Sunset must go daily

[Joel N. Weber II]

If the resource bottleneck was federal dollars, wouldn't the best answer be to get Congress to provide more dollars so they could do both? And if sleepers, diners, and lounges are the limited resource, shouldn't Congress give Amtrak money to buy more rolling stock?

 

[RTOlson]

^^

Perhaps, but the point of my hypothetical was what would you choose? What would you rather see if it was one or the other?

For my hypothetical, I would like to see Amtrak put its resources for a daily Sunset from LAX to NOL -- at first. A reliable service serving some is probably better than an unreliable service attempting to serve all. A stronger performance would help show there is demand for rail and help justify future requests for funding and equipment.

At the same time, since it would cost very little in terms of upfront resources, I would repair and strengthen Amtrak's relationship with the Florida, Alabama and Louisiana governments (perhaps Georgia as well). The long-term goal would be to work with these state governments to lobby for federal funding for regional rail which would eventually tie in with Amtrak's Southern long-distance lines.

That regional link would take time, but it's time that Amtrak could use to get newer equipment across the system. Some of that could could benefit the Southern lines.

There's probably a lot of nuances that I'm missing, but I think that could be an effective, long-term way to help the South and Southwest as a whole.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

How does making the Sunset daily make it more reliable than it is now? When I think of reliability, I mostly think of the probability that a train will get me to my destination on the schedule I expect (which is not necessarily the schedule printed on the timetable; when I took the Lake Shore Limited to Chicago, I was paying a lot more attention to amtrakdelays.com than the timetable).

 

[RTOlson]

I should probably find a better word, but I mean reliability as a travel and scheduling option.

If a train runs daily, it's arguably easier to plan trips around. Compare this to a thrice-weekly service where one has to figure out which day a train runs and then figure out if it's an option for them.

Many railfans have long asserted that travelers favor long-distance routes with daily service. I don't have documentation, but some cite the boost in passengers when other long-distance trains moved from thrice-weekly to daily (California Zephyr comes to mind).

 

[GP35]

Many, including myself, would love to take the Sunset out on Friday, spend a day in NOL, come back Sunday, back to work on Monday.

No can do with the current schedule.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

I have seen numerous statements (probably in the area of a hundred) over the past several years, in various places, not just here on this board, to the effect that a train which is scheduled daily tends to be more on-time overall than a less-than-daily train. The host RR dispatchers don't have to try to remember "Let's see now -- what day of the week is it today? Do we have Amtrak coming through here today? Or was that yesterday? or is it tomorrow? Ah, the heck with it, I won't worry about whether to try to have a slot for it unless it shows up..." -- and then it shows up and has to sit on a siding for a couple of hours in several places.

If a train is daily, there is a daily slot for it already worked out and available, per agreement between the RRs. Now, OK, U.P. has historically been pretty crappy (to be kind) and CSX on some routes, at least, has been less than stellar, in providing that slot, but they do seem to be improving in a lot of cases.

But when you have a daily train, OTP seems to be better, on the whole, than with a non-daily train.

And of course you won't have the revenue-losing problem of non-savvy passengers (that don't really understand the "which day of the week does it run?" question) who will be buffaloed by the reservations computer when they try to book a seat or a connection on a non-scheduled day and have the system tell them there is no such train, at which time the prospective passenger gives up and books an airline ticket...

If the choice is between restoring a 3x/week Sunset to Orlando, or simply leaving Sunset as it is and adding a JAX-NOL daily, do the latter. It could provide daily connex for pax to/from Chicago, on the City of New Orleans, daily connex to complete the Southern Transcon Route that we lost when Sunset was truncated to NOL, and daily connex South into Florida and North to SAV, CHS, etc., both by way of the Silver Service trains. And it would undoubtedly be more reliable on OTP than the Sunset was, especially Eastbound. While it would be nice to go all the way to ORL, and of course folks prefer a "one seat ride" where they don't have to connect with another train, on balance it's probably better to simply have the connection available than to not have it, and there are currently two trains in each direction (North and South) that go through JAX. Another option I suppose would be to restore a 3x/wk Sunset all the way to ORL and add a 4x/wk JAX-NOL train. That would in effect make a daily on that JAX-NOL path, but it would be a lot less OTP dependable Eastbound and therefore would receive worse dispatching performance (because it would frequently be out of it's time-slot Eastbound).

