Sam1 dakotafred Sam1 Railroads do not pay property taxes. Or any other tax for that matter! Like all businesses they pass them through in their rates. The shipper pays the taxes and, in turn, passes them, as well as his business taxes, onto the end user in the price of the goods. This is fallacious as applied to railroads vs. their competition. Because -- if the railroads don't "really" pay property taxes, their competition (trucks, airplanes, barges) doesn't really pay property taxes TWICE. This is so because trucks, airplanes and barges don't have to build into their rates that which the rails do -- the cost of that check written to the county treasurer. (Or, in our state, a check written to the state, which prorates it through the subdivisions.) In short, they're forced to pass on to the customer one fewer tax than the rails are, giving them that much of a rate advantage. Railroads pay (collect) property taxes. But they don't pay federal fuel taxes on the diesel burned in their locomotives: I may be wrong on this point, in which case someone will correct me, I am sure. In a few states they pay sales taxes on their locomotive fuel. Railroads don't pay to use their rights-of-way. They pay for the construction and maintenance of them. The infrastructure is depreciable. Depreciation is a deductible expense for federal and state tax purposes. It reduces an entity's tax expense. In the case of a railroad, which is capital intensive, the depreciation expense is significant. It reduces the railroads tax expense significantly. Truckers, airlines, barge lines, bus companies, etc. pay user fees (fuel taxes, license fees, etc.) to cover their proportional share of building and maintain the common facilities that they use, i.e. highways, airways, etc. The user fees are a proxy for the property taxes and infrastructure costs that the railroads pay. Users of the airways, highways, waterways, etc. cannot take any depreciation for the common facilities that they use to reducre their tax expense. Whether the commercial users of the common facilities, i.e. airways, highways, waterways, etc. pay their fair share has been debated ad nauseam. And it is likely to continue without resolution. If the total tax liabilities of the commercial users of the common facilities are taken into consideration, I believe that the commercial users, i.e. truckers, airlines, etc. pay close to their fair share of the cost of facilities that they use. Corporate taxation is complex. Many people have a tendency to only look at a portion of the tax picture, i.e. higheway user fees, and miss the tax implications of depreciation, corporate income taxes that flow to the general funds, etc. A thorough discussion of taxation and its implications is beyond the scope of these forums.
dakotafred Sam1 Railroads do not pay property taxes. Or any other tax for that matter! Like all businesses they pass them through in their rates. The shipper pays the taxes and, in turn, passes them, as well as his business taxes, onto the end user in the price of the goods. This is fallacious as applied to railroads vs. their competition. Because -- if the railroads don't "really" pay property taxes, their competition (trucks, airplanes, barges) doesn't really pay property taxes TWICE. This is so because trucks, airplanes and barges don't have to build into their rates that which the rails do -- the cost of that check written to the county treasurer. (Or, in our state, a check written to the state, which prorates it through the subdivisions.) In short, they're forced to pass on to the customer one fewer tax than the rails are, giving them that much of a rate advantage.
Sam1 Railroads do not pay property taxes. Or any other tax for that matter! Like all businesses they pass them through in their rates. The shipper pays the taxes and, in turn, passes them, as well as his business taxes, onto the end user in the price of the goods.
And can someone please explain the relationship (if any) between this impasse on taxation and the various accomodations that might be used in sleeper cars?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmAnd can someone please explain the relationship (if any) between this impasse on taxation and the various accomodations that might be used in sleeper cars?
Aw, C'mon....
It is entertaining to read Sam1 mix up real estate taxes and property taxes and then attempt to use utility industry accounting methods to explain railroad accounting. I agree with you Schlimm but it does bother me a little when the two posters are talking at each other vs with each other and not realizing they are discussing two different items. So allow me a little clarification here for both posters involved in the taxation debate.
To clarify here in Texas for Commercial Entities.......Real Estate Taxes are paid on the value of land and buildings or structures on them and is usually assessed externally.
Property taxes are paid on equipment within the building or structure and except for vehicles are usually estimated with a internal assessment using a rendition form as a base. So for example, a restaurant in Texas pays Property Taxes to the County for the equipment used within the building to make the end product served to the customer even though the Real Estate in which production takes place is leased and paid by the landlord. The proprietor submits a rendition form to the taxing authority (appraiser) yearly which estimates the value of the property internal to the structure to be taxed whereas the external land and building is typically appraised via recent sales in the vicinity or some other like means by the appraiser.
