The Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle Daily Service

[Guest]

The Sunset ran in 3 of the 4 largest states. Amtrak ran the train tri-weekly, very dumb. So the solution is to kill the trainin the 4th largest state, kill a LD train in the second largest state replaced with a stub train to compete with I-10 and Southwest

airline. I sure it makes sense on planet kookoo.

The route has been 3x weekly since prior to Amtrak's existence. Not saying that justifies Amtrak's continued operation of the train with the same frequency, just pointing out that it wasn't Amtrak that downgraded the frequency.

Amtrak had 39 years and dozens of chances to daily this route.

One could also point out that, despite it running in three of the four largest states, the ridership was still quite weak. Amtrak doesn't have the equipment to run the whole route daily at this time (which would be the preferred option).

It was weak because of the tri-weekly service by Amtrak. This route done correctly could easily mirror EB numbers.

Therefore, Amtrak faces the decision of serving the entire route with crappy service, or serving a portion of the route with reasonably good service, and restoring service to the rest of the route when the equipment availability will permit (remember, Amtrak has a fleet plan available for review, all it needs is money, so call your congresspersons).

The stub train is crappy service for those traveling beyond SAS or NOL. What is the point of traveling in between SAS-NOL with a cheap SWA and fast IH-10.

As for your comment about "[competing] with I-10 and Southwest airline (sic)," the NOL-SAS stub train will follow the same routing as the current Sunset Limited between those two cities. If running seven days a week isn't competitive, then how would running three days per week be?
Maybe on this "planet kookoo" of which you speak, a week only has three days?

Tri-weekly LD and a daily stub is both undesired service. The tri-weekly LD is the lesser evil. The stud train will flopleaving no service to Houston. In this area, Amtrak means vacations and long trips, not business hops.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The Sunset ran in 3 of the 4 largest states. Amtrak ran the train tri-weekly, very dumb. So the solution is to kill the trainin the 4th largest state, kill a LD train in the second largest state replaced with a stub train to compete with I-10 and Southwest

airline. I sure it makes sense on planet kookoo.

I hate to use the term incidental when referring to train customers, because it reminds me of George Warrington referring to off-peak riders as incidental on NJ Transit. But I can't think of a better word.

For Amtrak, long-distance coast-to-coast riders are incidental to their business. These riders are generally one of three types: Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos. They are a tiny number, and while they do tend to generate an impressive amount of revenue (they tend to go sleeper and/or buy food aboard), they are not the growth market. I hate flying because it is unpleasant. So much so I'd rather spend 6 days of my valuable time going from New York to the west coast and back than 12 hours. This makes me crazy. Old farts who don't want to fly because it scares them are, likewise, crazy.

Rail fans will ride trains regardless of how inconvenient or insensible they are to ride. If a railfan plans on riding the Sunset, they will do it if they have to change trains never, once, or ten times, if it runs once a week, or 3 times a week, or 7 days a week. Highly elastic market. I mean, dear god, they road the remnants of the Nancy Hanks II.

Tourists? Well to a tourist, how inconvenient can it possibly be to have to change trains in the historic and tourist oriented cities of San Antonio and New Orleans? Excellent excuse to get out for a day or two and see the sights.

The meat of the market is now people who are traveling relatively short distances. The Carolinian and Palmetto get pretty decent ridership with no sleeper, and no diner. The Lynchburger is coming close to covering its costs and it doesn't even haul a baggage car. Those of us going from Washington to Richmond, well being rail fans, we'd take the Silver Metoer or Silver Star most likely. But most customers don't. They take a Regional. They don't care what service the train has.

Amtrak is being intelligent about this. They will attract more riders running a day train between New Orleans and San Antonio every day than a sleeper train all the way to Los Angeles (where most NOL passengers have no desire to go, particularly) three times a week.

You argue three of the largest states.. ok. New York is the 3rd largest state, by population. It has one sleeper train running through it locally (Forget the ones that originate in New York City and promptly leave it for the beautiful state of New Jersey!). It has a bunch more that run through it, and they carry more passengers than that LD does.

In addition, if Amtrak is looking to create a serious competition with I-10 and SWA, they are not going to do it with a bunch of Superliner slugs (slowest rated cars in the system, at 100 mph!) hauled by a diesel locomotive over Union Pacific trackage with enough padding to save my life if I jumped free fall off the Empire State Building, no matter how many days a week it runs.

But they will get a hell of a lot more passengers locally if they know the train is going to run daily then if it is running tri-weekly. Planning your trips around a train running three times a week is outrageously inconvenient. Few people do it.

 

[Guest]

The Sunset ran in 3 of the 4 largest states. Amtrak ran the train tri-weekly, very dumb. So the solution is to kill the trainin the 4th largest state, kill a LD train in the second largest state replaced with a stub train to compete with I-10 and Southwest

airline. I sure it makes sense on planet kookoo.

I hate to use the term incidental when referring to train customers, because it reminds me of George Warrington referring to off-peak riders as incidental on NJ Transit. But I can't think of a better word.

For Amtrak, long-distance coast-to-coast riders are incidental to their business. These riders are generally one of three types: Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos. They are a tiny number, and while they do tend to generate an impressive amount of revenue (they tend to go sleeper and/or buy food aboard), they are not the growth market.