One other option would be to have a NOL-MIA daily, which would simply be one or two coaches and perhaps a snack car, tacked on to 97/98 out of Miami Northbound and out of JAX Southbound, with a couple of engines and a baggage car at JAX and cut them to/from 97/98 at JAX and run the NOL-JAX segment with those cars. Passengers could use the Diner or existing Lounge on the Silver Service part of the consist MIA-JAX and just have the snack bar/Lounge car for JAX-NOL. JAX is a long crew-change and refueling stop anyway, so switching NOL-MIA cars on and off should be a viable option at JAX without adding much if any delay to 97/98 there. It would allow a one-seat ride NOL-MIA and all stations in-between, and car servicing in MIA overnight. If an engine on the NOL-JAX segment was due for service, they could append it to 98 or 92 North to SAV or South on 97/91 to SFA (Auto-Train) or MIA for overnight servicing on the East end and then tack it on to a 91/92/97/98 as appropriate to get it back to JAX. And there is already sufficient overnight servicing at NOL, as I understand it, at the West end of that run. They would of course need to transfer baggage for the MIA-NOL passengers to and from the JAX-MIA baggage car at JAX, or have a second baggage car run with the NOL-bound cars all the way from MIA.

As I understand things, there are plenty of engines available, it's the passenger cars that are in short supply. If/when they can get the cars from the NOL evacuation train refurb'ed and back in full FRA spec'd condition (I understand that is being done), perhaps some of those would be available for that run. It would not be nearly as nice as the Sunset's Superliners, with Diner, Observation Lounge car, and so forth, but it would undeniably be better than the current status of NO SERVICE WHATSOEVER between NOL and JAX

 

[NativeSon5859]

Here's my take.

Not long ago Amtrak CEO Alex Kummant said, in regards to the Sunset East, that "it wasn't a very effective service", and that "it served all these small towns in the middle of the night."

Note to Alex. Do you remember WHY it wasn't an effective service? Maybe because the train was often canceled between NOL and ORL due to its lateness, or best case, it was excessively late? It wasn't effective because it wasn't dependable. I don't know about you guys, but I have seen a big improvement in the on time reliability of #2 lately. Look below...

2008-05-27: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 4:58 pm Delay: 58 minutes

2008-05-25: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 6:37 pm Delay: 157 minutes

2008-05-23: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 6:28 pm Delay: 148 minutes

2008-05-20: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 5:52 pm Delay: 112 minutes

2008-05-18: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 5:52 pm Delay: 112 minutes

2008-05-16: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 3:59 pm Delay: -1 minutes

2008-05-13: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 5:03 pm Delay: 63 minutes

2008-05-11: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 4:36 pm Delay: 36 minutes

Amtrak could have a 7:30pm departure eastbound from New Orleans and it would have been on time on every one of the above days. A 7:30pm departure would serve the Miss. Gulf Coast at reasonable times (between 9:00pm and 9:45pm) and Mobile at 11:10pm....not terribly ideal, but better than 2:00am+, what it was before. Pensacola would still get middle of the night service, but Tallahassee would get decent times for once. Unless #2's times out of LAX are drastically changed, this is probably the most ideal schedule for the service.

 

[GP35]

Here's my take.
Not long ago Amtrak CEO Alex Kummant said, in regards to the Sunset East, that "it wasn't a very effective service", and that "it served all these small towns in the middle of the night."

Note to Alex. Do you remember WHY it wasn't an effective service? Maybe because the train was often canceled between NOL and ORL due to its lateness, or best case, it was excessively late? It wasn't effective because it wasn't dependable. I don't know about you guys, but I have seen a big improvement in the on time reliability of #2 lately. Look below...

2008-05-27: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 4:58 pm Delay: 58 minutes

2008-05-25: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 6:37 pm Delay: 157 minutes

2008-05-23: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 6:28 pm Delay: 148 minutes

2008-05-20: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 5:52 pm Delay: 112 minutes

2008-05-18: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 5:52 pm Delay: 112 minutes

2008-05-16: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 3:59 pm Delay: -1 minutes

2008-05-13: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 5:03 pm Delay: 63 minutes

2008-05-11: Scheduled: 4:00 pm Actual: 4:36 pm Delay: 36 minutes

Amtrak could have a 7:30pm departure eastbound from New Orleans and it would have been on time on every one of the above days. A 7:30pm departure would serve the Miss. Gulf Coast at reasonable times (between 9:00pm and 9:45pm) and Mobile at 11:10pm....not terribly ideal, but better than 2:00am+, what it was before. Pensacola would still get middle of the night service, but Tallahassee would get decent times for once. Unless #2's times out of LAX are drastically changed, this is probably the most ideal schedule for the service.

Im use to seeing train 2 six hours late, so those times look good.

