The Gulf Sunset Limited--Coming Back Again??

[WoodyinNYC]

As much as this poster would like to see the sunset east restored do not think it possible at this time. It's mainly a lack of equipment. Once Amtrak gets an additional 1000 passenger cars ...

They're also low on Superliners too? I thought the main problem was Viewliners.

Low on both.

Try going daily with the Texas Eagle/Sunset Ltd and we'll be short a consist or two.

But difficult to get funding for an order of hundreds or thousands of new coaches, diners, lounges, whatevers.

And twice as difficult to fund both Viewliners and Superliners.

Some speculation about changing one or more of the Superliner routes to single-level equipment, and spreading the freed-up Superliners across the West. I've suggested that the City of New Orleans looks like a good candidate to switch to rehabbed Horizons.

Others would switch the Capitol Limited, but where to get equipment to do that? The Viewliner II order, sans options, does not give enuff diners (or bag-dorms or maybe not even enuff sleepers) to fill out the trains on these two routes. But this might work somehow, once hundreds of new single-level cars join the fleet.

Need I add that if Amtrak can only get funding for one type of car, it will be single-levels for the East before bi-levels for the West. The equipment is older, and as a group the routes are closer to break-even, so, more bang for the buck there. Then you hope that the single-level fleet expansion increases revenue, and lowers the gap between revenue and expenses. Then when you go back to Congress you can say, "That order was a great success, now we need another."

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Maybe not the SL we were expecting but it works for me.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/64510-news-on-the-daily-sunset-and-possible-sl-east/?p=638401

 

[west point]

This poster really wants to see Amtrak add more routes but. Amtrak first needs to Maximize its revenue on present routes first That way the loss ( or even an operating profit ) per passenger carried can be reduced.. Getting as many Additional passengers on present trains should be first priority. Given the present rate of construction that will take almost all the new equipment being built for the next 4 - 5 years. That will first be car demand for end to end trains such as Meteor, Star, Palmetto, Lakeshore, Cardinal, Empire builder, Sunset / Eagle. CHI short hauls.

Next is adding cut off cars for such as Crescent ( Atlanta north ). Zephyr ( Denver east and Reno west. Eagle ( ST. Louis north.). Empire ( MSP - CHI ) CONOL ( Memphis south weekends ).

Next daily trains Sunset & Cardinal this will less expensive since can do better scheduling of T&E and OBS crews.

Next adding more trains where needed on current routes. ex. ATL - NYP day thru Raleigh and Richmond, Extend Palmetto, Another train NYP / BOS - CHI, NEC fill outs, CHI - MSP, Chicago mid west short hauls.

Then we can expand to other new routes. Maximizing current routes will give more interconnecting passenger to any new route.

 

[Anderson]

I think there's a case to at least do a daily Cardinal sooner rather than later. Not likely to happen, but for reasons related to equipment utilization (and likely crew pay, since I think there's at least one multi-day layover for them that Amtrak gets stuck paying for) this would make a good deal of sense. IIRC the impact on operating losses is a pretty marginal increase in exchange for adding somewhere in the range of 120-150k pax (and that increase is likely offset by at least some increase in connecting traffic).

To be fair, I would be inclined to put the first 30-40 new single-level sleeping cars to expanding existing services (I'll count any pass-through cars as part of that) or possibly adding a split-off section to an existing train (e.g FEC service). Ditto adding coaches (a lot of LD trains could probably add a coach at peak-ish times, not to mention shuffling/cascading equipment). After that, it's down to a judgment call of being able to add a new train while only making a limited addition to direct losses at the startup.

 

[neroden]

I've been trying to update my projections based on the best data I can get from Amtrak (which isn't very good), but my estimate based on 2014 data says that switching the Cardinal from tri-weekly to daily would *improve* Amtrak's bottom line by about $5.1 million / year, changing it from requiring a subsidy to being profitable on a direct-costs basis.

This is with the naive (but conservative) assumptions that revenues would multiply by 7/3, and direct costs would multiply by 1.5. And, for purposes of backing out the overhead misallocation, the assumption that the percentagewise allocation of overhead amongst the long-distance trains hasn't changed since 2012 (since I have a new *total* overhead allocated to the group, but not new individual numbers per train).

