Bottlenecks Preventing Cardinal/Sunset Limited From Going Daily

[Anderson]

One thing that struck me is that, CSX's intransigence notwithstanding, Amtrak ought to be able to get 4x weekly Cardinals out of the existing equipment instead of three (it's a three-day round-trip and you have a resulting "rest day" for each set, so you'd get:

    Set One   Set Two
M  D. NYP    
T  Turn CHI  D. NYP
W  A. NYP    Turn CHI
R  D. NYP    A. NYP
F  Turn CHI  D. NYP
S  A. NYP    Turn CHI
U  Rest      A. NYP
M  D. NYP    Rest
T  Turn CHI  D. NYP
W  A. NYP    Turn CHI

So under this the trains could leave NYP Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Fri and CHI on Tues, Wed, Fri, and Sat (or some variation of that).

 

[neroden]

It's been clear for a long time that Amtrak has plenty of equipment for a daily Cardinal. The financial situation -- estimates range from an outdated "costs <$1 million/year more" to my "generates $5 million more every year" -- is obviously not a problem, given that the dollars-per-rider metrics would look much much much better. Freight traffic is down on the lines involved, which are arguably overbuilt for the current freight environment, and there's definitely capacity for a daily Cardinal with only minor improvements...

It's 100% clear that the only obstacle is reaching agreement with CSX (and Buckingham Branch, and NS, and whichever combination of railroads is needed to get the Cardinal into Chicago). It's not clear what those host railroads *want* in exchange for a daily Cardinal. They often ask for improvements which seem rather tangentially related (in order to allow them to divert traffic or whatever) -- if we knew what those improvements are we could advocate for them, but we don't.

 

[Anthony V]

The bottleneck is the Union Pacific, owns the tracks and has no interest in hosting more Amtrak trains without serious money.

UP owns part of the tracks the CZ, TE, and CS trains and those trains run daily. So why does UP let those trains run daily but not the SL?

Amtrak came very close to reaching an agreement with UP a few years ago for daily service over the Sunset Limited route from NOL to LAX. One long standing bottleneck was that the corridor historically was all or mostly all single track from east of San Bernardino to El Paso. UP has been incrementally double tracking the corridor to handle the growing traffic from the port at Long Beach. ... reportedly someone at Amtrak got UP upset and blew the deal, resulting in UP asking $600 million or more, the cost of the remaining double tracking, to allow a daily SL. This happened 4 to 5 years ago, earlier in the Boardman era.

More [most?] of the SL route is now double tracked, [with UP's own pennies] so don't know why Amtrak has not tried again for a daily SL with UP - or maybe they have and any discussions have been kept confidential.

Yeah, that's the story I've seen, here and elsewhere on the Net. UP felt the Amtrak exec had been tricky, or came in at the last minute asking for more, and so had somehow bargained in bath faith. UP had a temper tantrum. I think I might have had one too in that situation. Anyway, the UP got over it. Not long afterwards it worked with Amtrak on a new schedule that is 9 hours faster, allowing connections with the [/i]Coast Starlight[/i], has much shorter connections with the Eagle in San Antonio, gives good overnight times to Maricopa (Phoenix) and Tucson, and most of all, freed up a consist that was sent to add capacity on the Capitol Ltd. In conclusion [applause] I ain't mad at the U.P. about this mess.

Seems like we might be back to waiting for Godot, er, more equipment. I figure the San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans Sunset Shuttle will be a great place to use Horizon cars, but alas ...Godot will keep us waiting a good while longer.

And Superliners are needed everywhere. The Zephyr reported more riders n higher revenue for Jan n Feb, which the Monthly Report attributed to another sleeper. Where did six sleepers come from?

(That report also mentioned cut out cars for Reno, which got me excited, But on looking at press releases, that was only Friday n Sunday ski service after the Sierra Nevadas got a huge snowfall. Good, but not enuff. )

In the political calculation, Sen John McCain of AZ has long, long been a hater. On the other hand, Amtrak can make a Republican Senator and a Republican Governor in Mississippi very happy with the CONO/Gulf Coaster. A daily Sunset was forecast to add 100,000 to 125,000 (I forget) more riders. The CONO Gulf Coaster is forecast to add 138,000. Well, if it's your call...

To Philly's question about choke points, one is the station at Maricopa. At the present time, the Sunset Ltd. has to stop two or three times because of a very short platform. Meanwhile it blocks UP trains on the main line, and blocks rush hour traffic on a main street/state highway. The TIGER grants released last fall included money to match the state highway dept and local govs (quite a nice contribution from the state, iirc) to move the station away from the main road. They will build a separate track where the passenger train can get out of the way, and full length platform will allow the station pause to be much shorter. It's win-win-win and it's coming much sooner than any bi-level cars.

