sunset limited service suspension east of nol

[yarrow]

i have never paid much attention to the sunset limited as we live in the pacific northwest. we will be taking it nol to lax in september so i figured it better brush up on it. i have obtained my excellent 2 volume flashing yellow guidebooks covering the route nol-lax but please explain once again how amtrak can list nol to orlando as a service suspension? it's been years. what kind of game are amtrak and the host railroads or whoever playing? thanks

 

[Tumbleweed]

I believe the word is.....Politics.......

 

[MikefromCrete]

CSX, for once, is not the problem. The railroad fixed up its tracks and facilities within weeks of Katrina. Amtrak has chosen not to resume service, nor to discontinue it. Amtrak tried to interest Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to support the service with funding. None were interested. Maybe Joe Boardman knows where this will end up, but nobody else seems to have a logical reason for the limbo where the service currently exists.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I believe the Sunset Limited is an example of what happens when you let individual states determine the funding level of interstate transportation. Some states will want it, others will not, and in the end the funding will be insufficient to keep the whole country connected. I believe the "Sunset East" situation is a foreshadowing of where our future passenger rail network is likely to end up.

 

[daveyb99]

I believe the word is.....Politics.......

or M O N E Y

 

[George Harris]

CSX, for once, is not the problem. The railroad fixed up its tracks and facilities within weeks of Katrina. Amtrak has chosen not to resume service, nor to discontinue it. Amtrak tried to interest Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to support the service with funding. None were interested. Maybe Joe Boardman knows where this will end up, but nobody else seems to have a logical reason for the limbo where the service currently exists.

Amtrak trying to squeeze the states was the politics here. The train was part of the national system before the hurricane and Amtrak wanted to change the rules of the game following the hurricane. The states in essence said, you are changing the rules and we won't go along with your power play. The represnetatives and senators from those states should have gotten into it, but who knows what kind of trades they were asked to do?

 

[had8ley]

And who is going to finance the Eastern end of a Land Cruiser that loses over $400 per pax? Surely not Mr. Mica at the eastern terminus. :help:

 

[cirdan]

With most LD corridors recovering less than 50% of costs through fares, I don't think Amtrak has any incentive to expand and add routes unless supported by states.

Florida, in contrast, ought to be interested in this route as the potential of interconnecting New Orleans to Florida tourist destinations must be great for tourism.

Even if it is a land cruise, it's bringing tourists.

I visited NOL two years ago and then I went on to Atlanta and spent some days there. I wanted to go to Florida but found it was too complicated.

Orlando's loss was Atlanta's gain.

 

[AlanB]

With most LD corridors recovering less than 50% of costs through fares, I don't think Amtrak has any incentive to expand and add routes unless supported by states.

Only this isn't a service expansion or a new route. This route already was part of the national system. It got shut down for a couple of months due to damage from Hurricane Katrina. And then Amtrak refused to restore the service that they were already operating and should be operating.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Are there any other portions of LD routes that are similar to the Sunset East, insomuch as they pass through largely indifferent and/or anti-rail states and could likewise be indefinitely suspended if and when there is a major disruption to the ROW?

 

[cirdan]

With most LD corridors recovering less than 50% of costs through fares, I don't think Amtrak has any incentive to expand and add routes unless supported by states.

Only this isn't a service expansion or a new route. This route already was part of the national system. It got shut down for a couple of months due to damage from Hurricane Katrina. And then Amtrak refused to restore the service that they were already operating and should be operating.

I know, but once that budget's gone or being spent elsewhere it's not easy to recover.

 

[trainviews]

CSX, for once, is not the problem. The railroad fixed up its tracks and facilities within weeks of Katrina. Amtrak has chosen not to resume service, nor to discontinue it. Amtrak tried to interest Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to support the service with funding. None were interested. Maybe Joe Boardman knows where this will end up, but nobody else seems to have a logical reason for the limbo where the service currently exists.

Amtrak trying to squeeze the states was the politics here. The train was part of the national system before the hurricane and Amtrak wanted to change the rules of the game following the hurricane. The states in essence said, you are changing the rules and we won't go along with your power play. The represnetatives and senators from those states should have gotten into it, but who knows what kind of trades they were asked to do?