I don't know what would be required in capital costs to make a daily Cardinal happen, but it needs to be done ASAP. Not only is a triweekly train an embarassment, at this point it's probably actually costing Amtrak $5 million every year. It would be viable to finance a $42 million loan with a 10-year term and 4% interest rate based on that. I don't know what the capital cost requirements are for a daily Cardinal, but Amtrak should *figure them out* by consulting with CSX and Buckingham Branch and NS, start looking for grant funds, and consider an RRIF loan.

 

[looshi]

This is the time to do it too. I can't imagine CSX would like any additional passenger service, but with the state of the coal market they may be helpful for any revenue that helps cover costs for the C&O mainline. I mean, they are looking at abolishing the Hunington Division. Amtrak has the strongest negotiating position for a daily Cardinal that they have had in years.

 

[Anderson]

This is the time to do it too. I can't imagine CSX would like any additional passenger service, but with the state of the coal market they may be helpful for any revenue that helps cover costs for the C&O mainline. I mean, they are looking at abolishing the Hunington Division. Amtrak has the strongest negotiating position for a daily Cardinal that they have had in years.

Agreed. The coal boom actually fouled the lines on possible commuter service on the Peninsula a few years back (there's been a suggested Toano/Norge-Newport News line for some time). It's also complicated efforts to get us a third daily train. Traffic on the Peninsula Subdivision has been highly dependent on the coal market basically since the start (Norfolk has a lot of various freight; Newport News is largely a coal market). There might even be room to negotiate the TDX, though IMHO that is a reasonably low priority for the state.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

This poster really wants to see Amtrak add more routes but. Amtrak first needs to Maximize its revenue on present routes first That way the loss ( or even an operating profit ) per passenger carried can be reduced.. Getting as many Additional passengers on present trains should be first priority. Given the present rate of construction that will take almost all the new equipment being built for the next 4 - 5 years. That will first be car demand for end to end trains such as Meteor, Star, Palmetto, Lakeshore, Cardinal, Empire builder, Sunset / Eagle. CHI short hauls.

Next is adding cut off cars for such as Crescent ( Atlanta north ). Zephyr ( Denver east and Reno west. Eagle ( ST. Louis north.). Empire ( MSP - CHI ) CONOL ( Memphis south weekends ).

Next daily trains Sunset & Cardinal this will less expensive since can do better scheduling of T&E and OBS crews.

Next adding more trains where needed on current routes. ex. ATL - NYP day thru Raleigh and Richmond, Extend Palmetto, Another train NYP / BOS - CHI, NEC fill outs, CHI - MSP, Chicago mid west short hauls.

Then we can expand to other new routes. Maximizing current routes will give more interconnecting passenger to any new route.

I'd argue that any Broadway Limited is a "present route" if you use the CL route from CHI-PGH and the Pennsylvanian route from PGH-NYP. It would be a third frequency between CHI-CLE, a second from CLE-PGH, and a second from PGH-NYP so I feel it's consistent with your desire to increase frequencies. There wouldn't be any new tracks used and asking NS for a second train between CHI-HAR is no different than asking anyone other freight company for an additional train (assuming all freight companies are equally as negotiating with Amtrak which I'm sure isn't the case).

 

[frequentflyer]

What if the Cardinal was cancelled? How many consists or equipment would that free up?

If less than daily service is so expensive, Amtrak should have negotiated a daily Eagle from SAT to LAX and not LAX to NOL. That may not have spooked UP as much.

No one wants to cut trains, because they never come back (hello Desert Wind and Pioneer), but if its for the good of the system, then changes must be made. PHX can be served with an overnight daily to LAX, and bus to connect to the SWC at Flagstaff. Houston will eventually be connected to Dallas via High Speed Rail, in the mean time reinstitute the Temple -HOU connection from the Lone Star. Why have equipment used on a tri weekly train, that sucking up resources when UP is not going to budge?

 

[CCC1007]

You sound a lot like Philly Amtrak fan did when he first showed up, so to answer your questions, maybe you can look back to the conversations that he has posted in.

The cardinal uses two locomotives, two baggage cars, two Viewliner sleepers, two amfleet cafe/dinettes, six amfleet coaches, and starting in a week, two amfleet cafe/business class cars.

 

[neroden]

Worth noting for reference that the Cardinal uses two trainsets (hence all those "two" in CCC1007's post) but a daily Cardinal would use only three trainsets (so replace the "two" with "three" and replace the "six" with "nine".)

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The Cardinal uses two locomotives, two baggage cars, two Viewliner sleepers, two amfleet cafe/dinettes, six amfleet coaches, and starting in a week, two amfleet cafe/business class cars.

