A Different Sunset/Eagle Proposal?

[printman2000]

Saw this blog from the other day... http://takeatrainride.blogspot.com/2010/06...la-and-new.html

How he explains the proposal is different from what I have heard before.

The proposal being kicked around would run the Eagle every day all the way to California – three days a week as part of the Sunset’s consist, and as the Eagle on the other four days. A new connecting train would provide service between San Antonio and New Orleans, presumably on the four days each week when the Sunset does not operate.

Does this guy just have it wrong? Or is this an additional idea? The writer of the blog says he is a NARP board member.

 

[Trogdor]

No such plan is being considered.

The only plan being seriously looked at would have each train operating the same way every day (i.e. Texas Eagle to LA, and a New Orleans to San Antonio train). I have no idea where this guy is getting his info from. He might just be confused.

 

[daveyb99]

No such plan is being considered.
The only plan being seriously looked at would have each train operating the same way every day (i.e. Texas Eagle to LA, and a New Orleans to San Antonio train). I have no idea where this guy is getting his info from. He might just be confused.

I think the writer is say essentially the same thing.

but I do like the concept of full-time service CHI-FTW-SAS-LAX, with the Sunset remaining as it for 3-day to NOL, then a smaller train the other 4 days. That would certainly enhance the service all around.

 

[had8ley]

Good golly...talk about lack of transparency. This Eagle to LAX is getting about as worn out as the Sunset east of NOL. I wonder which, if any, will take place first ???

 

[Trogdor]

No such plan is being considered.
The only plan being seriously looked at would have each train operating the same way every day (i.e. Texas Eagle to LA, and a New Orleans to San Antonio train). I have no idea where this guy is getting his info from. He might just be confused.

I think the writer is say essentially the same thing.

but I do like the concept of full-time service CHI-FTW-SAS-LAX, with the Sunset remaining as it for 3-day to NOL, then a smaller train the other 4 days. That would certainly enhance the service all around.

It's not the same thing (essentially, or otherwise). If the Texas Eagle goes daily to LA, there will be no NOL-LAX service (three days per week, or any other number of days per week).

 

[Guest]

Here is an idea and compromise for all sides.

Sunset ORL-LAX tri-weekly.

Texas Eagle CHI-SAS-LAX 4 days...connecting coaches 3 days with Sunset.

Crescent extended 4 days to SAS...

CONO extened 4 days to ORL...

Won't happen, just a thought...

 

[MikefromCrete]

Saw this blog from the other day... http://takeatrainride.blogspot.com/2010/06...la-and-new.html
How he explains the proposal is different from what I have heard before.

The proposal being kicked around would run the Eagle every day all the way to California – three days a week as part of the Sunset’s consist, and as the Eagle on the other four days. A new connecting train would provide service between San Antonio and New Orleans, presumably on the four days each week when the Sunset does not operate.

Does this guy just have it wrong? Or is this an additional idea? The writer of the blog says he is a NARP board member.

Sounds like an interesting compromise, but it's the first time I have heard of it

 

[Trogdor]

Here is an idea and compromise for all sides.
Sunset ORL-LAX tri-weekly.

Texas Eagle CHI-SAS-LAX 4 days...connecting coaches 3 days with Sunset.

Crescent extended 4 days to SAS...

CONO extened 4 days to ORL...

Won't happen, just a thought...

The equipment rotations on such a plan would be horribly inefficient.

 

[Guest]

Here is an idea and compromise for all sides.
Sunset ORL-LAX tri-weekly.

Texas Eagle CHI-SAS-LAX 4 days...connecting coaches 3 days with Sunset.

Crescent extended 4 days to SAS...

CONO extened 4 days to ORL...

Won't happen, just a thought...

The equipment rotations on such a plan would be horribly inefficient.

No it would not.

The SAS-NOL stub train in Amtrak's plans require 2 non-sleeper trainsets. Extending the

Crescent 4 times a week would require just 1 sleeper trainset.

