The Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle Daily Service

[Green Maned Lion]

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.

I'd be most sad if the average person reading this board took what I said that way, considering it was in no way what I meant. Passengers who ride Amtrak trans-continental, as it were, relatively speaking (be it LAX-NOL or CHI-LAX) or something in a similar time period (say, more than 30 hours) are a tiny percentage of Amtrak's riders. In fact, let me put it this way: There are a lot more passengers who ride Amtrak less than 500 miles than passengers who ride it more than 1500 miles. A hell of a lot more.

 

[Guest]

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.

I'd be most sad if the average person reading this board took what I said that way, considering it was in no way what I meant. Passengers who ride Amtrak trans-continental, as it were, relatively speaking (be it LAX-NOL or CHI-LAX) or something in a similar time period (say, more than 30 hours) are a tiny percentage of Amtrak's riders. In fact, let me put it this way: There are a lot more passengers who ride Amtrak less than 500 miles than passengers who ride it more than 1500 miles. A hell of a lot more.

Yet the 1500 mile sleeper makes money per passenger.

 

[BlakeTyner]

I'd be most sad if the average person reading this board took what I said that way, considering it was in no way what I meant. Passengers who ride Amtrak trans-continental, as it were, relatively speaking (be it LAX-NOL or CHI-LAX) or something in a similar time period (say, more than 30 hours) are a tiny percentage of Amtrak's riders. In fact, let me put it this way: There are a lot more passengers who ride Amtrak less than 500 miles than passengers who ride it more than 1500 miles. A hell of a lot more.

I tend to agree. Here are some numbers for the Texas Eagle in NE Texas. You'll notice that the leading cities in each pair category tend to be short-to-medium distance.

Top Destinations (plus distance) by Ridership--2009

Texarkana

1) Chicago (774)

2) St. Louis (490)

3) Dallas (217)+

4) Los Angeles (1954)

5) Ft. Worth (248)+

6) Longview (90)+

7) San Antonio (542)+

8) Normal, IL (650)

36.7% of travelers from Texarkana travel 700-799 miles*

Marshall

1) Dallas (151)+

2) Chicago (840)

3) Ft. Worth (182)+

4) St. Louis (556)

5) Longview (24)+

6) L.A. (1888)

7) San Antonio (476)+

8) Austin (383)+

37.2% of travelers from Marshall travel 100-199 miles*

Longview

1) Chicago (864)

2) Dallas (127)+

3) St. Louis (580)

4) Ft. Worth (158)+

5) L.A. (1864)

6) Little Rock (230)+

7) Normal (740)

8) Springfield (679)

42% of travelers from Longview travel 800-899 miles*

Mineola

1) Dallas (79)+

2) Ft. Worth (110)+

3) Chicago (912)

4) Longview (48)+

5) St Louis (628)

6) San Antonio (404)+

7) Austin (311)+

8) L.A. (1816)

32.4% of travelers from Mineola travel less than 99 miles*

*Indicates the largest portion of riders for that particular station.

+Indicates non-overnight travel.

 

[Tennessee Traveler]

All this "discussion" and I would ride and accept any Amtrak service in Nashville. As it is, being a "railfan" I fly to Chicago or other end points just to ride Amtrak. Flying to LAX this July to ride SWC back to Chicago and then the Eagle/Sunset back to LAX. Flying home to BNA(Nashville).

 

[BlakeTyner]

All this "discussion" and I would ride and accept any Amtrak service in Nashville. As it is, being a "railfan" I fly to Chicago or other end points just to ride Amtrak. Flying to LAX this July to ride SWC back to Chicago and then the Eagle/Sunset back to LAX. Flying home to BNA(Nashville).

We've gotten as far as getting the South Central Corridor extended from Little Rock to Memphis--does Tennessee have a rail plan? One of the things on our longer-term goals list is to make a connection of some sort into that market area.

 

[jis]

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.