Amtrak needs more Superliners to make the Sunset daily, but doesn't have the money to order more. However, if they take the Superliners from the Capitol Limited and make that train a single-level train, that not only would free up enough Superliners to make the Sunset daily, but it would allow Amtrak to start the long awaited Pensylvanian-CL thru-cars to Chicago. In other words, it would be better use of what little equipment they have.

The money that would need to be spent to alleviate the choke point at Maricopa would better be spent rebuilding and reopening the Welton Branch so the train can serve Phoenix again. This would bring the ridership that was lost in 1996 due to the loss of service to Phoenix back to the SL while spending the upgrade money more wisely, and freeing up that part of the mainline for UP, which would make them happier.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Amtrak needs more Superliners to make the Sunset daily, but doesn't have the money to order more. However, if they take the Superliners from the Capitol Limited and make that train a single-level train, that not only would free up enough Superliners to make the Sunset daily, but it would allow Amtrak to start the long awaited Pensylvanian-CL thru-cars to Chicago. In other words, it would be better use of what little equipment they have.

Right now Amtrak doesn't have enough Heritage Diners to support the SM, Crescent, and LSL. Even if Amtrak has the Viewliner sleepers to support the CL, no way they will have a Heritage diner to spare. Are CL passengers willing to sacrifice their diner car to make the SL go daily?

 

[jis]

The claim about the lack of Superliners to make the SL daily may also be somewhat questionable, specially if the plan proposed in the PIP for SL is used.

 

[PVD]

They will probably have the diners before the sleepers to do the CL but should have both at some point in the (hopefully) near future. If the NS meltdown had not occurred, we would have had a pool of Horizons that could be rebuilt into LD Coaches at the same time. .

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Amtrak came very close to reaching an agreement with UP a few years ago for daily service

... choke points ... at Maricopa. At the present time, the Sunset Ltd. has to stop two or three times because of a very short platform. Meanwhile it blocks UP trains on the main line, and blocks rush hour traffic on a main street/state highway. The TIGER grants released last fall included money to match the state highway dept and local govs (quite a nice contribution from the state, iirc) to move the station away from the main road. They will build a separate track where the passenger train can get out of the way, and full length platform will allow the station pause to be much shorter. It's win-win-win and it's coming much sooner than any bi-level cars.

The money ... to alleviate the choke point at Maricopa would better be spent rebuilding and reopening the Welton Branch so the train can serve Phoenix again ... and free up that part of the mainline for UP, which would make them happier.

Don't worry about wasted money in Maricopa. That little project, about $100 million iirc, will use less than $25 million of federal funds, mostly money from Arizona Dept of Highways.

Of course you're right that restoring service to center city Phoenix would transform the Sunset Ltd/Texas Eagle.

Equally obvious, corridor service Tucson-Phoenix would gain hundreds of thousands of riders. Well, Arizona paid for a study of the obvious that claimed the upgrades needed for Tucson-Phoenix (not the UP main line) would cost about $450 million. And that price didn't get you anything west of Phoenix. Nothing moving on that front.

California is working on a route L.A.-Palm Springs-Indio. That'll be about half way to Yuma. Get down there and tickle Arizona's fanny, maybe get things going for corridor service L.A.-Palms Springs-Yuma-Phoenix-Tucson?

 

[afigg]

It's been clear for a long time that Amtrak has plenty of equipment for a daily Cardinal. The financial situation -- estimates range from an outdated "costs <$1 million/year more" to my "generates $5 million more every year" -- is obviously not a problem, given that the dollars-per-rider metrics would look much much much better. Freight traffic is down on the lines involved, which are arguably overbuilt for the current freight environment, and there's definitely capacity for a daily Cardinal with only minor improvements...

It's 100% clear that the only obstacle is reaching agreement with CSX (and Buckingham Branch, and NS, and whichever combination of railroads is needed to get the Cardinal into Chicago). It's not clear what those host railroads *want* in exchange for a daily Cardinal. They often ask for improvements which seem rather tangentially related (in order to allow them to divert traffic or whatever) -- if we knew what those improvements are we could advocate for them, but we don't.