Thanks for laying it out that way. I can clearly see that the cafe/business class cars are added capacity (modest but real) as well as an upgrade to the service (and possibly meal options).

Looking ahead, I wonder if the baggage cars are usually full, or only half full? If only half, then the Cardinal could use one of the promised Viewliner II bag/dorms. By moving crew out of the sleeper, it would increase capacity in a half step, when going with a full second sleeper might be more than the market can support.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

If less than daily service is so expensive, Amtrak should have negotiated a daily Eagle from SAT to LAX and not LAX to NOL. That may not have spooked UP as much.

...

Why have equipment used on a tri weekly train, that sucking up resources when UP is not going to budge?

Why wouldn't UP budge?

The negotiations for a daily blew up a few years back, and many accounts put the blame on Amtrak's negotiator, who is no longer with the company. Anyway, the upshot was an interim deal that took 9 hours, iirc, out of the run time as an upgrade (that also freed up a set of equipment that was put into a stronger Capitol Limited). And a promise from Amtrak not to ask for a daily for two or three years, which point has gone by.

Meanwhile UP used the time to doubletrack its system El Paso-L.A., with its own money, and has pretty much completed that work.

A nice little TIGER grant last round is helping fund a new station and station track in Maricopa [Phoenix], so the Sunset (or Eagle) will pull off the main line to serve the station without blocking UP's freights passing thru.

The UP appears about ready to accept the inevitable daily train.

The hold-up has been Amtrak's perpetual shortage of equipment. In about two years, Amtrak will have some Horizons that can be put to some use, perhaps on the daily Shuttle that will run New Orleans-San Antonio when the Eagle becomes that main train. Other equipment could get shuffled around and cars freed up for the daily Sunset/Eagle.

+++++++++++

Neroden thinks the bi-levels coming to the Midwest and West Coast could help. But seems that would require a slightly different "long distance" version, and a new round of bids.

 

[neroden]

At the moment, the single-level dining cars are Amtrak's most acute shortage, but they should arrive any month now. Following that, diesel power is Amtrak's most acute shortage. The "long distance" variant of the "Sprinter" locos exists as an option on the order with a defined price, but Amtrak would have to order some of them.

Amtrak appeared to think that they had enough cars to add a trainset to extend the CONO to Orlando, which means they have enough cars for a daily Sunset... probably.

The Midwest bilevels... still have to be engineered to pass the crush test. But when they arrive, they should free up existing Superliner coaches (as well as freeing up the Horizons and a few Amfleets) so coaches shouldn't be a problem for a daily Sunset once that happens (late 2017, I guess). There are enough baggage cars now, as well.

There might be some issues with number of Superliner sleepers, diners, or Sightseer Lounges. I don't know.

Whenever I run the math, it tells me that a daily Cardinal is a slightly higher priority than a daily Sunset; a daily Cardinal looks like it should be about $5.6 million net positive change to the bottom line, a daily Sunset about $4.5 million net positive change (though the rearrangement into a "Sunset Eagle" and a "Sunset Shuttle" may improve that number somewhat). More importantly the Cardinal would rise into "contributing to overhead" category -- which I think is politically important, as it makes politicians who want to cut it look stupid -- while the Sunset would still be requiring subsidy before overhead allocation.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

If less than daily service is so expensive, Amtrak should have negotiated a daily Eagle from SAT to LAX and not LAX to NOL. That may not have spooked UP as much.

...

Why have equipment used on a tri weekly train, that sucking up resources when UP is not going to budge?

Why wouldn't UP budge?

The negotiations for a daily blew up a few years back, and many accounts put the blame on Amtrak's negotiator, who is no longer with the company. Anyway, the upshot was an interim deal that took 9 hours, iirc, out of the run time as an upgrade (that also freed up a set of equipment that was put into a stronger Capitol Limited). And a promise from Amtrak not to ask for a daily for two or three years, which point has gone by.

Meanwhile UP used the time to doubletrack its system El Paso-L.A., with its own money, and has pretty much completed that work.

A nice little TIGER grant last round is helping fund a new station and station track in Maricopa [Phoenix], so the Sunset (or Eagle) will pull off the main line to serve the station without blocking UP's freights passing thru.

The UP appears about ready to accept the inevitable daily train.