I guess also UP (and not CSX) indirectly has something to do with it, because their price tag for upgrades to the western end of the route effectively is blocking the Sunset becoming a 7 days a week service.

The thing is the current tri-weekly service is a drag for Amtrak. Many of the fixed costs are the same and the tri-weeklies are harder to build a decent ridership for, and thus even more impossible to get running with a decent economy than the daily LD's. Of all the LD trains in the network the Sunset and the Cardinal are far the worst performers.

So yes, Amtrak apparently took the opportunity to permanently suspend one of its worst performing routes with no local political support to stop the obvious unfairness to the Gulf Coast states. The cynical assessment is probably that the money are better spent elsewhere on more feasible services pleasing more welcoming congress people...

 

[NY Penn]

Are the SL and Cardinal worst-performing because they are tri-weekly or are they tri-weekly because they are worst-performing? Or both?

 

[cirdan]

Are the SL and Cardinal worst-performing because they are tri-weekly or are they tri-weekly because they are worst-performing? Or both?

With the SL I can imagine that this is the most dificult to market of all transcon routes, not benefitting from the Chicago hub and also being least attractive in terms of the intermediate stops from a tourist perspective (NOL apart).

But how much of that is chicken and egg I cannot say.

The Cardinal on the contrary could easily be made into a very attractive route IMHO. So there I'd say it is definitely the tri-weekly schedule that makes it so unnattractive.

 

[trainviews]

Are the SL and Cardinal worst-performing because they are tri-weekly or are they tri-weekly because they are worst-performing? Or both?

Probably a bit of both. They were probably the ones selected for tri-weekly service because of the lowest ridership - and at at time when overall ridership was low and Amtrak had to make cuts.

But the passengers just don't wait to travel till the day the train leaves. Many of them find other travel modes, and ridership per train is probably the same or worse as you have to fit out and home into an inflexible schedule. Especially with rising ridership overall it definately should be possible to market a daily train.

However the big issue is cost. One daily train is a very expensive way to run a line to start with as station staffing, layover facilities, catering etc. all has to be in place for a once a day event. All these costs remain almost the same for a tri-weekly train and you can add problems with layovers for staff and rolling stock. With three departures a week, at least once a week there has to be an extra 24 hour layover at the terminus. If this is the home terminus of the staff, fine, but otherwise it costs, and so does inactive equipment just sitting there. Sending staff and equipment to serve another route from that terminus just throws chaos into that schedule as well. All in all a more complicated and less efficient operation than daily trains.

So even if they were the poorest performing routes to start with, the tri-weekly schedule makes it virtually impossible for them to perform well :huh:

 

[MikefromCrete]

Are the SL and Cardinal worst-performing because they are tri-weekly or are they tri-weekly because they are worst-performing? Or both?

Probably a bit of both. They were probably the ones selected for tri-weekly service because of the lowest ridership - and at at time when overall ridership was low and Amtrak had to make cuts.

But the passengers just don't wait to travel till the day the train leaves. Many of them find other travel modes, and ridership per train is probably the same or worse as you have to fit out and home into an inflexible schedule. Especially with rising ridership overall it definately should be possible to market a daily train.

However the big issue is cost. One daily train is a very expensive way to run a line to start with as station staffing, layover facilities, catering etc. all has to be in place for a once a day event. All these costs remain almost the same for a tri-weekly train and you can add problems with layovers for staff and rolling stock. With three departures a week, at least once a week there has to be an extra 24 hour layover at the terminus. If this is the home terminus of the staff, fine, but otherwise it costs, and so does inactive equipment just sitting there. Sending staff and equipment to serve another route from that terminus just throws chaos into that schedule as well. All in all a more complicated and less efficient operation than daily trains.

So even if they were the poorest performing routes to start with, the tri-weekly schedule makes it virtually impossible for them to perform well :huh:

The Sunset has been tri-weekly since well before the start of Amtrak. It was reduced from daily to tri-weekly in the 1960's by the Southern Pacific Railroad in a deal with the Interstate Commerce Commission. I believe the SP upgraded service (including a through sleeper to Washington and New York City via the Southern/PRR (or maybe it was Penn Central by then) and was allowed to cut the train to tri-weekly. It has been that way ever since.

The Cardinal is the final act in a complicated series of political trains run at the behest of powerful West Virginia congressmen.