NOL-ORL stub in Amtrak plans will require 2 non-sleeper trainsets. Extending the

CONO 4 times a week would require just 1 sleeper trainset.

 

[Donctor]

Saw this blog from the other day... http://takeatrainride.blogspot.com/2010/06...la-and-new.html
How he explains the proposal is different from what I have heard before.

The proposal being kicked around would run the Eagle every day all the way to California – three days a week as part of the Sunset’s consist, and as the Eagle on the other four days. A new connecting train would provide service between San Antonio and New Orleans, presumably on the four days each week when the Sunset does not operate.

Does this guy just have it wrong? Or is this an additional idea? The writer of the blog says he is a NARP board member.

This guy has it wrong. He may well be on the NARP board, but that doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

Texas Eagle was going to 7 days between Chicago, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, Los Angles.

Another Coach only stub train was to run between San Antonio, TX and New Orleans, LA.

That's the plan. Was to start in October. Union Pacific was and may still be the issue.

 

[henryj]

Saw this blog from the other day... http://takeatrainride.blogspot.com/2010/06...la-and-new.html
How he explains the proposal is different from what I have heard before.

The proposal being kicked around would run the Eagle every day all the way to California – three days a week as part of the Sunset’s consist, and as the Eagle on the other four days. A new connecting train would provide service between San Antonio and New Orleans, presumably on the four days each week when the Sunset does not operate.

Does this guy just have it wrong? Or is this an additional idea? The writer of the blog says he is a NARP board member.

He doesn't appear to be a NARP board member. Here is the list. http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/reso.../more/officers/

Sounds like just more speculation or maybe wishful thinking.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

No such plan is being considered.
The only plan being seriously looked at would have each train operating the same way every day (i.e. Texas Eagle to LA, and a New Orleans to San Antonio train). I have no idea where this guy is getting his info from. He might just be confused.

I think the writer is say essentially the same thing.

but I do like the concept of full-time service CHI-FTW-SAS-LAX, with the Sunset remaining as it for 3-day to NOL, then a smaller train the other 4 days. That would certainly enhance the service all around.

He is not saying the same thing and, indeed, what he is proposing is beyond the bounds of Amtrak's current equipment.

Furthermore, would the nitwits that are saying there will be no NOL-LAX service stop twisting the truth like plastic rebar jammed into a runaway impact wrench? There will be no SINGLE RIDE DIRECT SERVICE between NOL-LAX. Just like there is no single ride direct service between ANY city significantly east of the Mississippi and ANY city significantly west of the Mississippi.

There will be service however, it will not include a sleeping car, at least initially, and you poor abused travelers will have to cross a platform in San Antonio to continue your trip.

 

[Trogdor]

Here is an idea and compromise for all sides.
Sunset ORL-LAX tri-weekly.

Texas Eagle CHI-SAS-LAX 4 days...connecting coaches 3 days with Sunset.

Crescent extended 4 days to SAS...

CONO extened 4 days to ORL...

Won't happen, just a thought...

The equipment rotations on such a plan would be horribly inefficient.

No it would not.

The SAS-NOL stub train in Amtrak's plans require 2 non-sleeper trainsets. Extending the

Crescent 4 times a week would require just 1 sleeper trainset.

SAS-NOL is about 15 hours. Extending the Crescent to SAS would not give you enough time to do a same-day turn to head back. You'd need more than the 3-4 hours in San Antonio to make that turn. Therefore, the train would have to spend an entire day in San Antonio and head back the next day. Let's pretend they could do a same-day turn in San Antonio, then the following day's train, which only goes to New Orleans, would be ready to depart NOL on the same day as the train coming in from San Antonio. Therefore, that train would have to sit in New Orleans for another 24 hours (since the train from SAS is covering the departure that otherwise would be filled by the train that overnighted in New Orleans.