The hold-up has been Amtrak's perpetual shortage of equipment. In about two years, Amtrak will have some Horizons that can be put to some use, perhaps on the daily Shuttle that will run New Orleans-San Antonio when the Eagle becomes that main train. Other equipment could get shuffled around and cars freed up for the daily Sunset/Eagle.

+++++++++++

Neroden thinks the bi-levels coming to the Midwest and West Coast could help. But seems that would require a slightly different "long distance" version, and a new round of bids.

I might totally be reading this wrong (won't be the first time), but "Sunset Shuttle" means that passengers east of San Antonio who wish to go west of San Antonio must change trains in SAS to go further west?

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/970/304/PRIIA-210-SunsetLtd-TexasEagle-PIP,0.pdf

If I live in either NOL or HOS, to me this is the equivalent of taking away the BL or TR so now I only get to go as far west as SAS and would have to transfer to go to LA or Arizona. The westbound layover according to the PRIIA is 11:00pm-1:10am and the eastbound layover is 6:50-7:50am. I've never been to the SAS station but if it's similar to or worse than PGH than this really sucks for them. Then missed connections enter the picture and if the NOL-SAS train is late those passengers will get stuck in SAS overnight.

If I'm Houston/New Orleans, you're saying I can either go to SAS daily and have to transfer to go further west or only go to SAS 3x/week but then can continue a one seat ride to LAX those days. If there is a large number of passengers east of SAS currently going west of SAS, that number is going to go down if they are forced to change trains in the middle of the night. Amtrak themselves says that the PM/TM will actually decrease 18% from 160.7 to 132.0 under the new plan.

Does taking away the through cars save Amtrak that much money/equipment to essentially take away direct service from NOL/HOS? Is that why Amtrak refuses to set up the CL/Pennsylvanian through cars? Will they eventually force Massachusetts passengers on the LSL to change trains in Albany permanently?

In addition, the proposed times of the Eagle do reduce the layover for passengers north of SAS but the train for LAX still leaves at 1:10am and arrives in LAX at 5:05am, even worse than the time now. The PRIIA said the train will remain available until 6:30am but I believe it no longer is now with the train arriving at 5:35am.

Right now IMHO the biggest negatives of the TE/SL combo (other than the fact that it isn't daily) are the departure/arrival times in NOL, departure/arrival times and westbound layover in SAS, and the arrival time in LAX. The train is great going into/out of NOL from Texas/California but worthless going east or north of NOL unless you can afford to stay overnight. The plan does appear to cut the westbound layover in SAS in half but does little to change the times along the route and add the forced transfer in SAS for passengers east of SAS. If you're going from SAS to LAX, the times still suck (get on at 1:10am and get off at 5:05am). Daily or not daily, this is a problem. You can talk about making trains daily all you want but a lousy schedule 7 days a week is still lousy. Just ask Cleveland.

My proposal (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/65927-proposal-for-extending-crescent-to-sas-improving-te-schedule/?p=640928) gives a way better arrival time into LAX, way better departure/arrival times into SAS, and the ability for a same day connection to the Crescent and CONO (including the proposed extension to Florida). In my plans, the through car portion would be an additional daily from DAL to SAS. Even if Amtrak doesn't want to do through cars anymore, if you add a train from DAL-SAS and then force them to change trains the transfer times would be in the afternoon and not the middle of the night. The Heartland Flyer extension is a bonus and not necessary for the SL plan. All of a sudden NOL becomes sort of a second east-west transfer point. If Amtrak goes through with the proposed TE/SL plans in the PRIIA and the CONO extension to Florida, if you want to go from Florida to California, it will require two change of trains, one in SAS in or close to graveyard shift and one overnight in NOL. In my plans, it would be one change of trains in NOL and an overnight stay would not be required.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

... a daily Eagle from SAT to LAX and not LAX to NOL. That may not have spooked UP as much. ...

...

The UP appears about ready to accept the inevitable daily train.

The hold-up has been Amtrak's perpetual shortage of equipment.

...

... "Sunset Shuttle" means that passengers east of San Antonio who wish to go west of San Antonio must change trains in SAS to go further west?

Yes. They refer to a cross-platform transfer. I take that to mean no passenger has to get off the Shuttle to get on the Eagle until the Eagle pulls in, then get up, walk across the platform, board the Eagle and take your new seat. Checked baggage will be transferred. The two hours or so scheduled for SAS dwell time is padding for late trains.

I'm ok with all that.

