Save Our Trains Michigan
Conductor
I have gotten information that in the spring the Sunset LTD will have a big time change.The Eastbound #2 will run 7hrs earlier the westbound #1 will be about 4hrs later. 
Sunset LTD time change
- Thread starter Save Our Trains Michigan
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Save Our Trains Michigan
Conductor
Not true at all.This is only a rumor and a rumor only.rmadisonwi said:
Save Our Trains Michigan
Conductor
There are rumors of the CNOL losing sleepers.
battalion51
Engineer
I wouldn't say that. I've heard similar things from a very reliable source that deals directly with the day to day operation of the Sunset.BNSF_1088 said:
NativeSon5859
Conductor
Wow, the possibility of no Sightseer Lounge for the crossing of Escambia Bay (albeit at night), Biloxi Bay, Bay St.Louis, the Rigolets, the Huey P. Long bridge, bayou country, the rolling hills of Texas, the Pecos River High bridge, the stunning Arizona desert. That would be terrible. If anything take the Sightseer from the City of New Orleans as the only real scenic parts of the trip are the water crossings outside of New Orleans.
Amtrak doesn't have any combo diner/lounge cars, at least in the Superliner series.rmadisonwi said:
battalion51
Engineer
You mean doesn't, right Alan. :lol: Now what I could see is the possibility of them taking one of the Sightseers that was kitbashed (not sure if that's the right term) with tables in one half upstairs. They could then serve meals like they do on the Cardinal to Sleeping car passengers, and still have the lounge for coach passengers.
Yup, fixed that.battalion51 said:
That assumes that they can wrest control of them away from the Auto Train. The AT had them specially modified for their needs, so I'm sure that they won't want to part with them. Plus I think that there are only 2, maybe 3 of those. I'm not sure that's enough to cover the Sunset's schedule.battalion51 said:
Of course they could always modify more, if they can find the money.
battalion51
Engineer
I hate to be the bad guy on this one, but with the money they're going to be saving by not having to run the sleepers and diner, I believe they'll be able to afford to convert a lounge or two to suit their purposes. Yes the sleepers sell out whatever. But if they cut them off they'll likely be able to cut back to one pony for the entire trip, since your consist would be:
Pony
Bag Car
Dorm
Lounge
2-3 Coaches
6 cars at most on an ordinary trip (consist wise), definitely manageable by one engine even in the Mountains. So even the money you'll save in fuel costs will cover the conversion cost. Don't forget all those employees you can get rid of since you won't need a Dining Car Staff. Likely all you'll need (besides T&E) is a Sleeper Attendant, 2 Coach TA's, Lounge LSA, Lounge SA. Even the sleeper could probably be covered by the Coach TA's if you want to get drastic.
As far as the Lounge that was converted for AT use that was done while 33101 and 33100 were out at Beech Grove and they needed a Lounge to pinch hit while the others went through E-Clean, PM, inspections, whatever. AFAIK 33035 was the only one converted, and since both wrecked Lounges are back in service, and they've all recieved overhaul, it's an expendable comodity (somehow that spelling doesn't look right) at this point in time.
Pony
Bag Car
Dorm
Lounge
2-3 Coaches
6 cars at most on an ordinary trip (consist wise), definitely manageable by one engine even in the Mountains. So even the money you'll save in fuel costs will cover the conversion cost. Don't forget all those employees you can get rid of since you won't need a Dining Car Staff. Likely all you'll need (besides T&E) is a Sleeper Attendant, 2 Coach TA's, Lounge LSA, Lounge SA. Even the sleeper could probably be covered by the Coach TA's if you want to get drastic.
As far as the Lounge that was converted for AT use that was done while 33101 and 33100 were out at Beech Grove and they needed a Lounge to pinch hit while the others went through E-Clean, PM, inspections, whatever. AFAIK 33035 was the only one converted, and since both wrecked Lounges are back in service, and they've all recieved overhaul, it's an expendable comodity (somehow that spelling doesn't look right) at this point in time.
T
Tom
Guest
Does anyone know why the schedule is getting changed? Is it so that there'll be less freight interference? Could it be so the train runs through the better scenerey during the day? And is the schedule going to be permanent?
Save Our Trains Michigan
Conductor
I am just saying what is going on in NOL from MGT.If there are any passengers reading this post at this time these are all rumors Amtrak has not put anything in writing yet or in the Amtrak computer's that the ticket agents use. The sleepers and diner are still on the train.battalion51 said:
NativeSon5859
Conductor
Are there any Snack Coaches left in the system? If so, here's a decent idea for a consist:
1 pony (2 west of nol)
1 baggage
1 transition sleeper
1 sleeper
1 dining car (the route is just too long to not have one of these)
2 coaches
1 snack coach
1 pony (2 west of nol)
1 baggage
1 transition sleeper
1 sleeper
1 dining car (the route is just too long to not have one of these)
2 coaches
1 snack coach
Save Our Trains Michigan
Conductor
You will always need 2 engines west of NOL for the grades.
Tom said:
I have the same question. What does this schedule change accomplish?
Will there be less freight interference?