Well, just on that point I was just pointing out that the VP of Marketing and Product Development of Amtrak apparently tends to disagree with you. But leaving that aside, on the more general issue.....

Actually I have been pulled in two directions on this issue. On the one hand using pure passenger count, clearly as a provider of service it is reasonable to assume that more passengers served the better, I'd tend to agree with the position espoused by you in the last sentence above. But OTOH, from a revenue point of view, it is the multi-night sleeper passengers who tend to be significant contributors to the financial health of a train, and hence it may not be wise to ignore them even if in numbers they are small, and from that angle I tend to agree with Alan. This is what causes considerable reluctance on my part to accept your description of them as "incidental", and such characterization may IMHO be as flawed as Warrington's characterization of off-peak passengers.

However, I have not been able to come up with a clear analyzing principle to synthesize these two opposing things in a predictable way. Clearly the answer will depend on the specifics of each route under consideration, and I am afraid I simply don;t have enough detailed info about the route in question.

The fundamental problem in terms of economics is to come up with a utility function that accurately reflects the utility provided by a service in a measurable way, so that such can be balanced against what one is charged for such. How do you monetize the utility is the core question. Economists in all ages have struggled with this and continue to do so even in the context of the analysis of LD trains.

 

[Guest]

I'd be most sad if the average person reading this board took what I said that way, considering it was in no way what I meant. Passengers who ride Amtrak trans-continental, as it were, relatively speaking (be it LAX-NOL or CHI-LAX) or something in a similar time period (say, more than 30 hours) are a tiny percentage of Amtrak's riders. In fact, let me put it this way: There are a lot more passengers who ride Amtrak less than 500 miles than passengers who ride it more than 1500 miles. A hell of a lot more.

I tend to agree. Here are some numbers for the Texas Eagle in NE Texas. You'll notice that the leading cities in each pair category tend to be short-to-medium distance.

Top Destinations (plus distance) by Ridership--2009

Texarkana

1) Chicago (774)

2) St. Louis (490)

3) Dallas (217)+

4) Los Angeles (1954)

5) Ft. Worth (248)+

6) Longview (90)+

7) San Antonio (542)+

8) Normal, IL (650)

36.7% of travelers from Texarkana travel 700-799 miles*

Marshall

1) Dallas (151)+

2) Chicago (840)

3) Ft. Worth (182)+

4) St. Louis (556)

5) Longview (24)+

6) L.A. (1888)

7) San Antonio (476)+

8) Austin (383)+

37.2% of travelers from Marshall travel 100-199 miles*

Longview

1) Chicago (864)

2) Dallas (127)+

3) St. Louis (580)

4) Ft. Worth (158)+

5) L.A. (1864)

6) Little Rock (230)+

7) Normal (740)

8) Springfield (679)

42% of travelers from Longview travel 800-899 miles*

Mineola

1) Dallas (79)+

2) Ft. Worth (110)+

3) Chicago (912)

4) Longview (48)+

5) St Louis (628)

6) San Antonio (404)+

7) Austin (311)+

8) L.A. (1816)

32.4% of travelers from Mineola travel less than 99 miles*

*Indicates the largest portion of riders for that particular station.

+Indicates non-overnight travel.

Where did you get those numbers. I saw them a while back on amtrak's website.

 

[BlakeTyner]

The numbers are from NARP:

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/reso.../fact_sheets_2/

 

[Guest]

Stub train will flop...GML you were wrong times 10....