 

[had8ley]

Here's an on-topic hypothetical. Let's say Amtrak found enough resources to do one of the following (but not both):

• Run the Sunset daily on its current route.
  
• Restore transcontinental service to Orlando but only 3x per week.
  

What would you do if it could only be one?

I'm personally torn. It would be good to restore service to Florida, but daily service seems like a much better way to go because it provides a reliable schedule for traveler.

I know there's a lot of possible options out there, but if it came down to one solution, what do you think is the best one?

Sometimes the simplest solution is the best and I believe we have a BINGO !

 

[p&sr]

And of course you won't have the revenue-losing problem of non-savvy passengers (that don't really understand the "which day of the week does it run?" question) who will be buffaloed by the reservations computer when they try to book a seat or a connection on a non-scheduled day and have the system tell them there is no such train, at which time the prospective passenger gives up and books an airline ticket...

Better than that... sometimes the Amtrak Reservations Website will simply bump your itinerary forward to the next available date. It would be easy to get these tickets issued and printed without quite noticing that little detail.

Then the Passengers show up one (or two) days early and wonder why there's no train, and nobody at the Station!

Will they then look closely at their tickets and see the Travel Date printed thereon? Nobody can say...

 

[Rail Freak]

Here's an on-topic hypothetical. Let's say Amtrak found enough resources to do one of the following (but not both):

• Run the Sunset daily on its current route.
  
• Restore transcontinental service to Orlando but only 3x per week.
  

What would you do if it could only be one?

I'm personally torn. It would be good to restore service to Florida, but daily service seems like a much better way to go because it provides a reliable schedule for traveler.

I know there's a lot of possible options out there, but if it came down to one solution, what do you think is the best one?

being from Florida, of course I want service, and it is a dilema. Either way we need service & either way we need to take it it one step at a time but, we need to take that first step!!! :unsure:

 

[edding]

Here's an on-topic hypothetical. Let's say Amtrak found enough resources to do one of the following (but not both):

• Run the Sunset daily on its current route.
  
• Restore transcontinental service to Orlando but only 3x per week.
  

What would you do if it could only be one?

I'm personally torn. It would be good to restore service to Florida, but daily service seems like a much better way to go because it provides a reliable schedule for traveler.

I know there's a lot of possible options out there, but if it came down to one solution, what do you think is the best one?

being from Florida, of course I want service, and it is a dilema. Either way we need service & either way we need to take it it one step at a time but, we need to take that first step!!! :unsure:

And being from Arizona, I'd vote for making it daily. I think there are quite a few people that would go west to LA or east to NM or TX cities if the train were daily( Heck, I'd drive to Maricopa for a day trip to Tucson, if the schedule were reasonable).

Ed

 

[George Harris]

If we are going to do much for this route, then Phoenix needs to be back in the picture. I saw somewhere that the number of tickets sold to/from Phonix was on the order of 100 per trip, but dropped immediately to under 30 after Maricopa became the substitute for Phoenix. While we are dreaming, think in terms of this:

The Phoenix west line has not been abandoned. It is all still there, but of its 137 miles, 51 miles are out of service and the rest is 25 mph or less. The total distance Phoenix to Los Angeles by rail is 426 miles, give or take a couple - I do not have the milepost info for the stations at hand. Get this 137 miles back in service and good for 79 mph, or better, equipped for 110 mph. For reliablility, the rest of the main line between Wellton and Los Angeles needs doubled and the portion over Beaumont Hill, already doubled needs a third track.

Now, you should be able to run about 3 reliable trains per day on something like a 6.5 to 7 hour schedule within the 79 mph limit.

There has been talk, I have no idea how realistic, of running a multiple train per day service between Phoenix and Tucson. Tack this onto the LA trains. At this point, the Daily Sunset becomes one more train on a line being operated to carry relatively fast passenger trains.

Now, you have to start dealing with delay areas in Texas and Louisiana.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

How valuable are the stops at Yuma, Palm Springs, Ontario, and Pomona?

I'm wondering if building Phoenix to Flagstaff tracks might make any sense. The downside of rerouting the westbound Sunset Limited to Phoenix, then Flagstaff, then west to Los Angeles along the Southwest Chief route would be that Flagstaff seems to be a bit east of Phoenix, so that route would involve a bit of backtracking; on the other hand, that would open up the possibility of frequent train service between Flagstaff and Phoenix if there was a demand for that.

In the shorter term, what if there were two trainsets each with a P42, some Amfleet I coaches, and a cabbage car that made multiple daytime trips along the existing Phoenix to Tuscon tracks, along with middle of the night trips to a new intermediate station where the Phoenix train would meet the Sunset Limited for cross-platform transfers? Would any of the existing track need to be upgraded for this to work at some minimally reasonable speed?