The relationship is simplel and refers to both property and real-estate taxes:
If there were a level playing field in ground transportation, it may be more likelyi that freight railroads would finid it useful to have a showcase of good passenger service as their best interface with the public. To me, both real-estate and property taxes on comjmon-carrier railroads to harm. They distort the competition with over-the-road trucking and buses, and they discourage the investment in iincreasing capacity to better serve the public. Even if trucks and buses paid enolugh taxes to support hightway maintenance, they would still get someowhat of a free ride compared to the railroads.
Relationship? Railroads pay property and real-estate taxes for the rigihts of way they use. Buses and trucks do not. This makes the overland transportation pciture unfair. Thus subsidization of LDs is necessary or greater than it would be with fair competition. Fairness would bring more hope for investment in the kind of passenger accomodations discussed on this thread.
The user fees paid by truck, bus, and airline companies are not analogous to real-estate taxes paid by railroads but are analoqous to the expenses of the railroads in building and maintaining the RoW and all its facilities. Truck and bus and airline companies do not pay anything analogous to real-estate taxes on the RofW they use.
Sam1's attempt to argue rough equivalency between property taxes and user fees is ridiculous, if not deliberately misleading. The difference is as between building and maintaining a hotel and renting a hotel room for the night.
schlimm And can someone please explain the relationship (if any) between this impasse on taxation and the various accomodations that might be used in sleeper cars?
Ah, Schlimm, you wouldn't be blowing a police whistle on us, would you? (You'd be in bad company.)
The relationship is simply the evolution of an interesting discussion out of one that was uninteresting for its remoteness from reality. What's to complain of?
dakotafred schlimm And can someone please explain the relationship (if any) between this impasse on taxation and the various accomodations that might be used in sleeper cars? The relationship is simply the evolution of an interesting discussion out of one that was uninteresting for its remoteness from reality. What's to complain of?
Best use of the /sarc tag I have seen in a long time.
But I, for one, am sympathetic to schlimm's desire to return to a discussion of 'intermediate' sleeping arrangements. Seems to me the Chinese have recently 're-invented' Pullman-like arrangements for this sort of thing, and Mr. Payne went to some length in designing bilevel sleeper arrangements that would fit Northeastern clearances. Shouldn't we revive informed (and considerate!) discussion of things like those?
And save the tax nitpicks for people who want to read about them?
dakotafredAh, Schlimm, you wouldn't be blowing a police whistle on us, would you? (You'd be in bad company.) The relationship is simply the evolution of an interesting discussion out of one that was uninteresting for its remoteness from reality. What's to complain of?
No, not part of the discussion police. I wondered if there was some connection in the topics. However, it appears to be your need to dismiss other topics with contempt (uninteresting for its remoteness from reality) any time you can hijack it for your political/ideological/economics hobbyhorse, which usually has little to do with passenger railroading.
OK, so back to topic. I think they should bring back the Tour O Luxe car the Milwaukee Road used and perhaps even coach seats that convert to beds. I suspect folks would only use or feel comfortable in them for one overnight and the whole curtains thing might not work. Would be curious to see how a modification of the Tour O Luxe would work without impacting coach hauling capacity in number of passengers.
It appears that you or Mike is going to have to explain the Tour-O-Luxe arrangement to me, as I can't get a search engine to find anything about it ...
EDIT: It's "Touralux" for anyone following the idea. Plenty of hits when you know exactly how to spell it, none otherwise... strange. I'd expect that from 20th-century search technology, but not our 'modern' versions that so helpfully fill in what we "ought" to have typed on our way to feeding us the wrong answers to questions we weren't actually asking... /sarc
GBNorman had this to say about them (Oct 5 2007, on Trainorders):
"Regarding ... additional commentary of the MILW Touralux Sleepers, they were so named 1) because they were railroad operated (as distinct from Pullman) and 2) their fare basis was Coach plus Space rather than the usual Pullman First Class rail plus Pullman Space. The cars were built at Milwaukee Shops and had attractive "light and airy' interior mo tiff. Comprising 14 open Sections, there was wood veneer paneling, indirect fluorescent lighting, and Robin's Egg Blue floor tiling The 14 Section cars were assigned to the Olympian, since the class of service was Coach, the Skytop obs was off limits, I'm sure there were intrepid gate crashers even back then (source; lunchtime chats with Jim Scribbins). Since I have been removed from MILW employment for more than twenty five years, I guess I can say the Touralux business plan was flawed, even though the MILW was the only road to order all-Section cars for "econosnooze'. There simply was not recognition that the open Section was a "goner'; too many Abbott and Costello skits, too many WWII "never again' experiences. From my compilation above, it should be noted that the 'United and American" of passenger carriage back then, namely the Central and Pennsy, did not order one open Section car. Finally, there was only one "econosnooze' design that made sense - and that was the Budd Slumbercoach. It's duplex design enabled 40 passengers (22 being the nominal capacity of a "postwar' Pullman) to sleep in private rooms and with their own "facilities'. Those roads, particularly the Canadian roads, that simply took 'spruced up' heavyweight sleepers and sold them at a Coach fare base, had no appreciable investment in equipment to recover. Not so with the MILE [sic] and no wonder many of the cars were converted to Coaches.'