Top city pairs by ridership, 2008

Cities Miles

1. Tucson, AZ - Los Angeles, CA 502 mi

2. New Orleans, LA - Los Angeles, CA 1995 mi

3. San Antonio, TX - Los Angeles, CA 1423 mi

4. Los Angeles, CA - Houston, TX 1633 mi

5. New Orleans, LA - Houston, TX 362 mi

6. Los Angeles, CA - El Paso, TX 818 mi

7. San Antonio, TX - New Orleans, LA 572 mi

8. Palm Springs, CA - Los Angeles, CA 106 mi

Top city pairs by revenue, 2008

Cities Miles

1. New Orleans, LA - Los Angeles, CA 1995 mi

2. San Antonio, TX - Los Angeles, CA 1423 mi

3. Los Angeles, CA - Houston, TX 1633 mi

4. Los Angeles, CA - El Paso, TX 818 mi

5. Tucson, AZ - Los Angeles, CA 502 mi

6. San Antonio, TX - New Orleans, LA 572 mi

7. New Orleans, LA - Houston, TX 362 mi

8. Tucson, AZ - New Orleans, LA 1493 mi

Quick recap, 2008

Coach/

Business First/Sleeper Total

Passengers 55,476 14,692 70,168

Average trip 832 miles 1259 miles 921 miles

Average fare $ 74.00 $260.00 $113.00

Average yield, per mile 8.9¢ 20.6¢ 12.3¢

 

[BlakeTyner]

Woah, cap'n. The numbers don't doom the SAS-NOL train quite that badly.

If you look to the right on the Sunset page, you'll see the bars for trip distance. The biggest block is for trips of 500-599 miles (16.9%.) By comparison, only 10% of the passengers on the Sunset go the whole distance.

In fact, a whopping 48.2% of Sunset passengers travel less than 599 miles.

And if we want to look at the daily Texas Eagle, 58% of passengers travel less than 599 miles.

Short distance ridership will hold up and, most likely, improve. I'm with GML here--whatever sleeper passengers are lost from NOL-SAS are incidental. Yes, sleeper passengers account for a huge chunk of revenue (particularly as a measure of their meager ridership) but there will be added daily sleeper capacity along the entire Eagle route from Chicago-LA, which will more than make up for the loss of tri-weekly sleepers from NOL-SAS.

Plus, of course, Houston will finally get daily service, and in all likelihood, better service times.

But anyway...we're just going around in circles. The proof will be in the pudding.

 

[Guest]

Woah, cap'n. The numbers don't doom the SAS-NOL train quite that badly.
If you look to the right on the Sunset page, you'll see the bars for trip distance. The biggest block is for trips of 500-599 miles (16.9%.) By comparison, only 10% of the passengers on the Sunset go the whole distance.

In fact, a whopping 48.2% of Sunset passengers travel less than 599 miles.

No, you can't use the 599 miles because any segment of the Sunset can be 599, even those overlapping

the stub train. That is a trick GML uses.

It took about 1 sleeper passengers to nearly match 4 coach passengers.

SAS-HOS didnt make the top 8 in riders or revenue.

NOL-LAX and HOS-LAX, top 4 in both and TUC-NOL. Amtrak will lose this passenger/revenue with a stub.

 

[Trogdor]

Everyone is focusing so much on the NOL-SAS segment that I think many of you are forgetting that there's also a San Antonio-Los Angeles segment of the route as well. That segment will benefit significantly in both ridership and revenue with daily service.

The real question is whether the increase in revenue on the new daily CHI-SAS-LAX service exceeds the loss in revenue from the NOL-SAS service. Sure, there will be some loss of revenue on that side because of the loss of sleeper passengers. Ultimately, what's important from a financial perspective is how the whole thing impacts Amtrak's bottom line, not just how one little segment's performance does.

 

[Guest]

38% of Houston passengers, +1500 miles

46% of Houston passengers, -500 miles.

Which do you think Amtrak made the most money?