What about the traveler, which is neither tourist or railfan. I see travelers 90% of the time get on and off the Sunset. Someone going from Houston to El paso

or Houston to LA for whom it does not interest them to tour San Antonio. I'm sure there are railfans and tourist, but I see travelers 90%.

I hate flying because it is unpleasant. So much so I'd rather spend 6 days of my valuable time going from New York to the west coast and back than 12 hours. This makes me crazy. Old farts who don't want to fly because it scares them are, likewise, crazy.
Rail fans will ride trains regardless of how inconvenient or insensible they are to ride. If a railfan plans on riding the Sunset, they will do it if they have to change trains never, once, or ten times, if it runs once a week, or 3 times a week, or 7 days a week. Highly elastic market. I mean, dear god, they road the remnants of the Nancy Hanks II.

Tourists? Well to a tourist, how inconvenient can it possibly be to have to change trains in the historic and tourist oriented cities of San Antonio and New Orleans? Excellent excuse to get out for a day or two and see the sights.

The meat of the market is now people who are traveling relatively short distances. The Carolinian and Palmetto get pretty decent ridership with no sleeper, and no diner. The Lynchburger is coming close to covering its costs and it doesn't even haul a baggage car. Those of us going from Washington to Richmond, well being rail fans, we'd take the Silver Metoer or Silver Star most likely. But most customers don't. They take a Regional. They don't care what service the train has.

Maybe you have a bunch of railfans riding the Carolinian and Palmetto.

Amtrak is being intelligent about this. They will attract more riders running a day train between New Orleans and San Antonio every day than a sleeper train all the way to Los Angeles (where most NOL passengers have no desire to go, particularly) three times a week.

25% of Houston riders going west are going to LA. 22% to El paso. The vast majority of Houston riders going west ride past SAS.

And I'm sure many of them aren't interested in stopping in SAS to tour the city.

You argue three of the largest states.. ok. New York is the 3rd largest state, by population. It has one sleeper train running through it locally (Forget the ones that originate in New York City and promptly leave it for the beautiful state of New Jersey!). It has a bunch more that run through it, and they carry more passengers than that LD does.

New York has 50 million trains, Texas has 3 trains. Does it really makes sense to you to compare? think before you answer.

In addition, if Amtrak is looking to create a serious competition with I-10 and SWA, they are not going to do it with a bunch of Superliner slugs (slowest rated cars in the system, at 100 mph!) hauled by a diesel locomotive over Union Pacific trackage with enough padding to save my life if I jumped free fall off the Empire State Building, no matter how many days a week it runs.

Exactly, Amtrak can't compete with SWA and IH-10 in speed. So why would anyone take Amtrak between SAS and NOL unless they are Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos.And according to you, "They are a tiny number, they are not the growth market. "

But they will get a hell of a lot more passengers locally if they know the train is going to run daily then if it is running tri-weekly. Planning your trips around a train running three times a week is outrageously inconvenient. Few people do it.

Then Amtrak should run the Sunset daily, not kill it.

 

[Ryan]

Then Amtrak should run the Sunset daily, not kill it.

Yet somehow you consider daily service to be killing it.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

What about the traveler, which is neither tourist or railfan. I see travelers 90% of the time get on and off the Sunset. Someone going from Houston to El pasoor Houston to LA for whom it does not interest them to tour San Antonio. I'm sure there are railfans and tourist, but I see travelers 90%.

Of course. And they will be much happier that their train is now running daily!

Maybe you have a bunch of railfans riding the Carolinian and Palmetto.

No, statistically its point-to-point travelers. Railfans riding the Palmetto's route are more likely to travel on the more lavishly equipped Silver Meteor or, if they are going to Savannah, the Silver Star.

25% of Houston riders going west are going to LA. 22% to El paso. The vast majority of Houston riders going west ride past SAS. And I'm sure many of them aren't interested in stopping in SAS to tour the city.

I don't know where you get your numbers from, but it isn't Amtrak. I sincerely doubt there are any cities non-endpoint where you have a pecentage over 20 getting on in one and getting off in another, off the Northeast Corridor.

New York has 50 million trains, Texas has 3 trains. Does it really makes sense to you to compare? think before you answer.

Respectfully, I ask you to follow your own advice. New York's abundance of trains show a distinct transit pattern. Texas would benefit from point-to-point corridors, but in absence of them the point to point traveller is more likely to chose the once-a-day stub than a tri-weekly Sunset Limited.

Exactly, Amtrak can't compete with SWA and IH-10 in speed. So why would anyone take Amtrak between SAS and NOL unless they are Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos.And according to you, "They are a tiny number, they are not the growth market. "

If Amtrak is operating in a market to serve only railfans, tourists, and cuckoos at a loss of hundreds of dollars a passenger, I, one of the biggest proponents of public transit I know of, want the train doing it stricken off of my tax bill. If this daily service train which would much better serve the transit rider, does not see a major increase in ridership, then I hope Amtrak does kill the train.

Amtrak is in the business of serving our nations transportation needs. Not catering to railfans. I believe Amtrak to be honestly serving a need. If there is a train that doesn't serve a serious need, it does not belong in the system.

Then Amtrak should run the Sunset daily, not kill it.

Quite clearly, expanding the service along the Sunset's route from tri-weekly to daily is tantamount to killing it. I swear to god, I am sick of the self-centered nuts who want to place an albatross around Amtrak's neck, both politically and financially, to avoid riding in an open coach during the day.

