Has anyone heard any rumors when the Sunset Limited will lift the suspended service from New Orleans to Orlando? To go to Delray Beach FL (from Houston TX) this November, AMTRAK is routing me from Houston to Longview, TX, by Motorcoach (Bus) and on to Chicago via The Texas Eagle, then from Chicago to Washington DC via The Capitol Limited, and finally from Washington DC to Delray Beach via The Silver Meteor...for a total of three days!! I like trains, but not this much... I am thinking of Greyhound...
I have little idea how restoration of Sunset service between New Orleans and Jacksonville or Orlando would be prioritized. Being a Yankee, I would say the Sunset has a very low priority unless there is a demand for regional services that also share the route, such as New Orleans - Biloxi - Mobile and Mobile - Tallahassee - Jacksonville.
You touched on the question of whether CSX will relocate farther inland. How is that going?
The talk was for some kind of LRT being built on the former grade close to the ocean front.
alphas wrote:Wasn't the Sunset Limited the Amtrak train that had the highest subsidy per passenger? Something like $750 per passenger who travelede the entire route? And the last I looked (granted it was a few years ago) there was decent bus service between New Orleans and the major cities to the east for those who didn't want to fly.
The Sunset Limited failed to cover its variable operating expenses by 48.5 cents per passenger mile in FY 2007. A passenger traveling from end point to end point on the Sunset in FY 2007 received a subsidy of $968 before other operating charges, e.g. interest, depreciation, unallocated charges, etc. These charges, when allocated to the Sunset, probably added another 10 per cent to the variable operating subsidy, bringing the total to $1,064.80.
For the first six months of FY 2008 the red ink for the Sunset jumped to 54.3 cents per passenger mile. Thus, the subsidy required to cover the end point to end point loss increased to $1,167.72.
Greyhound has one bus a day from New Orleans to Jacksonville. It takes approximately 15 hours to complete the run. It has two buses a day from New Orleans to Orlando. The travel time is approximately 17 hours.
Southwest Airlines has seven flights a day from New Orleans to Orlando. It has four daily flights to Jacksonville. Delta has one nonstop flight a day from New Orleans to Orlando. The fare is $77. Delta and the other carriers serving New Orleans offer another 59 flights, mostly one stops through Atlanta or Charlotte, from New Orleans to Orlando. Equally good service is offered from New Orleans to the other major cities along the Gulf Coast served previously by the Sunset.
Restoration of the Sunset from New Orleans to Orlando makes no sense. I believe Amtrak management knows it. This is probably the reason the Sunset Limited has not been restored between New Orleans and Orlando. In fact, continuation of the Sunset makes no sense.
I was hoping that the Sunset would be restored as my family and I would like to travel from Florida to Texas for vacation. I've flown before on a South West Airlines 737 from Texas to Florida. What an uncomfortable, bumpy ride that was! Cramped seats and it seemed that we hit every other airpocket along the way. I had one nasty headache after we landed. Fly again? No thanks.
I don't want to drive and don't want to spend 17 hours cramped in a 45ft MCI bus and eating at fast food joint stops.
I'll take a train any day going that way.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Harrie wrote: Has anyone heard any rumors when the Sunset Limited will lift the suspended service from New Orleans to Orlando? To go to Delray Beach FL (from Houston TX) this November, AMTRAK is routing me from Houston to Longview, TX, by Motorcoach (Bus) and on to Chicago via The Texas Eagle, then from Chicago to Washington DC via The Capitol Limited, and finally from Washington DC to Delray Beach via The Silver Meteor...for a total of three days!! I like trains, but not this much... I am thinking of Greyhound...
I'd be surprised if the Sunset ever ran east of New Orleans again.
You might think about cobbling together your own route.
