Could Amtrak service between LA and Las Vegas be profitable?

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Willbridge said:
30 Oct 66 - includes the Las Vegas Holiday Special, all coach seats reserved. Special package rate included buffet meal service and coach seat charge. All other trains carried coaches and sleepers.
Lv. LA @ 0900, 1330, 2215.
Lv. LV @ 0450, 1630, 1925.

The Las Vegas Holiday Special made the 1966 trip in each direction in 6' 45". It was turned in Las Vegas in 45 minutes. It made intermediate stops at San Bernardino, Riverside, Pomona, and East Los Angeles (free parking). It did not carry California intrastate passengers. The overnight train carried a sleeper between Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that the eastbound Desert Wind held close to the middle UP departure from L.A. - perhaps just a coincidence. The westbound (which we used most frequently) tended to arrive in Vegas around 0700, where there was a fairly lengthy "fresh air" and refueling stop. Several passengers took the opportunity to duck into the Union Plaza to try their luck, despite announcements not to do so. As a result the platform was always fairly busy, making it difficult to know how many people were boarding to travel to L.A.
 
Brightline must have a business case for the route or they wouldn’t do it. As one commenter mentioned, people over estimate the desirability of driving and air travel. Air is an irritating, expensive hassle. Driving is almost never as fast as the drive time would suggest due to accidents, trucks, and congestion. Driving is also ridiculously fatiguing. The train, on the other hand, is relaxing. You can nap, read, or grab a drink. I’m not sure the lack of a one seat ride is so big an issue, especially since it connects to Metrolink. LA is a big area, and everyone isn’t coming from one place, so there’s always going to be a long way for somebody to get to the station, or airport, or battle city driving congestion.
 
toddinde said:
Brightline must have a business case for the route or they wouldn’t do it. As one commenter mentioned, people over estimate the desirability of driving and air travel. Air is an irritating, expensive hassle. Driving is almost never as fast as the drive time would suggest due to accidents, trucks, and congestion. Driving is also ridiculously fatiguing. The train, on the other hand, is relaxing. You can nap, read, or grab a drink. I’m not sure the lack of a one seat ride is so big an issue, especially since it connects to Metrolink. LA is a big area, and everyone isn’t coming from one place, so there’s always going to be a long way for somebody to get to the station, or airport, or battle city driving congestion.
Click to expand...
I would really like to see the business plan they're showing to their investors. I guess they're doing it in phases, and the TGV-type speeds on the Las Vegas - Victorville segment is designed to compensate for the slow going from there into the more populated parts of Los Angeles. Even so, I'm still skeptical that they can support higher train frequencies than the NEC. I have a feeling that some of the stuff that their PR people are passing out to the media, which laps it up, is more than a little overstated. Since I'm always of philosophy of "under-promise and over deliver," I'm a little skeptical of wild claims of performance before a single train goes in service.

By the way, are they planning to electrify the Las Vegas to Victorville segment? If they're not, how are they going to get those 180 mph speeds? I thought that the diesel world speed record was a little shy of 150 mph. If they are going to electrify it, are there any plans to electrify the connecting Metrolink lines into Union Station?
 
MARC Rider said:
By the way, are they planning to electrify the Las Vegas to Victorville segment? If they're not, how are they going to get those 180 mph speeds? I thought that the diesel world speed record was a little shy of 150 mph. If they are going to electrify it, are there any plans to electrify the connecting Metrolink lines into Union Station?
Click to expand...
Remember, a diesel is actually a diesel-electric. The speed at the wheel is based on motor RPM's and gearing. The question we get around to is weight per axle when you are having to haul around the diesel power plant, fuel for it, and a generator. Since at this point there seems to be no economic benefit in doing so, I doubt if anyone is going to try to figure out if it is practical to crank a diesel powered train up to 180+ mph, but I see nothing in the concept of higher speeds for diesel powered trains that makes it technologically unfeasible. Economically feasible may be a different story altogether. Thus far most US high speed records have been limited by power plant, equipment constraints and available track to play with.
 
Put a decent restaurant dining concession car - dome observation car and perhaps a Casino car
and this may appeal to whole bunch of folks.
YES a gambling car maybe a tough sell - but let an indigenous native american enterprise run it
and it may happen without government/state interference ?
 
George Harris said:
Remember, a diesel is actually a diesel-electric. The speed at the wheel is based on motor RPM's and gearing. The question we get around to is weight per axle when you are having to haul around the diesel power plant, fuel for it, and a generator. Since at this point there seems to be no economic benefit in doing so, I doubt if anyone is going to try to figure out if it is practical to crank a diesel powered train up to 180+ mph, but I see nothing in the concept of higher speeds for diesel powered trains that makes it technologically unfeasible. Economically feasible may be a different story altogether. Thus far most US high speed records have been limited by power plant, equipment constraints and available track to play with.
Click to expand...
Isn't there something about the faster the speed - the more consumption of fuel to achieve that speed.
Certainly applies to automobiles - faster equals less miles per gallon - - -
Freight locomotives must be geared like 18 wheel semi-trucks to haul a load - - -
Amtrak locomotives are geared for speed and not towing 100 ++ freight cars - - - ?
 
Seems to me that rather than just duplicating Brightline West, any Amtrak service should go further e.g. to Salt Lake City where you add additional city pairs and also possible connections to the California Zephyr. Perhaps even through cars added to the CZ to provide LV to Chicago service.
 
AmtrakMaineiac said:
Seems to me that rather than just duplicating Brightline West, any Amtrak service should go further e.g. to Salt Lake City where you add additional city pairs and also possible connections to the California Zephyr. Perhaps even through cars added to the CZ to provide LV to Chicago service.
Click to expand...
In effect could this be like the EB splitting at Spokane (Seattle-Portland)
Splitting at Salt Lake City (San Francisco-Las Vegas/Los Angeles) ?
 
WWW said:
In effect could this be like the EB splitting at Spokane (Seattle-Portland)
Splitting at Salt Lake City (San Francisco-Las Vegas/Los Angeles) ?
Click to expand...
That is what used to happen when the Desert Wind ran. Actually for a period the Pioneer also split at Salt Lake City, so there was a three way split/join at SLC. So of course it could happen again. Though I am not sure that the current track layout is adequate for doing this efficiently anymore.
 
WWW said:
Put a decent restaurant dining concession car - dome observation car and perhaps a Casino car
and this may appeal to whole bunch of folks.
YES a gambling car maybe a tough sell - but let an indigenous native american enterprise run it
and it may happen without government/state interference ?
Click to expand...
I believe Native American’s may only operate casino’s on their own land, otherwise state and local laws apply…🤔
 

Latest posts

Back
Top