GET REAL!

 

[AlanB]

For Amtrak, long-distance coast-to-coast riders are incidental to their business.

The $411.5 Million in revenue that Amtrak collected last year from the LD riders is not only not incidental, it's more than what Amtrak collected from the short haul trains that you're promoting. Collecting $98 on average per LD passenger vs. $26 per short haul passenger isn't incidental.

The Carolinian and Palmetto get pretty decent ridership with no sleeper, and no diner. The Lynchburger is coming close to covering its costs and it doesn't even haul a baggage car. Those of us going from Washington to Richmond, well being rail fans, we'd take the Silver Metoer or Silver Star most likely. But most customers don't. They take a Regional. They don't care what service the train has.

That's because of how Amtrak prices things, that is to say that in general Amtrak prices the LD's in such a way as to discourage people riding them for local travel in places where Regionals or Short Hauls overlap the service.

Amtrak is being intelligent about this. They will attract more riders running a day train between New Orleans and San Antonio every day than a sleeper train all the way to Los Angeles (where most NOL passengers have no desire to go, particularly) three times a week.

Most NOL passengers have no desire to go to Houston or San Antonio 3, 4, 5, or more times a week.

But they will get a hell of a lot more passengers locally if they know the train is going to run daily then if it is running tri-weekly.

Normally in most locales, I would agree with that idea. I'm unfortunately not so sure of that in this case.

Planning your trips around a train running three times a week is outrageously inconvenient. Few people do it.

This I do agree with; in fact the same problem plagues the Cardinal.

 

[henryj]

What about the traveler, which is neither tourist or railfan. I see travelers 90% of the time get on and off the Sunset. Someone going from Houston to El paso or Houston to LA for whom it does not interest them to tour San Antonio. I'm sure there are railfans and tourist, but I see travelers 90%.
The meat of the market is now people who are traveling relatively short distances. The Carolinian and Palmetto get pretty decent ridership with no sleeper, and no diner. The Lynchburger is coming close to covering its costs and it doesn't even haul a baggage car. Those of us going from Washington to Richmond, well being rail fans, we'd take the Silver Metoer or Silver Star most likely. But most customers don't. They take a Regional. They don't care what service the train has

25% of Houston riders going west are going to LA. 22% to El paso. The vast majority of Houston riders going west ride past SAS.

And I'm sure many of them aren't interested in stopping in SAS to tour the city.

Actually, this is a most interesting and informative discussion even if I don't agree with everything said. GML is making a lot of sense here. One question I have for Guest is where do you get your stats? I have done a lot of research on the Sunset Limited, but I have never found stats that indicate what percentage of passengers boarding at a location are going where. Regardless, Houston's boardings are pitifully small for a city of 5 million people. Most don't even know we have passenger rail in Houston. Houston's boardings are about the same as San Antonio and smaller than Tucson. A daily train to San Antonio and New Orleans running during daylight hours will no doubt attrack more passengers then the current service which comes through Houston at odd hours three times a week. I think Amtrak has a good idea here as the Houston to New Orleans route has also been identified as a high speed corridor. The service may start out rather slow, but it's a start that can only be improved on. I see no reason for the LD passengers to be affected. These people have made a conscious decision to take the train and will still take it even if they have to change trains in San Antonio. Meanwhile many more people will be attracted to rail service, people making short trips to and from towns along the way.

 

[AlanB]

Exactly, Amtrak can't compete with SWA and IH-10 in speed. So why would anyone take Amtrak between SAS and NOL unless they are Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos.And according to you, "They are a tiny number, they are not the growth market. "

If Amtrak is operating in a market to serve only railfans, tourists, and cuckoos at a loss of hundreds of dollars a passenger, I, one of the biggest proponents of public transit I know of, want the train doing it stricken off of my tax bill. If this daily service train which would much better serve the transit rider, does not see a major increase in ridership, then I hope Amtrak does kill the train.

All short haul trains are doing is rearranging the deck chairs. We're shifting the funding from the Fed to the states.

Amtrak is in the business of serving our nations transportation needs.

And that means providing service that may or may not be financially viable. Amtrak is charged with providing service to the Nation.

Then Amtrak should run the Sunset daily, not kill it.

Quite clearly, expanding the service along the Sunset's route from tri-weekly to daily is tantamount to killing it. I swear to god, I am sick of the self-centered nuts who want to place an albatross around Amtrak's neck, both politically and financially, to avoid riding in an open coach during the day.

GET REAL!

The albatross is already there, no one is placing it around Amtrak's neck at this point in time. It was hung there in 1971 when Congress formed Amtrak and mandated that they run trains.

And I for one take umbrage at being called a self-centered nut. This has never been about my having to ride in coach during the day. In fact the odds of my riding the Sunset as is; with daily full service trains; or under this new plan anytime in the next 10 years is unlikely. This is all about that any numbers that I can find do not support the conclusion that this is a good idea for Amtrak; and at least so far Amtrak isn't providing any numbers to counter things. And there are others who also question the wisdom of the Eagle/Sunset plan.

 

[Guest]

I don't know where you get your numbers from, but it isn't Amtrak. I sincerely doubt there are any cities non-endpoint where you have a pecentage over 20 getting on in one and getting off in another, off the Northeast Corridor.