The proposed extension of the City of New Orleans to Florida does allow a much better east/west connection than riders can get now. After all, 23 hours in New Orleans ain't a bad deal for leisure travelers, even if they have to pay hotel, meals, tourism expenses. Hotels are within sight of Union Terminal. Perhaps Amtrak, or an authorized private enterprise tour operator, could take a block of rooms to get a volume discount at a couple of hotels, one bargain, one more upscale, and offer them in an Amtrak package for thru passengers. A street car out front will take riders to the French Quarter, and (connection required) down St Charles Ave., so they can see a lot of the city for not much money.

For passengers to/from Houston and New Orleans, I'm more concerned about the low average speed, 40 or 45 mph iirc.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

For Sunset/Eagle passengers to/from Houston and New Orleans, I'm more concerned about the low average speed, only 40 or 45 mph iirc.

Houston-San Antonio should be a state-supported corridor with upgraded faster tracks and 4 or 5 trains each way every day. The next step would be, 3 or 4 trains Houston-Beaumont-Lake Charles-Lafayette-New Orleans. The New Orleans-San Antonio segment is the 4th busiest city pair on the Sunset now, despite the lousy 3-days-a-week schedule, slow speed, and all. (But I don't know if they credit connections to the NB Eagle to this segment.) Even one more frequency here could help things, giving an option for a cross-platform transfer in New Orleans and a stop-over in San Antonio instead.

Such corridor service would make possible marketing a "Stop-Over Tourist" ticket, under the current Amtrak rule allowing a free stop-over if the connection is 23 hours or less. So, careful scheduling using the Star or Meteor could get a tourist on this itinerary: Miami -one day Orlando -one day Jacksonville -one day New Orleans -one day Houston -one day San Antonio (or any parts of this route segment).

Then add a corridor train Tucson-Maricopa (Phoenix)-L.A. making possible stop-overs in Arizona. Market a warm-weather transcontinental land cruise to rival the Canadian. Or to complement the Empire Builder: One way thru snow-covered mountains, down the Coast Starlight, one way thru the sunny desert to subtropical Florida. Pretty nice land-cruise package for certain foreign, and for U.S. tourists, too.

Or, don't wait for corridor trains.

Couldn't Amtrak partner with a tour operator, with a special rule, to allow 2 or 3 night stop-overs for, say, a nominal $50 each if reserved 14 days in advance? The tour operator then puts together and markets the package: pick up and return to the station, hotel room with breakfasts, a city tour, museum or attraction admission, dinner at a nice restaurant, the usual stuff. Daily service and a special rule would make such tour packages very attractive, and help to fill the long distance trains.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

... "Sunset Shuttle" means that passengers east of San Antonio who wish to go west of San Antonio must change trains in SAS to go further west?

Yes. They refer to a cross-platform transfer. I take that to mean no passenger has to get off the Shuttle to get on the Eagle until the Eagle pulls in, then get up, walk across the platform, board the Eagle and take your new seat. Checked baggage will be transferred. The two hours or so scheduled for SAS dwell time is padding for late trains.

I'm ok with all that.

The proposed extension of the City of New Orleans to Florida does allow a much better east/west connection than riders can get now. After all, 23 hours in New Orleans ain't a bad deal for leisure travelers, even if they have to pay hotel, meals, tourism expenses. Hotels are within sight of Union Terminal. Perhaps Amtrak, or an authorized private enterprise tour operator, could take a block of rooms to get a volume discount at a couple of hotels, one bargain, one more upscale, and offer them in an Amtrak package for thru passengers. A street car out front will take riders to the French Quarter, and (connection required) down St Charles Ave., so they can see a lot of the city for not much money.

For passengers to/from Houston and New Orleans, I'm more concerned about the low average speed, 40 or 45 mph iirc.

Is the CL/Pennsylvanian connection considered cross-platform?

In the SL/TE plan, the TE is scheduled to arrive in SAS before the Sunset Shuttle so assuming OTP passengers would be able to just walk across to their new train. That is clearly not the case for passengers from PA/NJ going on to the CL as the Pennsylvanian arrives almost four hours before the CL. Ideally going east the Sunset Shuttle should be ready for passengers to board at SAS once they get off the TE. I am guessing in the case of CL to Pennsylvanian that is not the case and passengers have to fend for themselves in PGH (assuming OTP into PGH from the CL which on the last time I rode was not the case, the Pennsylvanian left PGH before the CL got in).