Houston

Top city pairs by ridership, 2008

City Length

1. Los Angeles, CA 1633 mi

2. New Orleans, LA 362 mi

3. San Antonio, TX 210 mi

4. Alpine, TX 597 mi

5. El Paso, TX 815 mi

6. Tucson, AZ 1131 mi

7. Lafayette, LA 217 mi

8. Ontario, CA 1594 mi

Top city pairs by revenue, 2008

City Length

1. Los Angeles, CA 1633 mi

2. New Orleans, LA 362 mi

3. Alpine, TX 597 mi

4. Tucson, AZ 1131 mi

5. El Paso, TX 815 mi

6. Ontario, CA 1594 mi

7. Maricopa, AZ 1217 mi

8. San Antonio, TX 210 mi

THE NUMBER 1 REVENUE AND PASSENGER ON THE SUNSET OUT OF NOL.

LAX....that is a lot of incidental.

 

[Guest]

Everyone is focusing so much on the NOL-SAS segment that I think many of you are forgetting that there's also a San Antonio-Los Angeles segment of the route as well. That segment will benefit significantly in both ridership and revenue with daily service.
The real question is whether the increase in revenue on the new daily CHI-SAS-LAX service exceeds the loss in revenue from the NOL-SAS service. Sure, there will be some loss of revenue on that side because of the loss of sleeper passengers. Ultimately, what's important from a financial perspective is how the whole thing impacts Amtrak's bottom line, not just how one little segment's performance does.

You can't combine CHI-SAS-LAX numbers with SAS-NOL. Each train will be seperate. So when SAS-NOL is reviewed and show bad numbers, the train

will be killed. GML won't lose service, Houston will.

 

[henryj]

Top city pairs by ridership, 2008City Length

1. Los Angeles, CA 1633 mi

2. New Orleans, LA 362 mi

3. San Antonio, TX 210 mi

Top city pairs by revenue, 2008

City Length

1. Los Angeles, CA 1633 mi

2. New Orleans, LA 362 mi

8. San Antonio, TX 210 mi

THE NUMBER 1 REVENUE AND PASSENGER ON THE SUNSET OUT OF NOL.

LAX....that is a lot of incidental.

Actually, what I see is Houston-NOL at number two and Houston to SAS at number 3 and SAS to NOL at number 6 and 7. That's a big positive for the so called stub trains. When they go daily and at decent hours you will see those numbers explode. There will be very little lost traffic going through San Antonio from either Houston or New Orleans. So what I see, inspite of all the negatory here is that daily service at decent hours will be a huge sucess.

 

[BlakeTyner]

Amtrak will lose this passenger/revenue with a stub.

They are going from 30 bedrooms and 84 roomettes per week between SAS and NOL to 1,036 coach seats per week.

NARP figures say the average sleeper fare on the Sunset is $260. Assuming sold out trains, the tri-weekly (ie current) Sunset has 114 first class tickets available, that yields $29,640 in potential sleeping car revenue.

The average coach fare on the Sunset Limited is $74. Assuming sold out trains, the proposed daily service from NOL-SAS has 1,036 coach tickets available, for a yield of $76,664 in potential coach revenue. That doesn't take into account the business class seating, which will obviously be priced above coach.

And I think I know roughly what Amtrak's methodology was regarding the 100k increase in ridership when the Sunset/Eagle combination happens.

There are approx 34,009,022 people within a 25 mile radius of the Texas Eagle.

There were 245,900 passengers on the Texas Eagle in '08.

That gives us a constant of .007% of the service area population that rides the Texas Eagle.

Now, if we combine the service areas of the Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle, we get a 25 mile radius figure of 59,381,367 people.

Using the same constant of .007% of the service population riding the train, we get 415,670 riders on the combined Sunset/Eagle.

However, we need to deduct the people between SAS and NOL. The easiest way to do this is to simply deduct the entire ridership number of the Sunset Limited, which is 70,168. 415,670-70,168 = 345,502.

Recall that the Eagle's ridership in 2008 was 245,900.

That comes out pretty darn close to a net gain of 100,000 passengers.