Amtrak posted the numbers on the website.

New York has 50 million trains, Texas has 3 trains. Does it really makes sense to you to compare? think before you answer.

Respectfully, I ask you to follow your own advice. New York's abundance of trains show a distinct transit pattern. Texas would benefit from point-to-point corridors, but in absence of them the point to point traveller is more likely to chose the once-a-day stub than a tri-weekly Sunset Limited.

Texas would only give up the trucks if the regioinal trains were +150 mph. The Amtrak stub train SAS-NOL will average 38 mph. Can we agree that is a noticable difference?

Exactly, Amtrak can't compete with SWA and IH-10 in speed. So why would anyone take Amtrak between SAS and NOL unless they are Rail fans, tourists, and cuckoos.And according to you, "They are a tiny number, they are not the growth market. "

If Amtrak is operating in a market to serve only railfans, tourists, and cuckoos at a loss of hundreds of dollars a passenger, I, one of the biggest proponents of public transit I know of, want the train doing it stricken off of my tax bill. If this daily service train which would much better serve the transit rider, does not see a major increase in ridership, then I hope Amtrak does kill the train.

Well this is exactly what the stub train will do. In the end Amtrak will be forced to kill the stub and SAS-NOL will have no train. No train

to Houston which is what I said many times on this plan. GML, please school henyri

Amtrak is in the business of serving our nations transportation needs. Not catering to railfans. I believe Amtrak to be honestly serving a need. If there is a train that doesn't serve a serious need, it does not belong in the system.

If you took the Sunset tri-weekly numbers and applied them to the Sunset as a daily train, Sunset would be doing better than manyof the daily LD trains. The problem is the tri-weekly, not the train. Do you not agree?

Then Amtrak should run the Sunset daily, not kill it.

Quite clearly, expanding the service along the Sunset's route from tri-weekly to daily is tantamount to killing it. I swear to god, I am sick of the self-centered nuts who want to place an albatross around Amtrak's neck, both politically and financially, to avoid riding in an open coach during the day.

GET REAL!

Amtrak needs something around it's neck because every decade the system gets smaller.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The $411.5 Million in revenue that Amtrak collected last year from the LD riders is not only not incidental, it's more than what Amtrak collected from the short haul trains that you're promoting. Collecting $98 on average per LD passenger vs. $26 per short haul passenger isn't incidental.

Alan, just because the passenger rides a long distance train does not mean they are a long distance passenger. A person riding the Lake Shore Limited from Buffalo to Erie is riding an LD train a short distance. Statistically, that is the bulk of LD train revenue.

Most NOL passengers have no desire to go to Houston or San Antonio 3, 4, 5, or more times a week.

Naturally. But they would like to go to Houston or San Antonio on any given day they like and return on any other given day they like. Which they can not do now!

Actually, the comment you are making is childish.

Normally in most locales, I would agree with that idea. I'm unfortunately not so sure of that in this case.

It has been conclusively proven that if you give people a convenient daily and reliable service at reasonable prices, they will ride it. If you give passengers a train that is slow as hell, prone to snowballing delays along the length of its route, and only runs sometimes, they will tend to ignore it. Texans are responding to this proven reality.

This I do agree with; in fact the same problem plagues the Cardinal.

Which is why Amtrak is apparently pretty deadly serious to take the Cardinal Superliner and Daily within the next 12 months. Whether it happens or not, this is the intent. Boardman, from what I hear, has made a firm decision that tri-weekly trains have no place in a real transit network and is intent, along with many of the other upper management, to get rid of them by taking the two remaining triweekly trains daily.

 

[AlanB]

The $411.5 Million in revenue that Amtrak collected last year from the LD riders is not only not incidental, it's more than what Amtrak collected from the short haul trains that you're promoting. Collecting $98 on average per LD passenger vs. $26 per short haul passenger isn't incidental.

Alan, just because the passenger rides a long distance train does not mean they are a long distance passenger. A person riding the Lake Shore Limited from Buffalo to Erie is riding an LD train a short distance. Statistically, that is the bulk of LD train revenue.

Statistically that is not the case that the bulk of the LD pax on the LSL is riding a short distance. If you have stats that prove that wrong, then please produce them.

Most NOL passengers have no desire to go to Houston or San Antonio 3, 4, 5, or more times a week.

Naturally. But they would like to go to Houston or San Antonio on any given day they like and return on any other given day they like. Which they can not do now!

I don't see a huge market in that, certainly not one that is going to offset the lost revenue from the sleepers.

Actually, the comment you are making is childish.

There was nothing childish at all in my remark. I'm simply stating that I don't believe that there is a market there, regardless of the type of service.

Normally in most locales, I would agree with that idea. I'm unfortunately not so sure of that in this case.

It has been conclusively proven that if you give people a convenient daily and reliable service at reasonable prices, they will ride it. If you give passengers a train that is slow as hell, prone to snowballing delays along the length of its route, and only runs sometimes, they will tend to ignore it. Texans are responding to this proven reality.

It's been proven in areas where there is already strong ridership. This is not an area with strong ridership.

As for the slow train, the new one won't be any faster. And the delays argument went out the window months ago. In fact, right now the Sunset is currently one of Amtrak's best performing LD trains for OTP.