No, for a daily Cardinal, Amtrak would have to deal with a shortfall of Viewliner sleeper cars (especially if they ran with 2 sleeper cars with 3 consists) and Amfleet II coach cars. If the remaining CAF Viewliner IIs are ever delivered, that will address the sleeper car shortfall of course. Amfleet II coach cars will remain an issue which might be solved by converting some Horizons to LD coach cars after the N-S bi-levels are all delivered. Or pull the Amfleet IIs off of the "medium range" state supported corridor trains in place of state funded modified/upgraded Horizon coach cars.

Besides the Buckingham Branch/CSX capacity issues, the 4 day a week state funded Hoosier State is a roadblock to a daily Cardinal. If Amtrak were to run the Cardinal daily, that would provide Indiana an excuse to cut funding for a 4 day a week train. If, on the other hand, Iowa Pacific sweet talked IN and the local governments into paying for a daily HS on a shifted schedule from the Cardinal, that would remove that particular issue.

Edit: oops, responded to a 2+ month old post....

 

[afigg]

The money that would need to be spent to alleviate the choke point at Maricopa would better be spent rebuilding and reopening the Welton Branch so the train can serve Phoenix again. This would bring the ridership that was lost in 1996 due to the loss of service to Phoenix back to the SL while spending the upgrade money more wisely, and freeing up that part of the mainline for UP, which would make them happier.

To clarify, the new Amtrak station and platform at Maricopa is only a small portion of the $55+ million project. The purpose of the project is to separate a grade crossing of an increasingly busy SR347 with a 4 lane highway overpass over the UP tracks. In order to build the overpass, the current Amtrak station and platform have to be moved elsewhere.

As WoodyinNYC noted, CA is studying and advancing plans for a LA to Coachella valley corridor service with at least 2 daily trains. Odds are good that CA will start such a service in 5 or 6 years (after years are spent on studies, EIS, rounds of public meetings for a route that already has passenger service albeit a 3 day a week train) . That could eventually get Arizona and the City of Phoenix interested in extending a corridor service to Phoenix, but I think the light rail system in Phoenix has to be significantly expanded first and Arizona's politics have to change as well.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

I don't know if there is even enough Superliners for New Orleans to Florida. I think with a combination of the Horizons and new Viewliners the CONO to Florida can be a single level train. This should free up enough Superliners for a daily SL and keeping the CL with Superliners. It also allows the train to continue to Miami. A third frequency in Florida allows the opportunity for either a train via Ocala or the FEC. I would also much rather have the SSL available through the Appalachians on the CL rather than the CONO/Gulf Coast train. And if for some reason the Gulf Coast train does not get built, it is necessary to keep the CL with Superliners to allow an exchange between Lorton and Chicago.

 

[jis]

There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.

However, no one is seriously proposing changing the Cap from Superliner to single level at any place that matters. That of course excludes prognostications in AU.

The Gulf Coast service as things stand will most likely be an extension of a section from the CONO and the3re are enough cars around for achieving that. That is the option that provides the most bang for the buck according to the report produced by Amtrak for the Southern Rail Commission. BTW this will also provde a through Chiacgo - Florida service, removing the need for extending anything from the Cap to Florida.

And finally, the way the deal that was involved in SunRail acquiring the CSX main line from Deland to Poinciana was structured, practically speaking, barring huge additional costs for upgrading the Ocala line, there will never be a passenger service through Ocala, never mind how many trains run to Florida. So forget about that. Running a train down FEC does not require a third train from the north.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.

However, no one is seriously proposing changing the Cap from Superliner to single level at any place that matters. That of course excludes prognostications in AU.

Does the proposed through cars off the CL require the CL to switch to VL or can they still be implemented off the current SL's of the CL?

 

[jis]

There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.

However, no one is seriously proposing changing the Cap from Superliner to single level at any place that matters. That of course excludes prognostications in AU.

Does the proposed through cars off the CL require the CL to switch to VL or can they still be implemented off the current SL's of the CL?

No it does not require the CL to change to ,ow level. Rad the PIP. It proposes to tack on 3 to 5 single level cars to the Trans-Dorm end of the train, allowing access to the Superliner part of the train from the low level part.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.

However, no one is seriously proposing changing the Cap from Superliner to single level at any place that matters. That of course excludes prognostications in AU.

Does the proposed through cars off the CL require the CL to switch to VL or can they still be implemented off the current SL's of the CL?

No it does not require the CL to change to ,ow level. Rad the PIP. It proposes to tack on 3 to 5 single level cars to the Trans-Dorm end of the train, allowing access to the Superliner part of the train from the low level part.

