate, there's probably no arguing that any restoration of service (whether by restoring the Sunset or extending the CONO or whatever) would be a net money loser and only serve to increase the need for federal subsidy. Amtrak's probably really liking the financial position they're in now, and probably isn't going to push for additional money losing service by themselves. They'll only do it if someone tells them to and offers to pay for it, and that's basically what they conclude in the report:

"Amtrak

recommends that federal and state policymakers determine if passenger rail
service should be restored between New Orleans and Orlando; and if so:
1. Identify the preferred option for service restoration; and
2. Provide the additional funding for capital and ongoing operating costs
that will be required to implement that option.
Once these actions are taken, Amtrak will move quickly to initiate the steps
required for service restoration, if such an option is chosen."

 

[Caesar La Rock]

CSX Transportation, Inc., the host freightrailroad that owns nearly all of the New Orleans - Orlando route, has indicated

that it will seek significant capacity investments as a prerequisite to any service

restoration.

^ If you want to know what is going to happen with the "Sunset East" maybe you should ask CSX.

Amtrak in the report argues that no capacity investment would be required if they were just restoring the thrice-a-week Sunset, but I'll bet CSX feels differently about that. Regardless of what CSX wants, Amtrak identifies a couple of big expenses for restoring service: >$10 million to bring the stations into ADA compliance, which they wouldn't have to spend if they leave them shuttered, and $20 million for PTC on the line, which the line wouldn't need if passenger service wasn't running on it.

Whether those estimates or the estimates of other costs are accurate, there's probably no arguing that any restoration of service (whether by restoring the Sunset or extending the CONO or whatever) would be a net money loser and only serve to increase the need for federal subsidy. Amtrak's probably really liking the financial position they're in now, and probably isn't going to push for additional money losing service by themselves. They'll only do it if someone tells them to and offers to pay for it, and that's basically what they conclude in the report:

"Amtrak

recommends that federal and state policymakers determine if passenger rail
service should be restored between New Orleans and Orlando; and if so:
1. Identify the preferred option for service restoration; and
2. Provide the additional funding for capital and ongoing operating costs
that will be required to implement that option.
Once these actions are taken, Amtrak will move quickly to initiate the steps
required for service restoration, if such an option is chosen."

Well there has been talks from officials from Florida to Louisiana about bringing service back East of New Orleans. So far I have not heard anything yet as of March of 2013 I think it was.

 

[Linda T]

Okay, thanks! Looks like I shouldn't hold my breath. It'd be a cool two zone reward from HUN to NOL via the SL. I keep looking for the longest one and two zone trips from HUN, CIN, TOL and/or CHI. By the end of Sept. I should have all the western routes done SWC, CZ (from SAC), TE, CS and EB. After that I'll be focusing on the eastern trains. But I don't have a lot of success when it comes to traveling in hurricane country anyway. Twice my return has been cancelled (Irene and Sandy). I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Fort Lauderdale in June. :help:

Linda.

 

[George Harris]

If you read the PRIIA report, Amtrak makes it clear that they don't like the route from Mobile to Talahassee. From Mobile to Pensacola it goes via Flomaton, which is much less direct than driving; and from Pensacola to Talahasee it doesn't have a proper signal system, which restricts trains to run no faster than 59 mph, slower than driving in that part of the country.
From Mobile to New Orleans and from Talahassee to Jacksonville, Amtrak seemed much more optimistic. However, the condition of the route from Mobile to Talahasee means that Amtrak isn't very interested in operating the train.

This happens to be exactly the same condition that the route was in when the service started, so to use that as a reason is completely bogus.

"Proper signal system" Is this sort of wording in what is supposed to be a formal report on the subject? Give me a break! I would expect that sort of description from a teenager who knew nothing of railroads. How about something on the order of does not have a signal system, is operated by manual block, or does not have a form of train control permitting passenger trains to operate at speeds of 60 mph or faster. The rule DOES NOT say anything about 59 mph. It says may not operate at speeds of 60 mph or faster, and that is for passenger trains. For freight trains it is 50 mph or faster. If the railroad wanted to set the speed limit at 59.99 mph, presumably they could do so. At one time one of the US companies set their speed limit on lines without signals at 58 mph P, 48 mph F. Others tended to go for 55 mph, but for many of these they did not go 60 or more if even close to that regardless of the presence or absence of signals on the line.

 

[Anderson]

Tallahassee-east would need money from FL since it would (almost assuredly) be <750 miles and would lack at least one terminus in an LD system endpoint city (since my read on PRIIA is that it's routes >750 miles going to/from:
-Miami

-[Orlando]

-Sanford

-Savannah

-Lorton

-Washington

-New York

-Boston

-San Antonio

-New Orleans

-Chicago

-Los Angeles

-Emeryville*

-Portland

-Seattle

*Might be able to be moved to Oakland or somewhere else in the Bay Area in a pinch.)