 

[Guest]

What about the traveler, which is neither tourist or railfan. I see travelers 90% of the time get on and off the Sunset. Someone going from Houston to El paso or Houston to LA for whom it does not interest them to tour San Antonio. I'm sure there are railfans and tourist, but I see travelers 90%.
The meat of the market is now people who are traveling relatively short distances. The Carolinian and Palmetto get pretty decent ridership with no sleeper, and no diner. The Lynchburger is coming close to covering its costs and it doesn't even haul a baggage car. Those of us going from Washington to Richmond, well being rail fans, we'd take the Silver Metoer or Silver Star most likely. But most customers don't. They take a Regional. They don't care what service the train has

25% of Houston riders going west are going to LA. 22% to El paso. The vast majority of Houston riders going west ride past SAS.

And I'm sure many of them aren't interested in stopping in SAS to tour the city.

Actually, this is a most interesting and informative discussion even if I don't agree with everything said. GML is making a lot of sense here. One question I have for Guest is where do you get your stats?

The information was posted on Amtrak website.

I have done a lot of research on the Sunset Limited, but I have never found stats that indicate what percentage of passengers boarding at a location are going where. Regardless, Houston's boardings are pitifully small for a city of 5 million people. Most don't even know we have passenger rail in Houston. Houston's boardings are about the same as San Antonio and smaller than Tucson. A daily train to San Antonio and New Orleans running during daylight hours will no doubt attrack more passengers then the current service which comes through Houston at odd hours three times a week. I think Amtrak has a good idea here as the Houston to New Orleans route has also been identified as a high speed corridor. The service may start out rather slow, but it's a start that can only be improved on. I see no reason for the LD passengers to be affected. These people have made a conscious decision to take the train and will still take it even if they have to change trains in San Antonio. Meanwhile many more people will be attracted to rail service, people making short trips to and from towns along the way.

A stub train, SAS-NOL, will only attract railfans. GML agrees the number of railfans are small. Houston will lose passengere rail service

with this move. IH-10 70MPH, Amtrak 38 mph, who do you think will ride?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

As for the slow train, the new one won't be any faster. And the delays argument went out the window months ago. In fact, right now the Sunset is currently one of Amtrak's best performing LD trains for OTP.

My understanding is this will eliminate much of the padding. Which... will make it faster.

The information was posted on Amtrak website.

Link me.

A stub train, SAS-NOL, will only attract railfans. GML agrees the number of railfans are small. Houston will lose passengere rail service with this move. IH-10 70MPH, Amtrak 38 mph, who do you think will ride?

You are simply mistaken.

 

[Donctor]

As for the slow train, the new one won't be any faster. And the delays argument went out the window months ago. In fact, right now the Sunset is currently one of Amtrak's best performing LD trains for OTP.

My understanding is this will eliminate much of the padding. Which... will make it faster.

Your understanding is, as of right now, incorrect.

The UP stuff, at least partially, does well right now because freight business is down. The padding was necessary before, and no longer is. That doesn't mean it won't be necessary in the future. It also doesn't mean that the host RRs will give Amtrak whatever time is ideal. Amtrak is aware of this; knowing about it and getting the host roads to cooperate are two very different things.

 

[NativeSon5859]

It boils down to this. GML and a couple of select others have no clue as to how the New Orleans market works. They can pretend they do, but they don't. What might work in other parts of the country wouldn't necessarily work down here. The daily Sunset will by no means be a guaranteed hit just because it gains four more weekly frequencies. And on a personal note....GML, really, I have to laugh at a great deal of what you say, which is unfortunate, because you seem knowledgeable. Are you on the Amtrak payroll? Did they hire you to defend their name, regardless if it makes sense or not? You're right, and everyone else is wrong...that's how it tends to work once you get into a discussion on here. And if you read something from someone which doesn't make sense to you, you come across as amateurish and are quick to bash the poster or the post itself. Hardly professional. We all have our opinions on here. Stick to yours but don't resort to childish antics, like labeling the people at SMART. What's the point of that? Have a nice day.

 

[Ryan]

Rather than bash other posters, how about you instead spend your time explaining why New Orleans is the unique snowflake of transit paterns.

 

[NativeSon5859]

Rather than bash other posters, how about you instead spend your time explaining why New Orleans is the unique snowflake of transit paterns.

Bashing? Hardly.

I've already explained why this won't work in previous threads. Speaking from a strictly Louisiana standpoint, there's virtually no demand for intrastate travel in Louisiana for daily service between NOLA and Schreiver, New Iberia, Lafayette, and Lake Charles. NOL-BTR is pretty much the biggest intrastate market, but there's no train service in the market. People in New Orleans are fiercely loyal to Southwest Airlines when it comes to travel between NO and Houston. 10 flights a day...plus 12 flights by Continental. The vast majority of the non-Southwest passengers drive. It's a 6 hour drive but can be done in less time depending on the time of day. It's a 9 hour train ride. Most of the traffic between NO and Houston is business related...it's one of the few business-oriented markets from NO. Business travelers won't take the train even if it's daily. It's too long of a ride. Amtrak will get the scraps...which isn't much. And the lack of a Sleeping car will turn off passengers who are going past San Antonio. Amtrak might pick up a few more people paying bottom bucket prices to Houston based on the daily frequency, but if that would outweigh the loss of Sleeper revenue, I'd be greatly surprised.