The easiest way to do that would be to run the baggage car to NYP in the front of the train and utilize the coach baggage for Washington. Would the Washington sleepers be moved to the back of the train similar to the CZ to eliminate through traffic (except for the transition car)? Would the train use a Viewliner or Superliner Diner? Would it retain the SSL or would an Amfleet II Lounge replace it? Would there be any NYP sleepers?

 

[CCC1007]

There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.

However, no one is seriously proposing changing the Cap from Superliner to single level at any place that matters. That of course excludes prognostications in AU.

Does the proposed through cars off the CL require the CL to switch to VL or can they still be implemented off the current SL's of the CL?

No it does not require the CL to change to ,ow level. Rad the PIP. It proposes to tack on 3 to 5 single level cars to the Trans-Dorm end of the train, allowing access to the Superliner part of the train from the low level part.

The easiest way to do that would be to run the baggage car to NYP in the front of the train and utilize the coach baggage for Washington. Would the Washington sleepers be moved to the back of the train similar to the CZ to eliminate through traffic (except for the transition car)? Would the train use a Viewliner or Superliner Diner? Would it retain the SSL or would an Amfleet II Lounge replace it? Would there be any NYP sleepers?

I would simply flip the existing consist, and send the baggage car with the New York section, along with a sleeper and one to three coaches.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.

However, no one is seriously proposing changing the Cap from Superliner to single level at any place that matters. That of course excludes prognostications in AU.

Does the proposed through cars off the CL require the CL to switch to VL or can they still be implemented off the current SL's of the CL?

No it does not require the CL to change to ,ow level. Rad the PIP. It proposes to tack on 3 to 5 single level cars to the Trans-Dorm end of the train, allowing access to the Superliner part of the train from the low level part.

The easiest way to do that would be to run the baggage car to NYP in the front of the train and utilize the coach baggage for Washington. Would the Washington sleepers be moved to the back of the train similar to the CZ to eliminate through traffic (except for the transition car)? Would the train use a Viewliner or Superliner Diner? Would it retain the SSL or would an Amfleet II Lounge replace it? Would there be any NYP sleepers?

I would simply flip the existing consist, and send the baggage car with the New York section, along with a sleeper and one to three coaches.

So basically:

P42 (WAS)

P42 (PHL)

Baggage (NYP)

Viewliner (NYP)

Amfleet Coaches (NYP)

Superliner Transition Sleeper (WAS)

Superliner Coaches (WAS)

Superliner Sightseer Lounge (WAS)

Superliner Diner (WAS)

Superliner Sleepers (WAS)

It might make more sense to move the diner and SSL up to between the transition car and Superliner coaches. Then you would have 3-5 cars ahead and 4-5 cars behind.

 

[CCC1007]

There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.

However, no one is seriously proposing changing the Cap from Superliner to single level at any place that matters. That of course excludes prognostications in AU.

Does the proposed through cars off the CL require the CL to switch to VL or can they still be implemented off the current SL's of the CL?

No it does not require the CL to change to ,ow level. Rad the PIP. It proposes to tack on 3 to 5 single level cars to the Trans-Dorm end of the train, allowing access to the Superliner part of the train from the low level part.

The easiest way to do that would be to run the baggage car to NYP in the front of the train and utilize the coach baggage for Washington. Would the Washington sleepers be moved to the back of the train similar to the CZ to eliminate through traffic (except for the transition car)? Would the train use a Viewliner or Superliner Diner? Would it retain the SSL or would an Amfleet II Lounge replace it? Would there be any NYP sleepers?

I would simply flip the existing consist, and send the baggage car with the New York section, along with a sleeper and one to three coaches.

So basically:
P42 (WAS)

P42 (PHL)

Baggage (NYP)

Viewliner (NYP)

Amfleet Coaches (NYP)

Superliner Transition Sleeper (WAS)

Superliner Coaches (WAS)

Superliner Sightseer Lounge (WAS)

Superliner Diner (WAS)

Superliner Sleepers (WAS)

It might make more sense to move the diner and SSL up to between the transition car and Superliner coaches. Then you would have 3-5 cars ahead and 4-5 cars behind.

More likeLocomotives

Superliner coaches

Sightseer

Diner

Superliner sleepers

Transition dorm

Amfleet coach(es)

Viewliner sleeper

Viewliner baggage

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

There is no need to have a Superliner train to make a deadhead move of a few Superliners occasionally. So that argument for maintaining a Superliner train between Washington and Chicago is spurious.

However, no one is seriously proposing changing the Cap from Superliner to single level at any place that matters. That of course excludes prognostications in AU.

Does the proposed through cars off the CL require the CL to switch to VL or can they still be implemented off the current SL's of the CL?