Does someone here know if 'Mount Rushmore' in Montevideo has a restored interior -- and if so, are there any links on the Web to good pictures?
CMStPnP OK, so back to topic. I think they should bring back the Tour O Luxe car the Milwaukee Road used and perhaps even coach seats that convert to beds. I suspect folks would only use or feel comfortable in them for one overnight and the whole curtains thing might not work. Would be curious to see how a modification of the Tour O Luxe would work without impacting coach hauling capacity in number of passengers.
Did you (or anyone else on here such as Deggesty) ever get a chance to ride a Touralux? A description of the experience would be informative.
schlimm CMStPnP OK, so back to topic. I think they should bring back the Tour O Luxe car the Milwaukee Road used and perhaps even coach seats that convert to beds. I suspect folks would only use or feel comfortable in them for one overnight and the whole curtains thing might not work. Would be curious to see how a modification of the Tour O Luxe would work without impacting coach hauling capacity in number of passengers. Did you (or anyone else on here such as Deggesty) ever get a chance to ride a Touralux? A description of the experience would be informative.
Johnny
schlimmDid you (or anyone else on here such as Deggesty) ever get a chance to ride a Touralux? A description of the experience would be informative.
No my experience with the Milwaukee was Intercity trains from Chicago to Milwaukee before Amtrak took over. I remember the God awful interior paint (pastel rose, pastel blue, turquoise and birch paneling.....with light blue seats) but thats about it. Oh yeah the floors were largely the paste by paste tile by that time, not carpeted and some of the tiles were comming loose.
Seen the the interior of the Touralux car in real life as it existed in Milwaukee Road times (there is still one of them out there floating around.....no idea who owns it but I peaked on the inside).
For those that are too young, they are basically a Superliner Economy Bedroom but with two abrest facing seats (like a regular coach) with the wall to the hallway missing and replaced by a curtain. There is a wall behind each seat back that extends to the car ceiling. They had a slide out table from the rail side wall......about the same size as Superliner but a little longer that you could place between the seats during the day, otherwise it sat against the wall. Bottom two facing seats slide togther to form a bed and a bed folds down from the rail side of tha partial compartment (two beds total BUT both were wider than Superliner Economy beds). Luggage stored under the seat. They double pretty well as a long distance coach because the wall to the aisle is missing and when the curtains are not hung, allow for easy of conversation and ticket taking during the day.
BTW, Schlimm......Ex-Milwaukee Road Diner just came on the market on the Ozark Mountain Rail website. Part of the interior is as it was during the Milwaukee's time.....go take a look. Sooner or later someone will put the Touralux car on the market.....it is out there somewhere. Again not sure where but it is in relatively good shape last time I saw it in the 1990's.
I imagine the experience was not much different than a regular section sleeper, which I experienced many times. And would be happy again to do so, even in an upper berth.
The New Haven and Boston and Maine bought a few postwar Pullman Standard lightweight sleepers that had a few sections in them. They ran on the Owl, State of Maine, and possibly Montrealer-Washingtonian, not sure about the last.
CMStPnPEx-Milwaukee Road Diner just came on the market on the Ozark Mountain Rail website. Part of the interior is as it was during the Milwaukee's time.....go take a look. Sooner or later someone will put the Touralux car on the market.....it is out there somewhere. Again not sure where but it is in relatively good shape last time I saw it in the 1990's.
I saw the site. So many cars!!