 

[jis]

I hate to use the term incidental when referring to train customers, because it reminds me of George Warrington referring to off-peak riders as incidental on NJ Transit. But I can't think of a better word.
For Amtrak, long-distance coast-to-coast riders are incidental to their business.

Alan, just because the passenger rides a long distance train does not mean they are a long distance passenger. A person riding the Lake Shore Limited from Buffalo to Erie is riding an LD train a short distance. Statistically, that is the bulk of LD train revenue.

I think you are wrong on both counts. The reason I think so follows. However, I am willing to be educated if you can show plausible concrete evidence otherwise.

Well. on the first count if you seriously think that only coast to coast passenger are long distance passengers and the rest are short distance ones, you need to do a slight definition adjustment. To be a long distance rider you don't have to go coast to coast. By current definition all that you have to do is travel more than 600 miles.

Without taking any position on the matter of SSL I would just like to bring to the attention of the gathered certain statements made by Emmet Fremaux who is in charge of running Amtrak's Product Development and Marketing.

He is quoted in the latest issue of PTJ by Karl Zimmerman, noted writer in this subject area, as saying that "This is a new day for long distance trains , recognized as essential to Amtrak's mission." He went on to state further that LD trains at present account for 42% of revenue system-wide, 44% of passenger miles, and 39% of train miles.

Admittedly this includes revenues from both short and long distance passengers carried by the train. Given the mix of typical car allocation to short vs. long distance on the LD trains my impression is that no more than a third of the seats are allocated for shorts, which would suggest that the other two third are going medium and long distance, may not be coast to coast, but long distance nevertheless. The fact that the average distance traveled by an LD train passenger was 626 miles in 2008 appears to support my contention that very likely a majority of LD passengers actually traveled long distance.

Furthermore, if you take into consideration connected journeys, a proportion of the shorts on one train are likely connecting to become a long distance traveler on a connecting train, typically through Chicago. So at least to me it is not at all obvious that long-distance riders are incidental to the business. I would like to see more substantiating evidence to be convinced.

In the ridership figures presented in the latest issue of PTJ, LD trains grew full 3 percentage points more than the SD trains, and 3.8 percentage points more than the NEC. Of the LD trains, the much maligned SSL grew by 25.7% the highest of all trains (not just LD trains), barring just the Piedmont. So this would suggest that the LD market is currently growing faster than the SD and NEC market, and it would be foolhardy of Amtrak to treat it as "incidental to its business". Fortunately Emmet, who actually runs the thing as opposed to armchair quarterbacking the thing like us here, realizes this apparently.

Interestingly SSL's ridership numbers projected to daily service would make its ridership greater than that of the Capitol Limited and equal to that of CONO. Also interestingly, the Cardinal is essentially in the same situation as the SSL, its projected ridership as a daily train would have it be a better performer than the Capitol Ltd. So if only ridership number were used, perhaps the Capitol Limited should be canceled and its cars used to make the SSL and Cardinal daily, and extend the Pennsylvanian with a few Viewliners and and Diner Lite to Chicago to restore Chicago - Pittsburgh - Philly - New York service. Afterall, the Pennsylvanian by itself already carries more passengers than the Capitol, and its ridership grew by 6 percentage points more than that of the Capitol! .

But when you throw in revenue numbers which are skewed a lot by those fat cat old farts, as GML put it, who insist on paying huge fares in sleepers and who otherwise were stated to be incidental, and the fact that the Cap does not have to exclusively bear the cost of any significant station on the route it travels, and involves no split/join en route, makes the Cap look much better as a financial performer. But that is yet another story, that will wait for another posting another day.

 

[AlanB]

As for the slow train, the new one won't be any faster. And the delays argument went out the window months ago. In fact, right now the Sunset is currently one of Amtrak's best performing LD trains for OTP.

My understanding is this will eliminate much of the padding. Which... will make it faster.

The padding going away is because of the UP double tracking, lower freight volume, and the new laws that give the FRA some teeth to enforce the rules against freight interferrence. It will go away without regard to any changes to the Sunset Limited.

 

[henryj]

I've already explained why this won't work in previous threads. Speaking from a strictly Louisiana standpoint, there's virtually no demand for intrastate travel in Louisiana for daily service between NOLA and Schreiver, New Iberia, Lafayette, and Lake Charles. NOL-BTR is pretty much the biggest intrastate market, but there's no train service in the market. People in New Orleans are fiercely loyal to Southwest Airlines when it comes to travel between NO and Houston. 10 flights a day...plus 12 flights by Continental. The vast majority of the non-Southwest passengers drive. It's a 6 hour drive but can be done in less time depending on the time of day. It's a 9 hour train ride. Most of the traffic between NO and Houston is business related...it's one of the few business-oriented markets from NO. Business travelers won't take the train even if it's daily. It's too long of a ride. Amtrak will get the scraps...which isn't much. And the lack of a Sleeping car will turn off passengers who are going past San Antonio. Amtrak might pick up a few more people paying bottom bucket prices to Houston based on the daily frequency, but if that would outweigh the loss of Sleeper revenue, I'd be greatly surprised.