Theoretically if the Sunset Shuttle is late getting into SAS then the TE can leave without them and vice versa going east so that's clearly a negative if it happens (especially the westbound).

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

For Sunset/Eagle passengers to/from Houston and New Orleans, I'm more concerned about the low average speed, 40 or 45 mph iirc.

Houston-San Antonio should be a state-supported corridor with upgraded tracks and 6 or 8 trains each way every day. (This segment is the 4th busiest city pair on the Sunset now, with the lousy 3-days-a-week schedule, slow speed, and all.) The next step would be, 4 to 6 trains Houston-Beaumont-Lake Charles-Lafayette-New Orleans - (maybe on to Biloxi-Mobile if the trains moved a lot faster). Even one more frequency here could help things, giving an option for a cross-platform transfer in New Orleans and a stop-over in San Antonio instead.

Such corridor service would make possible marketing a "Stop-Over Tourist" ticket, under the current Amtrak rule allowing a free stop-over if the connection is 23 hours or less. So, careful scheduling using the Star or Meteor could get a tourist on this itinerary: Miami -one day Orlando -one day Jacksonville -one day Mississippi Gulf Coast -one day New Orleans -one day Houston -one day San Antonio (or any parts of this route segment). Then add a corridor train Tucson-Maricopa (Phoenix)-L.A. making possible stop-overs in Arizona. Market a warm-weather transcontinental land cruise to rival the Canadian. Or to complement the Empire Builder: One way thru snow-covered mountains, down the Coast Starlight, one way thru the sunny desert to subtropical Florida. Pretty nice land-cruise package for certain foreign, and U.S., tourists.

Or, don't wait for corridor trains. Couldn't Amtrak partner with a tour operator, with a special rule, to allow 2 or 3 night stop-overs for, say, a nominal $50 each if reserved 14 or 30 days in advance? The tour operator then puts together and markets the package: pick up and return to the station, a city tour, museum or attraction admission, dinner at a nice restaurant, the usual stuff. Daily service would make such tour packages possible, and help to fill the trains.

If you want to do the state corridor way, I'd go with DAL-SAS as a state corridor option first as my plans dictate. Then you can truncate the TE at SAS and then have better times for the SL into LAX, SAS, and NOL times with a potential same day connection to the Crescent/CONO. DAL-HOU would be my next priority (extend HF?). Clearly the only SAS-HOU option now is the current SL with lousy times into/out of SAS so multiple frequencies should surely increase ridership between those cities. But as long as the SL leaves SAS in the graveyard shift (and arrives in LAX before 6am) that IMHO is still a problem.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

What drives the arrival times in L.A. is the departure times in Tucson and Maricopa (Phoenix). Amtrak wants that segment to be an overnight corridor both ways, which makes good sense. That and the fact that L.A. Union Station gets filled with morning commuter trains, and LAUS wants the Sunset to hurry in and then GET OUT OF THE WAY. So there you are.

(A lot of work is planned, or even underway, for LAUS, with thru-running tracks, CAHSR, and so on. I don't know if any of it will help the Sunset find a more comfortable time and place.)

++++++++++++++++++++

Console yourself that the L.A. arrival is Pacific time. The bodies of the passengers from the east are still on Mountain or even Central time. So they feel like they are waking up "an hour later" than it shows on the clock in L.A., waking up for a 6:30 a.m. arrival, or even a cozy 7:30 morning arrival, not for the horrible 5:30 a.m. pre-dawn hour on the timetable.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

In reality if Amtrak doesn't want to do through cars anymore between the SL and TE there are really two options:

1) Force NOL-SAS to transfer to the TE.

2) Force CHI-SAS to transfer to the SL.

If Amtrak wants to do option #1, you would think that there are more passengers that travel from CHI-SAS to SAS-LAX than NOL-SAS to SAS-LAX.

Here's some interesting data (http://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/cities_2014.pdf)

New Orleans: 4.3% of 196,768 passengers (8,462) traveled 1900-1999 miles (LAX is 1995 miles away)

Houston: 23.1% of 20,108 passengers (4,645) traveled 1600-1699 miles (LAX is 1633 miles away)

Ft. Worth: 1.6% of 126,394 passengers (2,022) traveled 1700-1799 miles (LAX is 1706 miles away)

Dallas: 3.5% of 49,446 passengers (1,731) traveled 1700-1799 miles (LAX is 1737 miles away)

Of the top nine city pairs to Maricopa, New Orleans ranked 4th and Houston ranked 5th. Neither Dallas nor Ft. Worth made the top nine. Chicago is 2nd and St. Louis is 9th.