I suppose that there is a possibility that the earlier departure from LA will help with freight interference, but I doubt it. Only UP can tell us that for sure.
The main reason for the planned earlier departure is to ensure the connection with the Texas Eagle. Amtrak spent over 2 Million dollars last year busing passengers and otherwise dealing with pax who missed connections with the Eagle.
I'm not sure why they are modifying the westbound depature time, although what's proposed for that is less dramatic, than the proposed change heading eastbound.
The main reason for the planned earlier departure is to ensure the connection with the Texas Eagle. Amtrak spent over 2 Million dollars last year busing passengers and otherwise dealing with pax who missed connections with the Eagle.
I'm not sure why they are modifying the westbound depature time, although what's proposed for that is less dramatic, than the proposed change heading eastbound.
The schedule change also limits their exposure to people missing connections to/from the Coast Starlight (since it won't be a connection). Of course, the other choice is to just not guarantee that connection.
It's unknown, at this point, whether or not the Texas Eagle through cars will remain.
The schedule east of New Orleans will remain the same, meaning that the schedule is just being lengthened by several hours. So, what does this accomplish? One thing would be an admission that the current schedule simply does not work.
It's unknown, at this point, whether or not the Texas Eagle through cars will remain.
The schedule east of New Orleans will remain the same, meaning that the schedule is just being lengthened by several hours. So, what does this accomplish? One thing would be an admission that the current schedule simply does not work.
Save Our Trains Michigan
Conductor
#2 will work beter on the BNSF line since most of the trains run mid afternoon all the way till early morrning.
I think the perfect solution to the consist problem is to make the NOL-ORL a seperate train. Amtrak could focus the diners, sleepers, and lounges on the LAX-NOL part, which carries more passengers, and then simplify the consist on the NOL-ORL part with one sleeper, a lounge car, and a couple coaches.
As for the schedule, I gather that the changes will accomplish several things. The first being an eastbound schedule that is uneffected by the Coast Starlight, which often causes the SL to leave LAX late. The second being a schedule with less freight interference, though time will tell if that will really be the case. Third, better arrival and departure times in NOL. Fourth, service at more convenient hours to San Antonio and the Gulf Coast of Florida.
As for the schedule, I gather that the changes will accomplish several things. The first being an eastbound schedule that is uneffected by the Coast Starlight, which often causes the SL to leave LAX late. The second being a schedule with less freight interference, though time will tell if that will really be the case. Third, better arrival and departure times in NOL. Fourth, service at more convenient hours to San Antonio and the Gulf Coast of Florida.
battalion51
Engineer
Lepearso, I hate to break it to you, but it's the exact opposite. The majority of the Sunset's ridership comes from th ORL-NOL market. The market would be even stronger if it ran daily to MIA.
I wasn't aware of that, but that is all the more reason to operate it as a seperate train. It would be easier to concentrate resources in the NOL-ORL section with a seperate train, and it would probably be easier to extend service to Miami.battalion51 said:
On a seperate but related note, I think that the coming schedule change will benefit the NOL-ORL section. You can expect better service times at Biloxi, Mobile, and Orlando, provided that OTP gets better. If ever we could get the reroute through Fort Worth, connections could still be made with the Texas Eagle without changing the Eagle's schedule, and the SL would serve a larger population.
T
Tom
Guest
BNSF since you say you know what MNGT is discussing, what are the future plans for the route in terms of scheduling? Is the next schedule change just going to lengthen the schedule? I don't like it, as it breaks a major connection with the Starlight. The San Joaquin isn't as good of an option.
Save Our Trains Michigan
Conductor
The time change has to do with the Texas Eagle from what i have been told.
I've heard that the Texas Eagle could be departing San Antonio a bit earlier, and that the through cars will remain for the Sunset. Not absolutely sure on this, though. It seems that an announcement is imminent, so we should know the details by then.
This is good news for me, as I take the Eagle/Sunset from Dallas to Los Angeles and back several times a year. I am more likely to patronize the train if I can make the whole trip by train.
I still take the Eagle/Sunset westbound to LA, but the unreliability of the eastbound connection between the Sunset and Eagle at San Antonio has forced me to take the SW Chief when returning to Dallas... I do not want to ride the bus.
Never had a problem making the connection going westbound, but have been close to missing it enough times coming back (eastbound) that it is no longer worth the risk.
When I was on the westbound Sunset last week, there were flyers in the sightseeing car that warned passengers of the possibility of being bussed at either El Paso or San Antonio, depending on ultimate destination, in case the connection in San Antonio is missed due to freight congestion.
I still take the Eagle/Sunset westbound to LA, but the unreliability of the eastbound connection between the Sunset and Eagle at San Antonio has forced me to take the SW Chief when returning to Dallas... I do not want to ride the bus.
Never had a problem making the connection going westbound, but have been close to missing it enough times coming back (eastbound) that it is no longer worth the risk.
When I was on the westbound Sunset last week, there were flyers in the sightseeing car that warned passengers of the possibility of being bussed at either El Paso or San Antonio, depending on ultimate destination, in case the connection in San Antonio is missed due to freight congestion.