We know you love SMART and LARP and what you state is the problem with them. They are just fixated on Louisiana and don't give a hoot about the rest of the route. You really have no knowledge of the intrastate market in La or anywhere else. You are just giving us the usual negative answers we always get about anything west of NOL. As Joy Smith at Amtrak said long ago, 'forget Florida, think daily'. SWA is in every market in the southwest and west. Using your argument we can just discontinue all local train service period. People are looking for an alternative to flying. They are getting sick of the hassle. I10 is becoming increasingly congested and beat up. This daily train is a start. We need it and many more in Texas and the southwest. Instead of the continual drum beat of negativisim, why don't you try a little positive thinking. You will get your precious Florida train when the extend the CONO so quit slamming the SSL.

 

[NativeSon5859]

I've already explained why this won't work in previous threads. Speaking from a strictly Louisiana standpoint, there's virtually no demand for intrastate travel in Louisiana for daily service between NOLA and Schreiver, New Iberia, Lafayette, and Lake Charles. NOL-BTR is pretty much the biggest intrastate market, but there's no train service in the market. People in New Orleans are fiercely loyal to Southwest Airlines when it comes to travel between NO and Houston. 10 flights a day...plus 12 flights by Continental. The vast majority of the non-Southwest passengers drive. It's a 6 hour drive but can be done in less time depending on the time of day. It's a 9 hour train ride. Most of the traffic between NO and Houston is business related...it's one of the few business-oriented markets from NO. Business travelers won't take the train even if it's daily. It's too long of a ride. Amtrak will get the scraps...which isn't much. And the lack of a Sleeping car will turn off passengers who are going past San Antonio. Amtrak might pick up a few more people paying bottom bucket prices to Houston based on the daily frequency, but if that would outweigh the loss of Sleeper revenue, I'd be greatly surprised.

We know you love SMART and LARP and what you state is the problem with them. They are just fixated on Louisiana and don't give a hoot about the rest of the route. You really have no knowledge of the intrastate market in La or anywhere else. You are just giving us the usual negative answers we always get about anything west of NOL. As Joy Smith at Amtrak said long ago, 'forget Florida, think daily'. SWA is in every market in the southwest and west. Using your argument we can just discontinue all local train service period. People are looking for an alternative to flying. They are getting sick of the hassle. I10 is becoming increasingly congested and beat up. This daily train is a start. We need it and many more in Texas and the southwest. Instead of the continual drum beat of negativisim, why don't you try a little positive thinking. You will get your precious Florida train when the extend the CONO so quit slamming the SSL.

Usual negative answers? Nonsense. It's reality. I wouldn't post some fabrication for the sake of doing just that. It's not "slamming the SSL". I'm talking about the realities of the Louisiana market. Not a word I said is untrue. The SSL isn't a good alternative to flying because it's not a multi frequency, corridor train, with a fast schedule. Back in the day I was very bitter about the loss of FLA service but hey, I've accepted it. Just as I will accept this if this happens. I'm just pointing out that I think the stub train, from the standpoint of New Orleans and Louisiana, isn't the end all be all as some make it out to be.

 

[Guest]

I've already explained why this won't work in previous threads. Speaking from a strictly Louisiana standpoint, there's virtually no demand for intrastate travel in Louisiana for daily service between NOLA and Schreiver, New Iberia, Lafayette, and Lake Charles. NOL-BTR is pretty much the biggest intrastate market, but there's no train service in the market. People in New Orleans are fiercely loyal to Southwest Airlines when it comes to travel between NO and Houston. 10 flights a day...plus 12 flights by Continental. The vast majority of the non-Southwest passengers drive. It's a 6 hour drive but can be done in less time depending on the time of day. It's a 9 hour train ride. Most of the traffic between NO and Houston is business related...it's one of the few business-oriented markets from NO. Business travelers won't take the train even if it's daily. It's too long of a ride. Amtrak will get the scraps...which isn't much. And the lack of a Sleeping car will turn off passengers who are going past San Antonio. Amtrak might pick up a few more people paying bottom bucket prices to Houston based on the daily frequency, but if that would outweigh the loss of Sleeper revenue, I'd be greatly surprised.

We know you love SMART and LARP and what you state is the problem with them. They are just fixated on Louisiana and don't give a hoot about the rest of the route. You really have no knowledge of the intrastate market in La or anywhere else. You are just giving us the usual negative answers we always get about anything west of NOL. As Joy Smith at Amtrak said long ago, 'forget Florida, think daily'. SWA is in every market in the southwest and west. Using your argument we can just discontinue all local train service period. People are looking for an alternative to flying. They are getting sick of the hassle. I10 is becoming increasingly congested and beat up. This daily train is a start. We need it and many more in Texas and the southwest. Instead of the continual drum beat of negativisim, why don't you try a little positive thinking. You will get your precious Florida train when the extend the CONO so quit slamming the SSL.

What you said is not true. IH-10 is in excellent shape. Completely rebuilt past Katy as the world largest freeway. 6 concrete lanes to Winnie with the remaining

20 miles to soon be rebuilt. 6 to 10 lanes in Beaumont. 6 lanes east of Beaumont. Construction to 6 lanes in the Orange area. 6 lanes Lake charles.

IH-10 is very fast. BTW, Joy Smith must agree with Amtrak. I know you want daily service to Houston and so do I. But not in a SAS-NOL stub train.

This train will flop. Houston riders will not ride this train for business like they do on the east coast. The Houston market needs a daily LD train.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

First of all, before I respond to these posts, I want to let it be known I did not sleep at all last night. I am distinctly not firing on all cylinders here. Still, I think I can place in my arguments.