How can you say that having a train sit in NOL for an extra day (on top of is 12-hour layover) is not horribly inefficient?

If you give the San Antonio train a full day's layover, then any way you schedule it, you'll either have a train sitting around in New Orleans for an extra day (or two) beyond its normal layover so it can wait for a slot not filled by a through train from San Antonio, or you'll have a gap in service out of New Orleans because the previous night's train continued to San Antonio, but there isn't a corresponding inbound from SAS that can head north.

Any way you slice it, you'll have to add two trainsets (which would be enough for daily service).

NOL-ORL stub in Amtrak plans will require 2 non-sleeper trainsets. Extending theCONO 4 times a week would require just 1 sleeper trainset.

Same thing as above.

Plus, you conveniently ignore the fact that, in addition to the "1" (really 2) trains you'd add on the Crescent, and the "1" (really 2) trainsets added to the City of New Orleans, you'd need an extra 3 for the Sunset Limited service 3 days per week. You seem to suggest that extending the City/Crescent 4 days per week (on top of the Sunset) will require less equipment than the stub trains. That's simply not the case.

I am in no way suggesting what routes should or shouldn't run. But I will say that whatever runs should run the same way every day. Trying to mix and match days of the week simply doesn't work from an equipment turn perspective, besides being very confusing to the passenger.

 

[Guest]

Crescent arrives at 7:30 pm in NOL, 3 hours maintenance, leave for SAS at 10pm.

In SAS 1PM. Leave SAS at 2pm, back in NOL at 5am for a 7am departure north....

1 extra trainset.....

 

[jis]

Crescent arrives at 7:30 pm in NOL, 3 hours maintenance, leave for SAS at 10pm.In SAS 1PM. Leave SAS at 2pm, back in NOL at 5am for a 7am departure north....

1 extra trainset.....

I would be absolutely amazed if that tight a turn could be maintained even for a single day. But wonders never cease I suppose. It will definitely work in my virtual train scheduling system though :lol:

 

[haolerider]

Crescent arrives at 7:30 pm in NOL, 3 hours maintenance, leave for SAS at 10pm.In SAS 1PM. Leave SAS at 2pm, back in NOL at 5am for a 7am departure north....

1 extra trainset.....

Not enough time for maintenance, cleaning, restocking, etc.

 

[George Harris]

Talk is cheap

 

[City of Miami]

and you poor abused travelers will have to cross a platform in San Antonio to continue your trip.

There is no platform to cross in SAS. Currently to make a connection the wait can be as long as 8 hrs - and, I believe, 2.5 hrs at the very least in any direction.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Crescent arrives at 7:30 pm in NOL, 3 hours maintenance, leave for SAS at 10pm.In SAS 1PM. Leave SAS at 2pm, back in NOL at 5am for a 7am departure north....1 extra trainset.....

Not enough time for maintenance, cleaning, restocking, etc.

Everyone said you couldn't turn a plane in thirty minutes. Then Southwest came along and did it like clockwork. Decade after decade. Heck, now it's more like twenty minutes these days. I realize there's more to stocking a train but if it can't be done in three hours then what is taking so long? Not to mention that the trains I ride out of SAS don't appear to be all that clean or well maintained. On my last trip the first week of June I had a gunky disgusting corner in my roomette and a malfunctioning chair that wouldn't stay locked in place. So I could choose to either hold it back with my legs or face the opposite direction of the train. It wasn't the end of the world, but it does make me wonder just how much maintenance trains are actually receiving in SAS. On the trip prior to that I overheard the cafe car attendant calling in an order for out of stock drinks, which would obviously have to be filled somewhere else since we had just left SAS. If it truly takes more than three hours something might be wrong with how Amtrak does their cleaning and restocking. Just to give you another window on how poorly SAS is run, you can walk in as the first customer when the doors are unlocked and find the toilets still stopped up and unusable from the previous night. Does anyone ever clean them?!