CMStPnP schlimm Did you (or anyone else on here such as Deggesty) ever get a chance to ride a Touralux? A description of the experience would be informative. No my experience with the Milwaukee was Intercity trains from Chicago to Milwaukee before Amtrak took over. I remember the God awful interior paint (pastel rose, pastel blue, turquoise and birch paneling.....with light blue seats) but thats about it. Oh yeah the floors were largely the paste by paste tile by that time, not carpeted and some of the tiles were comming loose. Seen the the interior of the Touralux car in real life as it existed in Milwaukee Road times (there is still one of them out there floating around.....no idea who owns it but I peaked on the inside). For those that are too young, they are basically a Superliner Economy Bedroom but with two abrest facing seats (like a regular coach) with the wall to the hallway missing and replaced by a curtain. There is a wall behind each seat back that extends to the car ceiling. They had a slide out table from the rail side wall......about the same size as Superliner but a little longer that you could place between the seats during the day, otherwise it sat against the wall. Bottom two facing seats slide togther to form a bed and a bed folds down from the rail side of tha partial compartment (two beds total BUT both were wider than Superliner Economy beds). Luggage stored under the seat. They double pretty well as a long distance coach because the wall to the aisle is missing and when the curtains are not hung, allow for easy of conversation and ticket taking during the day. BTW, Schlimm......Ex-Milwaukee Road Diner just came on the market on the Ozark Mountain Rail website. Part of the interior is as it was during the Milwaukee's time.....go take a look. Sooner or later someone will put the Touralux car on the market.....it is out there somewhere. Again not sure where but it is in relatively good shape last time I saw it in the 1990's.
schlimm Did you (or anyone else on here such as Deggesty) ever get a chance to ride a Touralux? A description of the experience would be informative.
Incidentally, the accomodations in all Pullman sections were wide enough for two people to sit abreast--and two people could sleep, fairly comfortably, in a lower berth (and lowers in troop train service were always occupied by two men, but only one man would be assigned to an upper)--my wife and I did so, twice, the first time going from Vancouver to Jasper in 1997, and the second time going from Jasper to Vancouver in 2003. From the diagrams that I have seen, the berths in enclosed sections were not quite as wide as those in open sections so the porter would have a little bit of room inside the walls to use when making the berths.
Mt. Chittendon, 14 section. part of the 15-car Mount series cars
There also were the 6 Falls series cars, 8 sections and 32 coach seats
CMStPnP schlimm And can someone please explain the relationship (if any) between this impasse on taxation and the various accomodations that might be used in sleeper cars? Aw, C'mon.... It is entertaining to read Sam1 mix up real estate taxes and property taxes and then attempt to use utility industry accounting methods to explain railroad accounting. I agree with you Schlimm but it does bother me a little when the two posters are talking at each other vs with each other and not realizing they are discussing two different items. So allow me a little clarification here for both posters involved in the taxation debate. To clarify here in Texas for Commercial Entities.......Real Estate Taxes are paid on the value of land and buildings or structures on them and is usually assessed externally. Property taxes are paid on equipment within the building or structure and except for vehicles are usually estimated with a internal assessment using a rendition form as a base. So for example, a restaurant in Texas pays Property Taxes to the County for the equipment used within the building to make the end product served to the customer even though the Real Estate in which production takes place is leased and paid by the landlord. The proprietor submits a rendition form to the taxing authority (appraiser) yearly which estimates the value of the property internal to the structure to be taxed whereas the external land and building is typically appraised via recent sales in the vicinity or some other like means by the appraiser.
Had you taken the time to read my post carefully, you might have noted the context. I was responding to another post re: having the railways subsidize long distance passenger trains as opposed to paying real estate taxes.
Moreover, had you read my quote from AAR re: taxes, you would have noted that AAR refers to the tax category as property taxes. Look it up!
Having said that, a better term would have been ad valorem tax, which includes real estate taxes, property taxes, etc.
The discussion re: taxes has nothing to do with the presenting topic. My response re: taxes was in response to a question or challenge by Mr. Klepper.
dakotafred Sam1's attempt to argue rough equivalency between property taxes and user fees is ridiculous, if not deliberately misleading. The difference is as between building and maintaining a hotel and renting a room there for the night.
Sam1's attempt to argue rough equivalency between property taxes and user fees is ridiculous, if not deliberately misleading. The difference is as between building and maintaining a hotel and renting a room there for the night.
If it is ridiculous, why don't you put up some data to show that the postion is ridiculous. Instead, what you have a tendency to do is demonize someone with whom you disagee without any supporting evidence.
Ah I knew I would find it on the internet somewhere. No idea where this surviving Touralux car is or the name of it but...
Picture of interior of a Milwaukee Road Touralux car. Top bed folded down on rear compartment but remains up on compartment closest to the Camera. Note the beds would be wider than a Superliner and the Curtains are not hanging seperating the aisle from the compartment. I noticed in Milwaukee Road publicity shoots the curtains are only hanging at night and taken down during the day or some how secured during the day.