 

[edding]

How valuable are the stops at Yuma, Palm Springs, Ontario, and Pomona?
I'm wondering if building Phoenix to Flagstaff tracks might make any sense. The downside of rerouting the westbound Sunset Limited to Phoenix, then Flagstaff, then west to Los Angeles along the Southwest Chief route would be that Flagstaff seems to be a bit east of Phoenix, so that route would involve a bit of backtracking; on the other hand, that would open up the possibility of frequent train service between Flagstaff and Phoenix if there was a demand for that.

In the shorter term, what if there were two trainsets each with a P42, some Amfleet I coaches, and a cabbage car that made multiple daytime trips along the existing Phoenix to Tuscon tracks, along with middle of the night trips to a new intermediate station where the Phoenix train would meet the Sunset Limited for cross-platform transfers? Would any of the existing track need to be upgraded for this to work at some minimally reasonable speed?

In response to the first question, in my opinion a case could be made for all these except Pomona( which I know nothing about). In terms of the second question, while I don't know about the actual track situation, I would have to surmise that re-instating train service to Flag( which as far as I know was never a main kind of service -- maybe Arizona Eastern, but I honestly don't know) would be geographically problematic( for one thing about a 5500ft, at least, elev. gain betwn PHX and Flag) as well as demographically irrational. Flag has a metro population of maybe 75,000 while metro Tucson is at or around 1 million. PHX - Tucson also picks up major exurban towns on the way to Tucson.

Ed

 

[George Harris]

There is a line Pheonix to Williams. It is BNSF. When it had passenger service, it was just about all night to cover the distance. Very curvey, lots of grades. To make it fast would be hugely expensive. There is a more direct line that hits the BNSF main line somewhere west of Needles, but I have no idea what the distance is or what the alignment is like. This line used to be ATSF, but was sold to a short line operator years ago.

 

[GP35]

The best option is to repair and upgrade the SP line west of Phoenix. The Phoenix area will continue to grow, fuel prices will not be going down,

fewer trucks, more goods will need to be move in and out of the Phoenix MSA, UP will evenually need to open that line.

 

[MrEd]

according to what I am reading, the plan is to restore service on sunset to florida, but not to bring it to phoenix.

Was the service daily before 2005 ?

http://gulfcoastnews.com/GCNnewsAmtrakBill...etLtd052208.htm

WASHINGTON – Rep. Gene Taylor announced that a bill instructing Amtrak to report its plan to restore passenger rail service between New Orleans and Sanford, Fla. was approved and reported out by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure today.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

In response to the first question, in my opinion a case could be made for all these except Pomona( which I know nothing about). In terms of the second question, while I don't know about the actual track situation, I would have to surmise that re-instating train service to Flag( which as far as I know was never a main kind of service -- maybe Arizona Eastern, but I honestly don't know) would be geographically problematic( for one thing about a 5500ft, at least, elev. gain betwn PHX and Flag) as well as demographically irrational. Flag has a metro population of maybe 75,000 while metro Tucson is at or around 1 million. PHX - Tucson also picks up major exurban towns on the way to Tucson.

A change of roughly a mile in elevation over a course of 100 miles actually wouldn't be a significant grade at all if it were a nice, gradual slope between those two cities: that would be about a 1% grade, and passenger track is sometimes contructed at a 3% grade. Of course, there's probably a lot of flat land with a sharper grade somewhere, and there may be some mountains that would have to be tunneled through.

Do Phoenix residents care about being able to travel quickly between Phoenix and Los Angeles? If it's roughly 450 miles of track, being able to really go 110 MPH just about the whole way except near stations would probably make the trip about 4.5 to 5 hours, at which point flying would be a bit faster. But if you could get the average speed up to 170 MPH or so (which the French TGV demontrates is possible), the travel time would be roughly two hours and fourty minutes. Tunneling through mountains and skipping the existing intermediate stops could also shorten the trip; google maps says that driving from Phoenix (the city center, presumably) to Los Angeles Union Station is only 356 miles, largely along Interstate 10. There's obviously some slop in where the Phoenix train station would be; but 356 miles averaging 170 MPH would be about 2:06, and averaging 110 MPH would be less than 3:20.

If there were high speed Phoenix to Los Angeles track, I would think that building some sort of connecting track to allow the Southwest Chief to use that track would be more cost effective than building a high speed track all the way to Los Angeles just for the benefit of the Southwest Chief. One train a day could then be maintained along the existing freight mainline routes to serve residents of those communities.