 

[City of Miami]

I am beginning to suspect that #21 gets no maintenance or cleaning AT ALL in San Antonio. On my 3 trips last month, in coach, the attendants were working like fury after AUS to collect all the garbage, sweep the floors, put the seat backs up and foot rests down etc. The last trip I discovered, when I needed to take a leak, that the rest rooms were locked because the attendant had 'cleaned them already.' Whoa! I wonder if the tanks get dumped even. This is a helluva state of affairs for our country if these trains can go for thousands of miles with no maintenance or cleaning at all.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

and you poor abused travelers will have to cross a platform in San Antonio to continue your trip.

There is no platform to cross in SAS. Currently to make a connection the wait can be as long as 8 hrs - and, I believe, 2.5 hrs at the very least in any direction.

First of all, one of the key points of this proposal was tightening up that connection down to the 1 hour, 2 hour at most, range.

Second of all, I was being figurative.

For all of the increased connectivity and higher levels of service. I trumpet thus: DAILY SERVICE DAILY SERVICE DAILY SERVICE! I still hear people objecting to this. Because they have to change trains.

It is like, wow, I can cure cancer, all I have to do is press the button. But what if I overstress my button pressing finger?

Or, even more hilarious: This isn't the perfect solution. Not that this precludes a better solution in any way (trains are now running at increased frequencies, UP won't care which equipment heads north and which equipment continues east). Therefore, the proper solution is to preserve the inadequate level of service and wait until Amtrak offers the perfect solution. Because if we don't, by golly, we'll lose a historic name.

 

[AlanB]

First of all, one of the key points of this proposal was tightening up that connection down to the 1 hour, 2 hour at most, range.

That will happen with or without the proposed changes to the Eagle. The schedules will be tightened no matter what, and therefore that isn't a reason for or against the proposal.

For all of the increased connectivity and higher levels of service. I trumpet thus: DAILY SERVICE DAILY SERVICE DAILY SERVICE! I still hear people objecting to this. Because they have to change trains.

It's not just about having to change trains, it's about losing an entire class of service and other amenities. And it's also about having to change trains. If we were just talking daily service, I'd be all for this. But we're not just talking about making this train daily. We're talking about throwing away a one seat ride, throwing away dining car service, and throwing away sleeping car service. And at least so far I've seen nothing that convinces me that having daily service in an area where trains are not the norm will overcome the lost revenue from those other three factors.

Or, even more hilarious: This isn't the perfect solution. Not that this precludes a better solution in any way (trains are now running at increased frequencies, UP won't care which equipment heads north and which equipment continues east). Therefore, the proper solution is to preserve the inadequate level of service and wait until Amtrak offers the perfect solution. Because if we don't, by golly, we'll lose a historic name.

I still believe that if Amtrak can find the needed cars to make the Eagle daily, then it can find the cars to make the Sunset daily. Therefore there is no need to wait for a "perfect solution", since it's already here.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

That will happen with or without the proposed changes to the Eagle. The schedules will be tightened no matter what, and therefore that isn't a reason for or against the proposal.

I know that. I was simply objecting to the posters stating the lack of that close connectivity as a reason for not making the change. The connectivity, as you state, is a moot point.

It's not just about having to change trains, it's about losing an entire class of service and other amenities. And it's also about having to change trains. If we were just talking daily service, I'd be all for this. But we're not just talking about making this train daily. We're talking about throwing away a one seat ride, throwing away dining car service, and throwing away sleeping car service. And at least so far I've seen nothing that convinces me that having daily service in an area where trains are not the norm will overcome the lost revenue from those other three factors.

Unless you have some really weird problems, there is no reason on earth to operate a sleeper on a day train. Under the current plans, the route from SAS to NOL is a day train. There is no reason to send a sleeper along its route. A business class car, capable of handling many more passengers and NOT including the cost burden of full meals, can produce similar revenues, incrementally.