Sam1 dakotafred Sam1's attempt to argue rough equivalency between property taxes and user fees is ridiculous, if not deliberately misleading. The difference is as between building and maintaining a hotel and renting a room there for the night. If it is ridiculous, why don't you put up some data to show that the postion is ridiculous. Instead, what you have a tendency to do is demonize someone with whom you disagee without any supporting evidence.
Sam: Follow the money. Consider the town (or county) of Podunk. The railroad passes through, two main tracks and a large bridge over the Wet River within town limits. Lots of value there, real estate and track, so the railroad gets saddled with a property tax bill in the thousands of dollars. For this it gets essentially nothing. It doesn't use the water and sewer services, street lights, library, parks, sports arena, etc.. The money goes to the town, to be used for general operations, none of which benefit the railroad. This is not a user fee, since the railroad is not getting any use from it. In fact the town often uses the railroad's property tax to help fund local road maintenance.
Now those vehicles in and around town are indeed paying various user fees, mostly in the form of fuel taxes. These go to more senior levels of government and usually get used somewhere else. Unlike property tax those fees directly benefit the users (provided we ignore the fact that they may not be actually going to maintain any of the roads they use daily). They are not available to help fund the town's operating expenses.
CMStPnP Ah I knew I would find it on the internet somewhere. No idea where this surviving Touralux car is or the name of it but... Picture of interior of a Milwaukee Road Touralux car. Top bed folded down on rear compartment but remains up on compartment closest to the Camera. Note the beds would be wider than a Superliner and the Curtains are not hanging seperating the aisle from the compartment. I noticed in Milwaukee Road publicity shoots the curtains are only hanging at night and taken down during the day or some how secured during the day.
Oh, please do not call a section a "compartment." A compartment is a private room that is a little larger than a bedroom. They are still found on VIA's Canadian, but you cannot ask for one, for they, as well as the bedrooms, are sold as "Cabins for two." If you ask for a bedroom or for a cabin for two, and are told that you will be in Room F, you will have a compartment and you will have about a foot and a half more room from front to rear than you have in a bedroom. I still ask for a room by the old designation, and, so far, the person taking my request knows what I am asking for.
The sleeper debate needs a look at a very long range outlook. ( 20 - 30 years ).
We need to look at what has happened in Europe. The higher speed day trips have displaced the shorter sleeper night time routes to a certain amount. Would daytime trips somewhat faster displace night time sleeper passengers?
A perfect example is the ATL - NEC Crescent. ATL - WASH ( presently ~ 634 miles) is ~ 13:45 of time. If the route could be reduced to 10 hours would give an average speed of ~63.4 MPH. With track upgrades that should be possible. Plans to upgrade some route sections to 90-110 MPH will help. ( first section is the planned CLT - Greensboro upgrade ).
So how many passengers that need to take the Crescent sleepers when the upgrades are completed would take a day trip on the route? Just look at the Palmetto ridership that is ~ 11:00 for a slightly lower distance. That is a day trip that carries a decent load. BC is many times full which could apply to a day ATL - NEC
Most other LD sleeper route patronage is longer and would not meet this example.
The United States is not Europe and we will have a lot more rural areas to cover for much longer into the future. Europes rural areas are rapidly dwindling. Pretty sure United States will have a need for intermediate or overnight service, long after it gets HSR widely implemented (if we ever reach that point).
Outside the short distance corridors and back to the intermediate corridors where HSR will probably never happen yet I still think we want an overnight rail option. I could see these coach / sleeper hybrids being used on new overnight trains say for example.....
Dallas, TX -Denver, CO using FW&D and C&S (seasonal service for ski season)
Dallas, TX - Kansas City, KS
Dallas, TX - New Orleans, LA
Dallas, TX - Monterrey, MX
Chicago, IL - Denver, CO (daily service)
Salt Lake City, UT - Portland, OR
As you are the only one on here asserting equivalency, I'd say the monkey is on your back. Why don't you put up some data to show how your position is NOT ridiculous?
If LD overnights will remain with us, it seems reasonable to offer a wider variety of accomodations that would increase car capacity and thus increase revenue and reduce the loss. Another advantage of the Slumbercoach/Touralux/couchette types of sleepers would be to make some sleepers affordable for the younger crowd, who currently are not patrons. They would not be popular with older folks and the obese, but they could still use bedrooms, etc.