 

[edding]

In response to the first question, in my opinion a case could be made for all these except Pomona( which I know nothing about). In terms of the second question, while I don't know about the actual track situation, I would have to surmise that re-instating train service to Flag( which as far as I know was never a main kind of service -- maybe Arizona Eastern, but I honestly don't know) would be geographically problematic( for one thing about a 5500ft, at least, elev. gain betwn PHX and Flag) as well as demographically irrational. Flag has a metro population of maybe 75,000 while metro Tucson is at or around 1 million. PHX - Tucson also picks up major exurban towns on the way to Tucson.

A change of roughly a mile in elevation over a course of 100 miles actually wouldn't be a significant grade at all if it were a nice, gradual slope between those two cities: that would be about a 1% grade, and passenger track is sometimes contructed at a 3% grade. Of course, there's probably a lot of flat land with a sharper grade somewhere, and there may be some mountains that would have to be tunneled through.

Do Phoenix residents care about being able to travel quickly between Phoenix and Los Angeles? If it's roughly 450 miles of track, being able to really go 110 MPH just about the whole way except near stations would probably make the trip about 4.5 to 5 hours, at which point flying would be a bit faster. But if you could get the average speed up to 170 MPH or so (which the French TGV demontrates is possible), the travel time would be roughly two hours and fourty minutes. Tunneling through mountains and skipping the existing intermediate stops could also shorten the trip; google maps says that driving from Phoenix (the city center, presumably) to Los Angeles Union Station is only 356 miles, largely along Interstate 10. There's obviously some slop in where the Phoenix train station would be; but 356 miles averaging 170 MPH would be about 2:06, and averaging 110 MPH would be less than 3:20.

If there were high speed Phoenix to Los Angeles track, I would think that building some sort of connecting track to allow the Southwest Chief to use that track would be more cost effective than building a high speed track all the way to Los Angeles just for the benefit of the Southwest Chief. One train a day could then be maintained along the existing freight mainline routes to serve residents of those communities.

Having driven PHX to Flag many times( incl. April blizzards!), I would only say it's most assuredly not a nice gentle ascent to 7000+. There are several steep ups and downs plus what track exists probably isn't in very good shape. I will reiterate that Phx to Flag to pick up the SWC makes little or no sense, geographically, demographically or temporally( it takes 2+ hours to drive to Flag).

There would be interest in a PHX connection to a daily Sunset -- as a previous poster said it was boarding 100 per day before $4.00/gal gas. Bring it on( yes, I know I'm dreaming but it's been done before)

Ed

 

[NativeSon5859]

according to what I am reading, the plan is to restore service on sunset to florida, but not to bring it to phoenix.
Was the service daily before 2005 ?

http://gulfcoastnews.com/GCNnewsAmtrakBill...etLtd052208.htm

WASHINGTON – Rep. Gene Taylor announced that a bill instructing Amtrak to report its plan to restore passenger rail service between New Orleans and Sanford, Fla. was approved and reported out by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure today.

Now THAT is good news. At the very least it forces Amtrak's hand to study the service resumption. I am very, very excited about this.

 

[AlanB]

according to what I am reading, the plan is to restore service on sunset to florida, but not to bring it to phoenix.
Was the service daily before 2005 ?

http://gulfcoastnews.com/GCNnewsAmtrakBill...etLtd052208.htm

WASHINGTON – Rep. Gene Taylor announced that a bill instructing Amtrak to report its plan to restore passenger rail service between New Orleans and Sanford, Fla. was approved and reported out by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure today.

Now THAT is good news. At the very least it forces Amtrak's hand to study the service resumption. I am very, very excited about this.

Well that assumes that the President actually signs it into law or that Congress has a veto proof majority.

Otherwise its just one more worthless piece of paper floating around in DC.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Does "reported out by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure" imply that the necessary vote of 100 Senators and however many Representatives has already been taken?

 

[AlanB]

Does "reported out by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure" imply that the necessary vote of 100 Senators and however many Representatives has already been taken?

I don't believe so. I think that means that the committee aproves of the bill and it now goes to the floor for a vote.

 

[had8ley]

Does "reported out by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure" imply that the necessary vote of 100 Senators and however many Representatives has already been taken?

Unfortunately "reported out" means just that; the committee has voted and now it goes to both houses of Congress for amendments, additions, subtractions or just lingers without a vote. I must say this is a surprise and I sincerely hope it pans out. AmtrakWPK will be thrilled I'm sure.