Of the top nine city pairs to Tucson, NOL is 4th and HOS is 7th. Neither Dallas nor Ft. Worth made the top nine. Chicago is 3rd.

Of the top nine city pairs to El Paso, HOS is 4th, NOL is 5th, and CHI is 6th. Neither Dallas nor Ft. Worth made the top nine.

From these numbers, I think it's reasonable to say more passengers from NOL-SAS travel west of SAS than CHI-SAS. Now maybe the near 6 hr. layover in SAS for that portion is the reason why there is more traffic to NOL/HOS.

But you wonder if maybe it would be better to force the transfer for the CHI-SAS passengers. Also, I'd imagine there would be times where the TE north of SAS heading to CHI is delayed because the SL/TE from LAX is late. If you break that train up, you can guarantee the train leaves SAS on time more often (of course that means the passengers coming from west of SAS miss the TE connection so six of one and half dozen of the other).

 

[WoodyinNYC]

For Sunset/Eagle passengers to/from Houston and New Orleans, I'm more concerned about the low average speed, 40 or 45 mph iirc.

Houston-San Antonio should be a state-supported corridor ..

...

If you want to do the state corridor way, I'd go with DAL-SAS as a state corridor option first as my plans dictate. ... Clearly the only SAS-HOU option now is the current SL with lousy times into/out of SAS so multiple frequencies should surely increase ridership between those cities. But as long as the SL leaves SAS in the graveyard shift (and arrives in LAX before 6am) that IMHO is still a problem.

I wasn't thinking priorities there.

But here:

I'd warn that Laredo-San Antonio-Austin-Ft Worth is the NAFTA rail route for freight (as is I-35 for trucks) from/to Mexican factories. It's terribly crowded and likely to get more so.

Some years down the road, commuter rail San Antonio-New Braunfels-San Marcos-Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown-Taylor could help with better tracks, but only on that segment. The northern half to Dallas-Ft Worth would remain crowded and slow.

San Antonio-Houston is busy for freight, but nothing like the NAFTA route.

Surprisingly, sprawl hasn't yet ruined the land between exurban San Antone and exurban H'town. (They're working on it, tho. LOL.) The right of way is wide enuff for many long sidings or double track. Many level crossings need upgrades in any case, but there's usually room to do grade separations. So this a good segment to spend money and get quick results. North from San Antonio, where the tracks run thru towns no longer small, will be much more costly per mile, much more. (We're talking my childhood stomping grounds, btw.)

East from H'town you could get a commuter/short-corridor line to Beaumont, an old oil industry city with strong ties to Houston. Then to make things really work to N'awlins, you'd need cooperation from Louisiana. Two states with lots of haters. Still, a large construction project always presents large opportunities for graft and contractor corruption, so it could appeal to many powerful people in Austin and Baton Rouge.

Another way to upgrade the Eagle is Marshall-Longview-Mineola (for Tyler)-Dallas-Ft Worth. Fairly dense intermediate population is left over from the great boom of the giant East Texas Oil Field. Push the route from Marshall barely 40 miles to Shreveport, where riverboat gambling is a huge draw from the D-FW MetroPlex, so it overlaps the Eagle almost all the way. Money spent on upgrades would benefit both.

The SB Eagle leaves Marshall at 7:50 a.m. to arrive Dallas at 11:30. NB it leave Dallas at 3:40 p.m. to arrive in Marshall at 7:30 in the evening. Not bad, but doesn't get the gamblers to Shreveport. (There is a kinda sorta, but slow, Thruway bus.) Taking an hour, even hlf an hour, out of the run times would be great.

If Shreveport puts in for operating support, and Dallas joins in, and those intermediate towns start to whine, "Texas is helping to support a train to Oklahoma City, why not help with our train?" some Texas money might be forthcoming for one or two corridor trains each way.

But that segment Marshall-Ft Dallas is 151 miles, in 3 hrs 40 minutes or 3 hrs 50 minutes, plus about an hour on the bus to the casinos. Too slow a trip, at barely 40 mph.

So, one TIGER grant at a time (or how?), speed up that segment for passenger trains, to get Dallas-Shreveport under 4 hours, and make room for another 2 or 3 corridor trains on this route. Getting the Eagle into Dallas at 11 a.m. instead of 11:30 would be a good thing, too.