Orlando is questionable, but I think it qualifies. Also, since no issue was raised in the SL study, there may be flexibility for >750 mile operations along part of an existing LD route (i.e. doubling up the Zephyr CHI-DEN)...I am slightly inclined against such an interpretation (it makes since as cut-off cars are allowable, and it's possible that Amtrak could just argue that it's a bunch of cut-off cars...operating as a separate section of the train because there are so many of them), but there's at least one argument in favor of this (namely, the "connected corridors" studies on the Crescent and LSL). It is also probable that a section of a train to a city not "on the network" would be allowable (i.e. sending a section of the Cardinal to St. Louis), but that isn't certain; likewise, it's possible that a train could be extended from an existing terminus (i.e. extend the Coast Starlight to San Diego), but that's also dubious.

Also, it seems clear that additional trains and/or trains following different routes between endpoint cities would be allowed (i.e. the North Coast Hiawatha, the Pioneer, and the Desert Wind would all operate between existing endpoint cities by different routes than existing trains).

 

[Aaron]

If you read the PRIIA report, Amtrak makes it clear that they don't like the route from Mobile to Talahassee. From Mobile to Pensacola it goes via Flomaton, which is much less direct than driving; and from Pensacola to Talahasee it doesn't have a proper signal system, which restricts trains to run no faster than 59 mph, slower than driving in that part of the country.
From Mobile to New Orleans and from Talahassee to Jacksonville, Amtrak seemed much more optimistic. However, the condition of the route from Mobile to Talahasee means that Amtrak isn't very interested in operating the train.

This happens to be exactly the same condition that the route was in when the service started, so to use that as a reason is completely bogus.

"Proper signal system" Is this sort of wording in what is supposed to be a formal report on the subject? Give me a break! I would expect that sort of description from a teenager who knew nothing of railroads. How about something on the order of does not have a signal system, is operated by manual block, or does not have a form of train control permitting passenger trains to operate at speeds of 60 mph or faster. The rule DOES NOT say anything about 59 mph. It says may not operate at speeds of 60 mph or faster, and that is for passenger trains. For freight trains it is 50 mph or faster. If the railroad wanted to set the speed limit at 59.99 mph, presumably they could do so. At one time one of the US companies set their speed limit on lines without signals at 58 mph P, 48 mph F. Others tended to go for 55 mph, but for many of these they did not go 60 or more if even close to that regardless of the presence or absence of signals on the line.

Nothing in the report says "proper signal system". I think that's the previous poster just summarizing the report for their post. If you go read the report, you'll find this section on the actual area in question:

3. Flomaton, Alabama to Tallahassee, Florida
The 247-mile track segment between Flomaton and Tallahassee is
non-signaled “dark” territory. In dark territory, train operations are not
governed or protected by a signal system. Instead, the dispatcher
issues train orders, generally via radio communications that are written
down and repeated by the train crew, that authorize trains to operate
between designated points on the line known as “block limits”. Under
Federal Railroad Administration regulations, passenger trains
operating in dark territory cannot exceed 59 miles per hour.
The line between Flomaton and Tallahassee has seven long and one
short passing sidings. Maximum speeds are generally 40-59 miles per
hour, but are limited to 20 miles per hour on a seven-mile section of
track at CSX’s Chattahoochee Yard west of Tallahassee. This
segment includes the Suspended Service Stations at Pensacola,
Chipley, Crestview, and Tallahassee, Florida.

Is that detailed enough for you? If not, please remember that these reports are requested by Congress, so they have to be dumbed down to their level. In fact you could make the argument that "teenagers who know nothing of railroads" begins to describe much of the intended audience in Congress as well.

 

[user 1215]

Your mentioning of the simplicity of the language in the report, along with your avatar just struck me as funny...

 

[George Harris]

Is that detailed enough for you? If not, please remember that these reports are requested by Congress, so they have to be dumbed down to their level. In fact you could make the argument that "teenagers who know nothing of railroads" begins to describe much of the intended audience in Congress as well.

Corection duly noted. Now that you have put up the quote, I remember reading it in the report. (What can I say? My memory is not so great any more.)

The 7 miles at 20 mph I do not understand. Otherwise, the speed limits seem appropriate to the conditions. The Mobile - Flomaton - Pensacola dogleg is not going to go away. There is simply not enough east-west traffic to justify building a direct line. Historically the railroads into Mobile and into Pensacola were built to connect the hinterland with a port, so there was no push for a line between these points during the late 1800's early 1900's railroad building era.

 

[Aaron]

Your mentioning of the simplicity of the language in the report, along with your avatar just struck me as funny...

Hey, if an ape can understand it, a congressman might have a chance...

 

[Aaron]

The 7 miles at 20 mph I do not understand...

I don't really either because I don't know a lot about these things, but the report says "limited to 20 miles per hour on a seven-mile section of track at CSX’s Chattahoochee Yard west of Tallahassee." If it's their yard, it seems understandable they want to limit speed through there for safety. Looking at a map of Chattahoochee, the yard area seems to sort of straddle the city and cover something over four miles. I'm guessing the limit might extend a mile or two on each side as a safety buffer?

 

[Caesar La Rock]

Has there ever been any attempt to add signals on that section between Flomation and Tallahassee? The question I personally want to know is was that even attempted before the train started running East of New Orleans back in 1993?