 

[Guest]

Top city pairs by ridership, 2008City Length

1. Los Angeles, CA 1633 mi

2. New Orleans, LA 362 mi

3. San Antonio, TX 210 mi

Top city pairs by revenue, 2008

City Length

1. Los Angeles, CA 1633 mi

2. New Orleans, LA 362 mi

8. San Antonio, TX 210 mi

THE NUMBER 1 REVENUE AND PASSENGER ON THE SUNSET OUT OF NOL.

LAX....that is a lot of incidental.

Actually, what I see is Houston-NOL at number two and Houston to SAS at number 3 and SAS to NOL at number 6 and 7. That's a big positive for the so called stub trains. When they go daily and at decent hours you will see those numbers explode. There will be very little lost traffic going through San Antonio from either Houston or New Orleans. So what I see, inspite of all the negatory here is that daily service at decent hours will be a huge sucess.

Yet you ignore 1. LAX, 25% of Houston riders. Those riders revenue is much more than SAS-HOS and HOS-NOL.

You also ignored 4,5,6, and 8.

 

[Guest]

Amtrak will lose this passenger/revenue with a stub.

They are going from 30 bedrooms and 84 roomettes per week between SAS and NOL to 1,036 coach seats per week.

NARP figures say the average sleeper fare on the Sunset is $260. Assuming sold out trains, the tri-weekly (ie current) Sunset has 114 first class tickets available, that yields $29,640 in potential sleeping car revenue.

The average coach fare on the Sunset Limited is $74. Assuming sold out trains, the proposed daily service from NOL-SAS has 1,036 coach tickets available, for a yield of $76,664 in potential coach revenue. That doesn't take into account the business class seating, which will obviously be priced above coach.

And I think I know roughly what Amtrak's methodology was regarding the 100k increase in ridership when the Sunset/Eagle combination happens.

There are approx 34,009,022 people within a 25 mile radius of the Texas Eagle.

There were 245,900 passengers on the Texas Eagle in '08.

That gives us a constant of .007% of the service area population that rides the Texas Eagle.

Now, if we combine the service areas of the Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle, we get a 25 mile radius figure of 59,381,367 people.

Using the same constant of .007% of the service population riding the train, we get 415,670 riders on the combined Sunset/Eagle.

However, we need to deduct the people between SAS and NOL. The easiest way to do this is to simply deduct the entire ridership number of the Sunset Limited, which is 70,168. 415,670-70,168 = 345,502.

Recall that the Eagle's ridership in 2008 was 245,900.

That comes out pretty darn close to a net gain of 100,000 passengers.

All wrong. First, you can't use the current Sunset average price for the SAS-NOL and 1036 tickets for 1 coach train.

SAS-NOL price is $48 one way. No way to average $74. Your math is as fuzzy as GML.

Lets use facts and not cherry pick numbers. The data clearly says amtrak should go daily with a NOL-LAX

LD train and add sleepers. I say LAX-ORL daily.

 

[AlanB]

The average coach fare on the Sunset Limited is $74. Assuming sold out trains, the proposed daily service from NOL-SAS has 1,036 coach tickets available, for a yield of $76,664 in potential coach revenue. That doesn't take into account the business class seating, which will obviously be priced above coach.

I haven't had time to go look at those NARP numbers, so I'm not sure if that $74 number is for the area under discussion or the entire run of the Sunset.

However, either way that number will still have to be much lower with a daily train. Amtrak now needs to fill many more seats, and that means lower prices to do so. So the revenue yield will be much lower than what you've calculated.

And I think I know roughly what Amtrak's methodology was regarding the 100k increase in ridership when the Sunset/Eagle combination happens.
There are approx 34,009,022 people within a 25 mile radius of the Texas Eagle.

There were 245,900 passengers on the Texas Eagle in '08.

That gives us a constant of .007% of the service area population that rides the Texas Eagle.

Now, if we combine the service areas of the Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle, we get a 25 mile radius figure of 59,381,367 people.

Using the same constant of .007% of the service population riding the train, we get 415,670 riders on the combined Sunset/Eagle.