No it does not require the CL to change to ,ow level. Rad the PIP. It proposes to tack on 3 to 5 single level cars to the Trans-Dorm end of the train, allowing access to the Superliner part of the train from the low level part.

The easiest way to do that would be to run the baggage car to NYP in the front of the train and utilize the coach baggage for Washington. Would the Washington sleepers be moved to the back of the train similar to the CZ to eliminate through traffic (except for the transition car)? Would the train use a Viewliner or Superliner Diner? Would it retain the SSL or would an Amfleet II Lounge replace it? Would there be any NYP sleepers?

I would simply flip the existing consist, and send the baggage car with the New York section, along with a sleeper and one to three coaches.

So basically:
P42 (WAS)

P42 (PHL)

Baggage (NYP)

Viewliner (NYP)

Amfleet Coaches (NYP)

Superliner Transition Sleeper (WAS)

Superliner Coaches (WAS)

Superliner Sightseer Lounge (WAS)

Superliner Diner (WAS)

Superliner Sleepers (WAS)

It might make more sense to move the diner and SSL up to between the transition car and Superliner coaches. Then you would have 3-5 cars ahead and 4-5 cars behind.

More likeLocomotives

Superliner coaches

Sightseer

Diner

Superliner sleepers

Transition dorm

Amfleet coach(es)

Viewliner sleeper

Viewliner baggage

Having the NYP cars at the back makes sense, but I think Amtrak would keep the Superliner cars in the same order as now (except for the transition sleeper). That would eliminate coach traffic through the Superliner sleepers. On the EB the sleepers are arranged like this, on opposite ends of the train. The only complication here is the transition sleeper that has to be in the middle of the consist.

 

[jis]

This illustrates the wisdom of Santa Fe's original Transition cars being Coach. Of course that was inevitable since the only Hi-Level passenger cars were Coaches

Yes indeed! Both the EB and the LSL are arranged so that the Sleepers are at the two ends.

As for how the cars would be arranged in the consist, that would depend on whether the shunting in PGH is to be done by the road power using road crews or a separate engine, perhaps from the Pennsy would be used. The original plan was to use the road power with road crews (using the restored crossover on the west end for the west bound). That would require a layout like:

Loco-Baggage-VL/SL-Cafe-AFII/Coache(s)-Trans/Dorm-SL/Coache(s)-Sightseer-Diner-SL/Sleeper(s)

The corresponding layout in Pennsy would be (out of Philly):

Loco-VL/SL-Cafe-AFII/Coache(s)-AFI/Coache(s)-BC

Upon arriving at PGH, Pennsy would arrive at the through track. The Pennsy crew would detach the CHI section and place it on the adjacent track using the west end (new) crossovers), and then hook onto the remaining train to back it out to the Wye and back it into the stub end track for overnight storage.

In the east bound direction a similar operation would be carried out in reverse order (Cap drops off the cars using the Cap engine and crew, and then Pennsy picks up and attaches the cars using Pennsy crew before departing east) using the east end crossovers.

This is why it has been considered a no-go until the west end crossover is restored, even though some have figured out a somewhat more convoluted way of achieving a solution using just the crossovers at the east end. Amtrak considered that unpractical.

And yes, the PIP plan was to send the AFI Cafe of the Pennsy all the way to Chicago.

BTW Mods, this subthread probably deserves a thread of its own. It has nothing to do with anything preventing Cardinal or Sunset going daily.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

BTW Mods, this subthread probably deserves a thread of its own. It has nothing to do with anything preventing Cardinal or Sunset going daily.

Sorry about that. Please use this thread to continue the discussion: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66254-phl-chi-route-options/page-8

 

[west point]

Order of importance Cardinal

1. Nippon ( NS ) & CAF delayed deliveries

2. P-42 unacceptable failure rate ( New SC-44s chargers if they prove reliable will free up enough P-42 spares )

3. BBR RR ( CSX ) short sidings

4. Cincinnati departure times

5. Slow tracks in Ohio and Indiana

6. General shortage of single level cars

7. Host RR intransigence

8. Lack of funds

Sunset

11. See #1 above.

12. See #2 above

13. See #6 above causing Inability to reassign Superliner cars from Capital and CNO.

14. See #7 above

15. ADA replacement station platforms

16. Pensacola horse shoe track lay out

15. Cost of rebuilding Horizons

 

[jis]

Pensacola track has nothing to do with Sunset since Sunset is not going to be extended to Florida. It is a Gulf Coast Service issue.