I looked at the reverse of your trip:
Try Amtrak to Jacksonville, the hound to Atlanta, then the Crescent and the Sunset to Houston. You'd need a night's lodging in Atlanta and New Orleans, though. (there is an overnight bus to Atlanta which dovetail's pretty nicely with the Meteor at Jax - about 5 hour layover. The bus makes a good connection to the Crescent in Atlanta - about 2 hour layover- and a sleeper from Atlanta to New Orleans is really cheap ~$40) Getting from Greyhound to Amtrak in Atlanta is pretty simple. Greyhound is right at Garnett MARTA station. Take MARTA north to Arts Center Sta, then Rt 23 bus (or simple one mile walk) to Amtrak Sta.
The whole trip would start at 9AM on day one and end at 9 PM of day 3.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
How does one find any data regarding the Sunset's utilization? If that is low, wouldn't it make more sense to put it out of its misery and add the equipment to LD routes that essentially run close to sold out, especially in sleeper? Can you afford to do that and risk losing political support from those locations that are being dropped from service?
Or is the opposite true -- the lack of daily service and the poor on time performance is the essential problem, and if you were to fix those problems, plus perhaps a real connection at Phoenix, the need for the massive subsidy would be either be gone or reduced to a much more modest level?
It seems to me that continuing with the current situation is the worst of the possible choices. Samantha's numeric data is usually very on target, and as it is we should just be buying each passenger an airline ticket for the trip.
If one Amtrak train three days a week "over-taxed" CSX, some serious capacity improvement is needed for freight even without passenger service.
This gets back to what I was trying to say earlier: rail improvements for freight shouldn't hold passanger services hostage. If enegy efficiency is a national priority, if existing rail capacity is a constraint, and if railroads' ability to secure funding in the private sector is limited, then the federal government should provide some kind of assistance.
At the same time, new or expanded passenger services will require additional investments and sharing in the costs for increasing capacity.
Signaling CSX for 205 miles between Flomaton and Chattahoochee would cost $61.5 million using a recent Amtrak estimate for Illinois proposals.
I'm just guessing the 413 miles from Flomaton to Jacksonville would need upgraded track for 79mph passenger speeds and cost another $82.6 million. This assumes CSX has substantial traffic between Flomaton and New Orleans and has maintained track to a level that would facilitate passenger services.
Assuming (I have only the vaguest idea from up in Chicago) 10 controlled passing tracks would be needed and that adds another $50 million.
That work alone brings the cost to $194.1 million. One train? I think not!
By the way, Mobile-Jacksonville is a lot farter than I thought. It definitely needs northern and western (get-a-way from the brown) connections for vacation traffic to the Gulf Coast to augment regional travel.
Dakguy201 wrote: How does one find any data regarding the Sunset's utilization? If that is low, wouldn't it make more sense to put it out of its misery and add the equipment to LD routes that essentially run close to sold out, especially in sleeper? Can you afford to do that and risk losing political support from those locations that are being dropped from service?Or is the opposite true -- the lack of daily service and the poor on time performance is the essential problem, and if you were to fix those problems, plus perhaps a real connection at Phoenix, the need for the massive subsidy would be either be gone or reduced to a much more modest level?It seems to me that continuing with the current situation is the worst of the possible choices. Samantha's numeric data is usually very on target, and as it is we should just be buying each passenger an airline ticket for the trip.
Information regarding load percentages for Amtrak's trains can be found in the Monthly Operating Report. They are posted on Amtrak's website. The numbers usually require some restating and analysis.
In FY 2007, the Sunset had an average load of 52.16 per cent per passenger mile. A little more than half of the seats, on average, were occupied per mile over the 1,995 mile run from end point to end point. It is possible that the train was sold out (100 per cent) for one or more segments (station to station), or it could have been sold out from end point to end point, but that is unlikely. Moreover, it is probably 'sold out' rarely, i.e. around a few holidays and perhaps a few days during the peak vacation season.