However, we need to deduct the people between SAS and NOL. The easiest way to do this is to simply deduct the entire ridership number of the Sunset Limited, which is 70,168. 415,670-70,168 = 345,502.

Recall that the Eagle's ridership in 2008 was 245,900.

That comes out pretty darn close to a net gain of 100,000 passengers.

I don't think that you can use that .007% universally throughout Texas. The Dallas/Ft. Worth area, and for that matter I believe northern Texas, is far more amenable to rail transit than southern Texas. Houston is finally embarking on more rail transit, but San Antonio isn't doing anything yet.

 

[BlakeTyner]

Yet you ignore 1. LAX, 25% of Houston riders. Those riders revenue is much more than SAS-HOS and HOS-NOL.You also ignored 4,5,6, and 8.

It's tough to do, because all we have is the colored bar, but let's talk about those HOU-LAX numbers a bit.

We can see that 35.6% of riders out of Houston are going to LAX. The math here is easy--35.6% of 14,538 is 5,176.

Of that 5,176 that went from HOS-LAX, we see that the majority of them did so in coach. We have to guesstimate, but I'm going to be generous and say that 25% of those pax went by sleeper.

5,176x.25 = 1,294.

So in all of 2008, a grand total of 1,294 people traveled in a sleeper from Houston to Los Angeles. Assuming an average first class fare of $260, that is $336,440. Divided into weeks, we get $6,470.

All the stub train has to do is make up for that $6,470 (and that's assuming that EVERY sleeper passenger from Houston to L.A. will hereafter refuse to take the stub train to SAS and then switch to a sleeper) per week, or $924 per day, and it has recovered 100% of the "lost" sleeper revenue.

Alan:

If you like, we can use the (daily) Texas Eagle average coach price, which is $57. That yields $59,052 in potential revenue.

The .007 is pretty good, actually. The Sunset Limited, when adjusted for daily operation, gives a constant of .006. I'd be fine with using that in the ridership estimation, too.

 

[jis]

As I have hinted before, the use of the term "incidental" is just a mere linguistic flourish to try to make a point stick, that is not sustainable by consideration of all available facts.

 

[RTOlson]

This conversation of what ifs and what might have beens is interesting, but that's all they are right now -- hypotheses. Although I'm far removed from the situation, I would think that many of us would agree that the status quo isn't ideal, given the thrice-weekly Sunset Limited service and no service at all between New Orleans and Florida. There is also a scarcity (perceived or otherwise) that Amtrak doesn't have the equipment, resources or wherewithal to give everyone what they want.

Ultimately, I think a daily stub train between New Orleans and San Antonio is worth a shot. Also, extending the City of New Orleans to Florida may be an OK solution to restore that Southern link in a timely fashion.

No, the stub train isn't perfect, but daily, connecting service in trains that are at least more comfortable than planes may be enough to help bolster the route. I can understand the worst-case scenario that it will flop and the route will go away, but consider two factors. Amtrak is a political beast whose very existence has been on the bubble many, many times in its history. Also, Amtrak has been stubborn in not giving up the Sunset route east of New Orleans (for better or currently worse). Even if the SAS-NOL stub flops, would today's Amtrak fully give up this important connection?

At some point, people need to make a decision or start somewhere and see if it will work. For an agency long criticized for its inaction, I would rather see it take some steps and give a route a chance to succeed. If it takes those steps and finds it's not working, I hope the leadership is bold enough to make adjustments.

 

[BlakeTyner]

All wrong. First, you can't use the current Sunset average price for the SAS-NOL and 1036 tickets for 1 coach train. SAS-NOL price is $48 one way. No way to average $74. Your math is as fuzzy as GML.

Lets use facts and not cherry pick numbers. The data clearly says amtrak should go daily with a NOL-LAX

LD train and add sleepers. I say LAX-ORL daily.

Okay, revise it to the Eagle's average, $57. Or use $48. That's STILL $49,728 in potential revenue.