Another way to crack the nut. If Amtrak ever gets money for new routes (like, after a nuclear temper tantrum in the Middle East, or whatever) : Take a second run of the Crescent, (the long-desired day train?) or split the Crescent we've got at Atlanta (or Birmingham if ATL never gets it act together), then Meridian-Jackson-Vicksburg-Monroe-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth (or even on down to San Antonio, I'm open to that). That creates a second frequency for the gamblers and others on the East Texas Corridor.

Then take Bobbi Jindal's suggestion, before they told him that because Obama was for trains all right-thinking people were supposed to be against them. Jindal wanted New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Alexandria-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth. (You could, I guess, make that one another version splitting off the Crescent Birmingham-Montgomery-Mobile-Biloxi-New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Shreveport-Dallas-Ft Worth, if you could do another long distance train.) So that gets another frequency for the gamblers and others on the East Texas Corridor.

Both of those schemes add a lot of connectivity, and with the Sunset Shuttle, they cover all of Louisiana, to offset the political power of the haters.

But as for priorities, they all look good. So I'll let the Lege in Austin (and the CongressCritters in D.C.) sort them out.

 

[west point]

IMHO The San Antonia station is the worse of Amtrak's high usage stations. ATL is a palace compared to SAS. SAS station is a repurposed old SP building just south of original SP station. It really needs replacing in conjunction of proposed additional service.

The station waiting room cannot hold all originating passengers for the Eagle in either direction. ( only about 30 seats )( maybe another 30 standees). It is even worse for the eastbound 3 day a week trains. Then imagine 7 days a week service with east and west bound trains arriving at the same time ( Now only Sundays and Tuesday possibilities ). Platforms are breaking down. Lighting is terrible with CFLs only in about every other light fixture. No PA. room for only one or two agents. Bathrooms ugh !

Now there is a stub end track west of main tracks and the two platforms that comes in from the north ( east ). It could be used for a NOL - SAS train to terminate but probably should be backed in if a wye close by. A 480V station HEP power connection is available some 1000 feet north of the stub end which could be extended to the stub end. A permanently parked SP steam loco would need to be moved off the stub to somewhere else.

Westbound the OBS personnel should remain on duty until west bound Eagle arrives. As well OBS for eastbound Sunset should be on duty for the arrival of the Eagle to allow for connecting passengers to transfer without having to wait in station..

The original SP station is located ideally for service as trains to / from FTW can approach from either of 2 tracks ( MP & MKTT ). The stub end occupies the closest track next to and south of the old station. The old MP station location would not work that way. The original SP station is reported in private hands ( law firm ? ). If the city could acquire the building which is in very good condition then all the interior space could meet the requirements for a station size for the planned traffic of expanded service. As well the platforms, lighting, servicing facilities need complete rebuilding.

Note SAS is a maintenance location that spends time when trains are not in station to do light maintenance on the standby Superliner sleeper and coach that is based there.

 

[Bob Dylan]

A few corrections on the SAS Amshak:

The current Station, the condition of which you accurately describe, was built as an Amshak, it is not an old SP Building, that is what you call the SP Station that the City of San Antonio owned @ one time, but sold to a Company that rents it out for Festivals,Banquets, Parties, Music Concerts etc but it's seldom used!And there is No Parking!

Most of St. Paul Square ( the area around the rail Station) is basically

unoccupied buildings that are deteriorating. At one time there were lots of Clubs, a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Big Concerts etc.but now the area is mostly deserted day and night.

The current Amshak is next to the Alamo Dome which now only has a few events a year, and except for the Hotels close by, not much is happening here now-a-days!

The City has bought the Historic old IG &N/MoPac Station on the West Side ( #21 passes it on its loop around downtown on the way to the current Station)and had plans to have an Intermodel Station located there for the VIA Busses Sreet Cars and Rail..

 

[neroden]

In reality if Amtrak doesn't want to do through cars anymore between the SL and TE there are really two options:

1) Force NOL-SAS to transfer to the TE.

2) Force CHI-SAS to transfer to the SL.

If Amtrak wants to do option #1, you would think that there are more passengers that travel from CHI-SAS to SAS-LAX than NOL-SAS to SAS-LAX.

Eh, it's hard to figure this out without numbers which Amtrak has but which we don't have. For one thing there are an *awful lot* of trips listed as terminating in San Antonio, and I suspect some of them are actually connecting to the Texas Eagle.