Some folks have opined that Amtrak needs to expand its capacities because its trains frequently are sold out. However, ‘sold out' can be deceiving. For example, the Sunset could be sold out leaving New Orleans or Los Angles. But a significant number of the passengers may be off the train by the time it gets to Houston (9:13 p.m.) or Maricopa (10:07 p.m.). By looking at the load percentages per passenger mile, it is clear that the Sunset is sold out for only a small number of its route segments.
In December 2006 I took the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Portland, Oregon. The train appeared to be sold out departing Milwaukee. But most of the people had detrained by the time we got to Minneapolis/St. Paul. West of the twin cities the load was very light. And it remained relatively light all the way to Portland.
If the train is sold out, even on a consistent basis, why does Amtrak not add more cars? Management must consider several variables. How many additional people would ride the train if addition equipment was added? And for how far would they go? Is the excess demand a one off or is it frequent? Does the excess demand show a clear and consistent pattern? How much incremental revenue would be generated? What is the incremental cost of adding capacity, i.e. operating, maintenance, and depreciation (capital)? If only one or two more folks booked space on the train once in a while, adding another car would not be a good business decision. The incremental revenue would not cover the incremental cost.
If Amtrak were run like a business, the long distance trains would be dropped. As you point out, it would be cheaper to buy each passenger on the Sunset, with a few exceptions, an airline ticket as opposed to subsidizing their ride on the Sunset. For example, if they flew from LAX to NO on Air Trans, they could get a business class seat for $547, which is less than half the Sunset subsidy.
A real business would spring for the airline tickets because it is a better decision. But Amtrak is a political animal that bows to regional as well as national politics. It will continue running the Sunset, as well as the other long distance trains, baring a cataclysmic event, and they will continue to rack up nearly 50 per cent of Amtrak's losses while generating less than 23 per cent of its revenues and carrying less than 15 per cent of its passengers. That's politics!
Samantha wrote: Dakguy201 wrote: How does one find any data regarding the Sunset's utilization? If that is low, wouldn't it make more sense to put it out of its misery and add the equipment to LD routes that essentially run close to sold out, especially in sleeper? Can you afford to do that and risk losing political support from those locations that are being dropped from service?Or is the opposite true -- the lack of daily service and the poor on time performance is the essential problem, and if you were to fix those problems, plus perhaps a real connection at Phoenix, the need for the massive subsidy would be either be gone or reduced to a much more modest level?It seems to me that continuing with the current situation is the worst of the possible choices. Samantha's numeric data is usually very on target, and as it is we should just be buying each passenger an airline ticket for the trip.Information regarding load percentages for Amtrak's trains can be found in the Monthly Operating Report. They are posted on Amtrak's website. The numbers usually require some restating and analysis.In FY 2007, the Sunset had an average load of 52.16 per cent per passenger mile. A little more than half of the seats, on average, were occupied per mile over the 1,995 mile run from end point to end point. It is possible that the train was sold out (100 per cent) for one or more segments (station to station), or it could have been sold out from end point to end point, but that is unlikely. Moreover, it is probably 'sold out' rarely, i.e. around a few holidays and perhaps a few days during the peak vacation season.Some folks have opined that Amtrak needs to expand its capacities because its trains frequently are sold out. However, ‘sold out' can be deceiving. For example, the Sunset could be sold out leaving New Orleans or Los Angles. But a significant number of the passengers may be off the train by the time it gets to Houston (9:13 p.m.) or Maricopa (10:07 p.m.). By looking at the load percentages per passenger mile, it is clear that the Sunset is sold out for only a small number of its route segments. In December 2006 I took the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Portland, Oregon. The train appeared to be sold out departing Milwaukee. But most of the people had detrained by the time we got to Minneapolis/St. Paul. West of the twin cities the load was very light. And it remained relatively light all the way to Portland. If the train is sold out, even on a consistent basis, why does Amtrak not add more cars? Management must consider several variables. How many additional people would ride the train if addition equipment was added? And for how far would they go? Is the excess demand a one off or is it frequent? Does the excess demand show a clear and consistent pattern? How much incremental revenue would be generated? What is the incremental cost of adding capacity, i.e. operating, maintenance, and depreciation (capital)? If only one or two more folks booked space on the train once in a while, adding another car would not be a good business decision. The incremental revenue would not cover the incremental cost. If Amtrak were run like a business, the long distance trains would be dropped. As you point out, it would be cheaper to buy each passenger on the Sunset, with a few exceptions, an airline ticket as opposed to subsidizing their ride on the Sunset. For example, if they flew from LAX to NO on Air Trans, they could get a business class seat for $547, which is less than half the Sunset subsidy. A real business would spring for the airline tickets because it is a better decision. But Amtrak is a political animal that bows to regional as well as national politics. It will continue running the Sunset, as well as the other long distance trains, baring a cataclysmic event, and they will continue to rack up nearly 50 per cent of Amtrak's losses while generating less than 23 per cent of its revenues and carrying less than 15 per cent of its passengers. That's politics!
