I rode from Chicago to Dallas Nov 9-10 and was stunned that the train ran on time most of the way and pulled into Dallas 45 minutes early. My experience with this train over the past several years, and its general reputation, was that it runs notoriously late. Yet the crew tells me that in the past several months it runs close to on time. What caused this change? Did Amtrak finally find some way of causing Union Pacific to behave? What made the difference?
The Texas Eagle runs on both UP and BNSF trackage and both have been doing a lot of track rebuilidng along the route. If it is now running on time - then the track projects must be out of the way for now. My last trip encountered track maintenance projects both on UP and on BNSF track and we were on time (much to my surprise).
dd
I too was on the Texas Eagle on 9-10, also from Chicago to Dallas.
Yesterday the southbound service appeared pretty much on-time through Dallas, while the Northbound didn't show up until after 5pm making it about an hour and a bit late.
Regards, Bevis.
You were lucky.
From August 1, 2007, through November 23, 2007, Number 21 was late, on average, by 52 minutes in Dallas and 78 minutes in San Antonio. Number 22 was late, on average, by 70 minutes at Dallas and 51 minutes at Texarkana.
Number 21 was on time 27 per cent of the time at Dallas and 10 per cent of the time at San Antonio. Number 22 was on time one per cent of the time at Dallas and 12 per cent at Texarkana.
Number 21 was more than 60 minutes late, on average, for 24 per cent of the Dallas late arrivals and 40 per cent of the San Antonio late arrivals. Of the late arrivals for Number 22 in Dallas and Texarkana, 39 per cent and 27 per cent were more than 60 minutes late.
The schedules are heavily padded. For example, No 21 gets 5 hours and 12 minutes to run the 155 miles from Temple, Texas to San Antonio. Number 22 gets 4 hours and 25 minutes to cover the same distance on its northbound run. It takes the Eagle 10 hours and 25 minutes, assuming it is running on time, to get from Dallas to San Antonio. Greyhound, by contrast, runs it off in approximately 5 hours.
The late arrival averages for the Sunset Limited - Numbers 1 and 2 - at Houston, El Paso, and San Antonio are even worse.
NARP claims that the long distance passenger train is an essential element in our national transportation equation. Given the padded schedules, miserable on-time performance records, and one a day train schedules for most long distance routes, I don't know how they can make the claim with a straight face.
NARP claims that the long distance passenger train is an essential element in our national transportation equation. Given the padded schedules, miserable on-time performance records, and one a day train schedules for most long distance routes, I don't know how they can make the claim with a straight face
I second what JT22CW said.
I have read carefully the material on the NARP web site.
I have downloaded most of the studies that NARP has posted on its web site, e.g. sleeping and dining car analysis, effects of rail on the environment, rail expenditures vs. those for highways and airlines, etc. for analysis. Like most advocacy groups, NARP puts its spin on the studies, frequently leaves out important information, and ignores the other side of the argument.
I have also outlined my views on passenger rail service to NARP and asked for clarification of their positions, e.g. funding of Amtrak, funding of their comprehensive passenger rail proposal, changes they would support, etc. I have gotten an ambiguous answer or no response.
Long distance passenger trains are an out of date transport mode. Only a tiny percentage of the traveling public uses them. Moreover, not a single long distance Amtrak train covers its variable costs, which should be a basic requirement. They drain resources that could be better spent on developing rapid rail corridors (110 mph), e.g. Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Little Rock, etc.
NARP's position on long distance trains sounds like an argument for the status quo. They object to discontinuing the Sunset Limited, the Texas Eagle, etc. Moreover, they want to reinstate the Sunset from New Orleans to Orlando. Mercifully, Amtrak management has ignored them.
NARP argues that the money required to support long distance trains is a blip - my words - in the scheme of things. It is about $400 million a year before interest and depreciation. Over ten years it adds up to four billion dollars.
According to Amtrak, it costs approximately 22.5 million dollars a mile, excluding real estate acquisition, to build high speed rail, e.g. the French TGV. However, rapid rail corridors, such as those in the Texas Triangle, as well as other parts of the country, could be built for considerably less, since for the most part they could use existing rights-of-way. The biggest cost would be in upgrading the existing facilities, e.g. double tracking in places, better signal systems, improved stations, etc. One study estimates that the open country cost in Texas to upgrade existing infrastructure would be roughly seven to ten million dollars a mile, excluding real estate acquisition. Four billion dollars divided by the middle of the estimate gets you about 470 miles of rapid rail. It would even get you about 175 miles of TGV rail.
NARP has argued for better funding for corridor trains. And I give them credit for doing so. But they seem to cling to the long distance train in spite of the over whelming evidence that most people walked away from it more than 50 years ago.
I joined NARP and TXARP because they can be advocates for better passenger rail service where it makes sense, which is in high density corridors. To the extent that NARP and TXARP support the enhancement of existing corridors and the development of new ones, we are on the same page. To the extent that they continue to beat the drum for the long distance passenger train, we are in disagreement.
When I visited the Dallas/Ft Worth in October, 2004 I noticed the Texas Eagle was running on the three times I saw it. One of the causes of the serious delays for the long distance trains is having to double stops at many intermediate stations
I also agree with your position on long distance trains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.