CMStPnPNo idea where this surviving Touralux car is or the name of it but...
I mentioned (apparently way too cryptically!) that the surviving car is 'Mount Rushmore', at the Milwaukee Road Heritage Center in Montevideo, MN. I guess you've answered the question about how much of the original interior is still in that car. Their official Web site is here:
http://www.montevideomrhc.org/photo.php
Sometimes there is complaining on RyPN on how difficult it is to repair rotting window sash or roof leaks in a museum's car. Scroll down until you see Skytops for a somewhat more challenging project... !
CMStPnP Outside the short distance corridors and back to the intermediate corridors where HSR will probably never happen yet I still think we want an overnight rail option. I could see these coach / sleeper hybrids being used on new overnight trains say for example..... Dallas, TX -Denver, CO using FW&D and C&S (seasonal service for ski season) Dallas, TX - Kansas City, KS Dallas, TX - New Orleans, LA Dallas, TX - Monterrey, MX Chicago, IL - Denver, CO (daily service) Salt Lake City, UT - Portland, OR
All of these routes (except Chicago-Denver) have not seen passenger service for years and Salt Lake-Portland & Kansas City-Fort Worth are the only other routes that ever had Amtrak service for any length of time. Overnight service has not been a realistic travel option for a long time so starting from scratch on routes with a fair amount of air service competition is doomed to failure. Consider the history of the "Spirit of California" to see the result.
CMStPnP The United States is not Europe and we will have a lot more rural areas to cover for much longer into the future. Europes rural areas are rapidly dwindling. Pretty sure United States will have a need for intermediate or overnight service, long after it gets HSR widely implemented (if we ever reach that point). Outside the short distance corridors and back to the intermediate corridors where HSR will probably never happen yet I still think we want an overnight rail option. I could see these coach / sleeper hybrids being used on new overnight trains say for example..... Dallas, TX -Denver, CO using FW&D and C&S (seasonal service for ski season) Dallas, TX - Kansas City, KS Dallas, TX - New Orleans, LA Dallas, TX - Monterrey, MX Chicago, IL - Denver, CO (daily service) Salt Lake City, UT - Portland, OR
I do an annual ski trip out west (usually Colorado), although I live in Michigan and not Dallas. I had thought of a possible Fri/Sunday round trip from Dallas to Edwards CO, (Vail) on the Tennesee Pass line (now out of service). It could have left Dallas about supper time Fri, and arrived at the Vail/Beaver Creek area Sat AM. Short shuttle to ski Sat & Sun, then Leave Sun. before dinner and arrive Dallas Mon AM. The travel time lengths are consistant with C&S and D&RGW times. Vail is popular with Texans.
The problem with Denver, is that it is 2 hours to the nearest destination ski area, and a lot slower on weekends. At least Amtrak to Winter Park (ATK uses the Frazer station) is close to a ski area. Glenwood Springs is about an hour to Aspen.
I had thought about taken ATK to ski Colorado, but during my working years the airlines were a faster option. I figured that now that I am retired, I could get the senior rate, but then I found out that there is no senior rate for sleeper. As usual, this years ski trip is by air.
Quoting Midland Mike: "I do an annual ski trip out west (usually Colorado), although I live in Michigan and not Dallas. I had thought of a possible Fri/Sunday round trip from Dallas to Edwards CO, (Vail) on the Tennesee Pass line (now out of service). It could have left Dallas about supper time Fri, and arrived at the Vail/Beaver Creek area Sat AM. Short shuttle to ski Sat & Sun, then Leave Sun. before dinner and arrive Dallas Mon AM. The travel time lengths are consistant with C&S and D&RGW times. Vail is popular with Texans."
Looking at the passenger schedules that I have from Dallas to Minturn (the closest stop to Vail), I find that the above timing is really optismic. The latest schedule I have for the FW&D/C&S (1/12/67) shows the Texas Zephyr leaving Dallas at 1:15 in the afternoon and arriving in Pueblo at 4:12 in the morning. The latest schedule I have that shows the Royal Gorge running west of Salida (5/1/67) has it leaving Pueblo at 12:15 in the afternoon, and arriving in Minturn--the other side of Tennessee Pass--at 6:25 in the evening; Salida, which is east of the Pass, is 85 miles east of Minturn (and not readily accessible to Vail), was reached at 3:15 in the afternoon.
I doubt that the improvements necessary to have overnight service between Dallas and the Vail area would be made, considering that it has been more than 55 years since there has been any passenger service between the to areas.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.