I have ridden the Sunset on numerous occasions from LA to NO in both directions. I always try to book my trips on Amtrak at least two to three months in advance. On the last three trips on this train I was told all sleeping car space was sold out. I thought if I had to ride coach I would. On all three occasions whether boarding at LA or NO once aboard I was able to obtain a deluxe bedroom for the entire trip. Amtrak needs to get their reservation system straightened out. If the trains sleeping space is booked that far in advance and there are that many no shows than they should be charged a booking fee of 25% for not cancelling at least 72 hours in advance. Personally I think the entire reservation system needs to be overhauled and new employees hired to run it.
The exact sleeping car problem has occurred on the Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, Empire Builder, and Coast Starlight. In each instance more than once. Why is it that I can pick up the phone a month in advance of taking the Via Rail Canadian and book the sleeping car space I want without ever being told it is sold out. When I arrive I might have a long walk to my car due to the length of the train and in some cases it is split onto two or three tracks and has to be assembled before departing Vancouver. The beautifully restored Budd cars are far cleaner than any Amtrak Superliner equipped train I have boarded in the last ten years. Amtrak does not do a good job of cleaning the interiors of their cars after each trip. Every Via Rail train I have boarded is spotlessly clean at the beginning of a trip and the car attendants maintain that cleanliness throughout the trip. If Via Rail can keep there trains clean why can't Amtrak. While stopped in Winnemucca Nev. on the California Zephyr I opened one of the Superliner doors on the opposite side from the station and witnessed a cook in the Dining car kick a dead rat out the door. There was just enough light to see what it was. I wonder if any report was made and I dare say I was not happy eating the rest of the trip in the diner.
Amtrak California seems to have there act together far better than the National Amtrak does. The Amtrak California Surfliners, San Joaquins, and Capitols are always clean, well stocked, friendly crews (that genuinely seem to care about there jobs and passengers they serve) and go out of there way to answer passengers questions. For the most part the trains are all running full and in some cases over full.
If the voters of California vote for the HSR in November it is not going to help out the immediate problem of more equipment needed on all Amtrak California trains. California has reached a point where it is now too costly to build additional freeways or add any additional lanes. With 37 million people now living in the state and still growing HSR may be the answer, I for one am not convinced it is the answer needed now. What seems to be needed now is a large order for additional California cars to solve the immediate problem.
Enough of my early morning ranting.
Al - in - Stockton
Samantha, your observations on the Empire Builder is interesting. I have seem some agitation for a Chicago/Milwaukee/Twin Cities train, and what you saw would seem to support starting a train like that. It would be about an 8 hour run, so conceivably you could get a round trip out of each trainset without getting too far into the wee hours. I believe Amtrak now attempts to deal with that situation by adding an extra coach to that portion of the Empire's run.
Does that same opportunity exist on a portion of the Sunset's route? For example, New Orleans and Houston are about the same (timetable) distance apart. Is that portion of the route much more noticably patronized? Is there some other city pair that enjoys much heavier patronage than the rest of the route?