Second, we are not losing full meal service according to my sources. The train will run with a CCC that will serve full meals. And that one seat ride? I don't think it amounts to much. Not with this sucker.

I still believe that if Amtrak can find the needed cars to make the Eagle daily, then it can find the cars to make the Sunset daily. Therefore there is no need to wait for a "perfect solution", since it's already here.

That assumes that running the Sunset daily, and not the Eagle, is the ideal solution. According to statistics I have received, the Texas Eagle's sleeper almost always departed San Antonio with more passengers than the Sunset Limited's. I, completely, disagree with your assessment. In fact, there are times when the through coach AND through sleepers are carrying more passengers than the entirety of the Sunset Limiteds other cars.

Obviously, the ideal solution is to run both trains daily, and then connect a through coach and sleeper from one of them to the other, daily. But I doubt even you would argue that equipment for THAT is not available.

 

[AlanB]

It's not just about having to change trains, it's about losing an entire class of service and other amenities. And it's also about having to change trains. If we were just talking daily service, I'd be all for this. But we're not just talking about making this train daily. We're talking about throwing away a one seat ride, throwing away dining car service, and throwing away sleeping car service. And at least so far I've seen nothing that convinces me that having daily service in an area where trains are not the norm will overcome the lost revenue from those other three factors.

Unless you have some really weird problems, there is no reason on earth to operate a sleeper on a day train. Under the current plans, the route from SAS to NOL is a day train. There is no reason to send a sleeper along its route. A business class car, capable of handling many more passengers and NOT including the cost burden of full meals, can produce similar revenues, incrementally.

Second, we are not losing full meal service according to my sources. The train will run with a CCC that will serve full meals. And that one seat ride? I don't think it amounts to much. Not with this sucker.

I'm comparing what we have now to the proposed day train. That comparison shows that we lose a sleeper and a diner.

I still believe that if Amtrak can find the needed cars to make the Eagle daily, then it can find the cars to make the Sunset daily. Therefore there is no need to wait for a "perfect solution", since it's already here.

That assumes that running the Sunset daily, and not the Eagle, is the ideal solution. According to statistics I have received, the Texas Eagle's sleeper almost always departed San Antonio with more passengers than the Sunset Limited's. I, completely, disagree with your assessment. In fact, there are times when the through coach AND through sleepers are carrying more passengers than the entirety of the Sunset Limiteds other cars.

Obviously, the ideal solution is to run both trains daily, and then connect a through coach and sleeper from one of them to the other, daily. But I doubt even you would argue that equipment for THAT is not available.

I agree that assumes that running the Sunset daily is the ideal solution. And to date, I've seen nothing that dispels that notion. And I've seen nothing that shows that a daily Eagle is a better solution and all numbers that are available from Amtrak do not support that conclusion.

As for the conclusion that the Eagle's through cars carry more pax, that's simply not possible. Taking Amtrak's own numbers from last year and subtracting out the sleepers shows that the average Sunset Limited carries about 203 passengers. Even assuming that some people don't ride the full length and that seats are turned over, there is no way that a single coach capable of carrying 75 people can be carrying more than the Sunset Limited.

Looking at sleeping car numbers, the Sunset averaged 49 pax per trip, again more than the single Eagle through sleeper is capable of carrying. And I know that on my recent trip, not only was our sleeper sold out, rooms were sold into the Trans/Dorm also. That makes it impossible for the Eagle's through sleeper to have been carrying more sleeping car pax.

And yes, I agree that at present Amtrak cannot equip both the Sunset and the Eagle to make full daily runs to LA. But I do believe that making the Sunset daily is possible once the equipment from BG comes online. No need to downgrade service NOL-SAS to achieve daily service. And they can still change the name if they want for all I care; especially since I continue to believe that is one of the bigger reasons for the current plan, Amtrak wants to do away with that name since it’s an albatross around their neck.