But here's the deal--I was being generous and taking averages straight from NARP. If we want to quibble about the cost of a coach seat between SAS-NOL, then we also get to quibble about the sleeper price. My $260 was generous; checking Arrow shows a roomette price of $181 for that segment. So both figures come down some.

And math is math. The stub train will have at least 2 Superliner coaches (74 seats each x 2 = 148) and run daily. 148 x 7 = 1,036.

And I assume your quibble is that I'm completely ignoring the option of taking the Sunset daily from LAX-ORL. That's because it will never happen. I'm just figuring things per current numbers and the current plan.

Let me concede that I was just spitballing with the numbers. To me, they don't indicate that this move is suicide on Amtrak's part. From the outset I have thought that this was the best plan with the most realistic chance of happening.

When the Eagle goes daily to L.A., and freight traffic increases, there is a very good chance that the Eagle's on-time performance will suffer greatly. That's a very bad thing. So I do fully admit that there are potential downsides.

 

[Guest]

This conversation of what ifs and what might have beens is interesting, but that's all they are right now -- hypotheses. Although I'm far removed from the situation, I would think that many of us would agree that the status quo isn't ideal, given the thrice-weekly Sunset Limited service and no service at all between New Orleans and Florida. There is also a scarcity (perceived or otherwise) that Amtrak doesn't have the equipment, resources or wherewithal to give everyone what they want.
Ultimately, I think a daily stub train between New Orleans and San Antonio is worth a shot. Also, extending the City of New Orleans to Florida may be an OK solution to restore that Southern link in a timely fashion.

No, the stub train isn't perfect, but daily, connecting service in trains that are at least more comfortable than planes may be enough to help bolster the route. I can understand the worst-case scenario that it will flop and the route will go away, but consider two factors. Amtrak is a political beast whose very existence has been on the bubble many, many times in its history. Also, Amtrak has been stubborn in not giving up the Sunset route east of New Orleans (for better or currently worse). Even if the SAS-NOL stub flops, would today's Amtrak fully give up this important connection?

At some point, people need to make a decision or start somewhere and see if it will work. For an agency long criticized for its inaction, I would rather see it take some steps and give a route a chance to succeed. If it takes those steps and finds it's not working, I hope the leadership is bold enough to make adjustments.

If it flops, then it is not an important connection. Too you it is a cute little gamble by Amtrak, too us our service is at risk. I don't want to bet it away.

Hopefully congress agrees.

 

[Guest]

All wrong. First, you can't use the current Sunset average price for the SAS-NOL and 1036 tickets for 1 coach train. SAS-NOL price is $48 one way. No way to average $74. Your math is as fuzzy as GML.

Lets use facts and not cherry pick numbers. The data clearly says amtrak should go daily with a NOL-LAX

LD train and add sleepers. I say LAX-ORL daily.

Okay, revise it to the Eagle's average, $57. Or use $48. That's STILL $49,728 in potential revenue.

But here's the deal--I was being generous and taking averages straight from NARP. If we want to quibble about the cost of a coach seat between SAS-NOL, then we also get to quibble about the sleeper price. My $260 was generous; checking Arrow shows a roomette price of $181 for that segment. So both figures come down some.

And math is math. The stub train will have at least 2 Superliner coaches (74 seats each x 2 = 148) and run daily. 148 x 7 = 1,036.

And I assume your quibble is that I'm completely ignoring the option of taking the Sunset daily from LAX-ORL. That's because it will never happen. I'm just figuring things per current numbers and the current plan.

No, 1 coach. 1 P42, 1 CCC, 1 coach. Amtrak says it might add a business coach in the future. I guess for the big business oilmen going

to NOL for business. Who needs a private jet when we got the stub train.

1 P42, 1 CCC, 1 coach...there you have it. What a waste of a 4000 hp locomotive. Logic suggest Amtrak

should use an EMD SW7 and a $800 portable generator for HEP for this train