I'm aware of the difficulty that could be encountered if multistate funding had to be procured to do such a route, but I'm not sure if the opportunity exists in the Sunset's case.
Dakguy201 wrote: Does that same opportunity exist on a portion of the Sunset's route? For example, New Orleans and Houston are about the same (timetable) distance apart. Is that portion of the route much more noticably patronized? Is there some other city pair that enjoys much heavier patronage than the rest of the route?
I don't know the passenger loads on the Sunset from New Orleans to Houston. Amtrak does not publish for public analysis the loads by segment, or at least I cannot find them.
The population of New Orleans was estimated in 2007 to be 273,000, 60% of the pre-Katrina figure and an increase of about 50,000 since July 2006. It does not have the population base, even when considering the metropolitan area, to be good candidate for more frequent passenger rail service.
There are two segments on the Sunset route that could be candidates for development as rapid rail corridors. One is from Houston to San Antonio. Both cities (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas) have populations in the millions (Houston = 5.6 million, San Antonio = 2 million). The other is Tucson to Phoenix. They have a combined population of 5.1 million.
It is approximately 210 miles from Houston to San Antonio. The Sunset takes 5 hours and 10 minutes to run from Houston to San Antonio. It takes 4 hours and 45 minutes to go the other way. If the time could be reduced to roughly three hours, which would probably require a significant upgrade of the line; frequent, comfortable, dependable, and economical trains might be able to compete with the alternatives, e.g. air, bus, car, etc. But I don't think it will happen until air and road congestion becomes a major problem, and they are not there yet.
The Arizona Department of Transportation has studied the feasibility of developing passenger train service between Tucson and Phoenix. It recommend passenger rail as a tool to reduce congestion on I-10 between Tucson and Phoenix, but I don't know where it stands.
Developing rapid rail corridors in Texas, at least, will require an infusion of state money. And the legislature in this state is not prone to spend money on railway trains, although it has coughed up some money for the Heartland Flyer.
If Amtrak discontinued the Sunset Limited, as well as the Texas Eagle, which serve few travelers, they could use the locomotives, coaches, diners, and perhaps the lounge cars to begin developing more corridors in the southwest. The same concept might apply to developing more frequent service between Chicago, Milwaukee, and the Twin Cities, but I don't have a feel for that part of the country, other than to say that people in Chicago and Milwaukee seemed to have a more favorable opinion of passenger trains than people in the southwest.
passengerfan wrote: Samantha wrote: Dakguy201 wrote: How does one find any data regarding the Sunset's utilization? If that is low, wouldn't it make more sense to put it out of its misery and add the equipment to LD routes that essentially run close to sold out, especially in sleeper? Can you afford to do that and risk losing political support from those locations that are being dropped from service?Or is the opposite true -- the lack of daily service and the poor on time performance is the essential problem, and if you were to fix those problems, plus perhaps a real connection at Phoenix, the need for the massive subsidy would be either be gone or reduced to a much more modest level?It seems to me that continuing with the current situation is the worst of the possible choices. Samantha's numeric data is usually very on target, and as it is we should just be buying each passenger an airline ticket for the trip.Information regarding load percentages for Amtrak's trains can be found in the Monthly Operating Report. They are posted on Amtrak's website. The numbers usually require some restating and analysis.In FY 2007, the Sunset had an average load of 52.16 per cent per passenger mile. A little more than half of the seats, on average, were occupied per mile over the 1,995 mile run from end point to end point. It is possible that the train was sold out (100 per cent) for one or more segments (station to station), or it could have been sold out from end point to end point, but that is unlikely. Moreover, it is probably 'sold out' rarely, i.e. around a few holidays and perhaps a few days during the peak vacation season.Some folks have opined that Amtrak needs to expand its capacities because its trains frequently are sold out. However, ‘sold out' can be deceiving. For example, the Sunset could be sold out leaving New Orleans or Los Angles. But a significant number of the passengers may be off the train by the time it gets to Houston (9:13 p.m.) or Maricopa (10:07 