Are you on the Amtrak payroll? Did they hire you to defend their name, regardless if it makes sense or not? You're right, and everyone else is wrong...that's how it tends to work once you get into a discussion on here. And if you read something from someone which doesn't make sense to you, you come across as amateurish and are quick to bash the poster or the post itself. Hardly professional. We all have our opinions on here. Stick to yours but don't resort to childish antics, like labeling the people at SMART. What's the point of that? Have a nice day.

I label people and groups as I see fit. If I have one major failing in life, its that I tend to lack diplomacy.

However, I'd say you are also bashing on me with your implication that I am on the Amtrak payroll and so on. Amtrak makes a lot of mistakes, and does a lot of things wrong. I am looking at this change from the standpoint of a rail transit advocate. From that standpoint, I agree with Amtrak's plan.

I don't profess to be right. I profess to believe what I believe. I could well be wrong. My perspective will be proven right, wrong, or neither if and when this change goes into effect. You could convince me otherwise, but so far, quite frankly, I have not seen many valid arguments on this subject grounded in logic. In fact, I have seen only one, which is AlanB, and others, argument that the revenue derived from the sleeping car on its route is greater than the revenue gained by daily operation. I believe the loss from sleeper passengers will be less than the increase from daily service, but I concede the possibility.

In fact, the general argument seems to be that nobody will ever ride a coach-only train that distance/time (many people ride coach only trains every day!), and that Texas is a special entity in which people never use trains as transit, apparently, which I regard as absolute poppycock. Texas has not been served by a daily east-west train in 39+ years. I don't think anyone could realistically predict how Texans will react to an entirely different proposition from what they have.

I can only go by two things: the general transit patterns that have shown themself to be nation-and-worldwide, and the Heartland Flyer, which is essentially a stub-train to the Texas Eagle, and gets decent ridership in a similar area of the world.

Well. on the first count if you seriously think that only coast to coast passenger are long distance passengers and the rest are short distance ones, you need to do a slight definition adjustment. To be a long distance rider you don't have to go coast to coast. By current definition all that you have to do is travel more than 600 miles.

I think nothing of the sort. I was just attempting to point out that not all long distance train riders are long distance passengers. Further, ignoring Amtrak's definition and going with my own, I consider a long-distance passenger to be one who rides the train for more than 8 hours for a day train, or 24 hours for an overnight train. At least when I start talking about people who are "incidental" to Amtrak's business.

The fact that the average distance traveled by an LD train passenger was 626 miles in 2008 appears to support my contention that very likely a majority of LD passengers actually traveled long distance.

That, of course, refers to it based on Amtrak's definition. What I was really trying to point out, albeit poorly perhaps, is that people who ride trains multiple nights are generally an incidental passenger to Amtrak. There are very few of them compared to everyone else. Designing a train to the convenience of a NOL-LAX rider but to the detriment of a NOL-HOU rider is, in my mind, catering to an audience that if not incidental, is certainly not the core of Amtrak's business.

it would be foolhardy of Amtrak to treat it as "incidental to its business".

I completely agree, hence my disclaimer in my earlier post. What I meant to say is that riders of such long distance as LAX-NOL or LAX-ORL are relatively minor compared to passengers running much shorter distances.

 

[NativeSon5859]

First of all, before I respond to these posts, I want to let it be known I did not sleep at all last night. I am distinctly not firing on all cylinders here. Still, I think I can place in my arguments.

Are you on the Amtrak payroll? Did they hire you to defend their name, regardless if it makes sense or not? You're right, and everyone else is wrong...that's how it tends to work once you get into a discussion on here. And if you read something from someone which doesn't make sense to you, you come across as amateurish and are quick to bash the poster or the post itself. Hardly professional. We all have our opinions on here. Stick to yours but don't resort to childish antics, like labeling the people at SMART. What's the point of that? Have a nice day.

I label people and groups as I see fit. If I have one major failing in life, its that I tend to lack diplomacy.

However, I'd say you are also bashing on me with your implication that I am on the Amtrak payroll and so on. Amtrak makes a lot of mistakes, and does a lot of things wrong. I am looking at this change from the standpoint of a rail transit advocate. From that standpoint, I agree with Amtrak's plan.

Well, for that, I'll apologize. I'm def not on here to make enemies, and I can at least understand your perspective, even if I don't agree with it. I try to share information on the small chunk of the world that I know and that which affects me most. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't amount to much. Appreciate you taking the time to respond.

 

[Guest]

I completely agree, hence my disclaimer in my earlier post. What I meant to say is that riders of such long distance as LAX-NOL or LAX-ORL are relatively minor compared to passengers running much shorter distances.

You should get the spin award or get a job with MSNBC. I hope no one was fooled by this slight of hand trick.

Ofcourse NOL-LAX or NOL-ORL will have fewer riders than allllllllllllllllllllll the remaining cities in between. If

NOL-LAX filled the train, then no one in the cities in between of NOL-LAX could ride. Amtrak should avoid this

at all cost. Amtrak would make more money if sleeper room A could be used from ORL-NOL, then another

paying customer from LCH-ELP, then ELP-LAX instead of 1 payer ORL-LAX. Yet you use this as your arguement

against the Sunset.