p.m.). By looking at the load percentages per passenger mile, it is clear that the Sunset is sold out for only a small number of its route segments. In December 2006 I took the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Portland, Oregon. The train appeared to be sold out departing Milwaukee. But most of the people had detrained by the time we got to Minneapolis/St. Paul. West of the twin cities the load was very light. And it remained relatively light all the way to Portland. If the train is sold out, even on a consistent basis, why does Amtrak not add more cars? Management must consider several variables. How many additional people would ride the train if addition equipment was added? And for how far would they go? Is the excess demand a one off or is it frequent? Does the excess demand show a clear and consistent pattern? How much incremental revenue would be generated? What is the incremental cost of adding capacity, i.e. operating, maintenance, and depreciation (capital)? If only one or two more folks booked space on the train once in a while, adding another car would not be a good business decision. The incremental revenue would not cover the incremental cost. If Amtrak were run like a business, the long distance trains would be dropped. As you point out, it would be cheaper to buy each passenger on the Sunset, with a few exceptions, an airline ticket as opposed to subsidizing their ride on the Sunset. For example, if they flew from LAX to NO on Air Trans, they could get a business class seat for $547, which is less than half the Sunset subsidy. A real business would spring for the airline tickets because it is a better decision. But Amtrak is a political animal that bows to regional as well as national politics. It will continue running the Sunset, as well as the other long distance trains, baring a cataclysmic event, and they will continue to rack up nearly 50 per cent of Amtrak's losses while generating less than 23 per cent of its revenues and carrying less than 15 per cent of its passengers. That's politics! Samantha,I have ridden the Sunset on numerous occasions from LA to NO in both directions. I always try to book my trips on Amtrak at least two to three months in advance. On the last three trips on this train I was told all sleeping car space was sold out. I thought if I had to ride coach I would. On all three occasions whether boarding at LA or NO once aboard I was able to obtain a deluxe bedroom for the entire trip. Amtrak needs to get their reservation system straightened out. If the trains sleeping space is booked that far in advance and there are that many no shows than they should be charged a booking fee of 25% for not cancelling at least 72 hours in advance. Personally I think the entire reservation system needs to be overhauled and new employees hired to run it. The exact sleeping car problem has occurred on the Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, Empire Builder, and Coast Starlight. In each instance more than once. Why is it that I can pick up the phone a month in advance of taking the Via Rail Canadian and book the sleeping car space I want without ever being told it is sold out. When I arrive I might have a long walk to my car due to the length of the train and in some cases it is split onto two or three tracks and has to be assembled before departing Vancouver. The beautifully restored Budd cars are far cleaner than any Amtrak Superliner equipped train I have boarded in the last ten years. Amtrak does not do a good job of cleaning the interiors of their cars after each trip. Every Via Rail train I have boarded is spotlessly clean at the beginning of a trip and the car attendants maintain that cleanliness throughout the trip. If Via Rail can keep there trains clean why can't Amtrak. While stopped in Winnemucca Nev. on the California Zephyr I opened one of the Superliner doors on the opposite side from the station and witnessed a cook in the Dining car kick a dead rat out the door. There was just enough light to see what it was. I wonder if any report was made and I dare say I was not happy eating the rest of the trip in the diner. Amtrak California seems to have there act together far better than the National Amtrak does. The Amtrak California Surfliners, San Joaquins, and Capitols are always clean, well stocked, friendly crews (that genuinely seem to care about there jobs and passengers they serve) and go out of there way to answer passengers questions. For the most part the trains are all running full and in some cases over full. If the voters of California vote for the HSR in November it is not going to help out the immediate problem of more equipment needed on all Amtrak California trains. California has reached a point where it is now too costly to build additional freeways or add any additional lanes. With 37 million people now living in the state and still growing HSR may be the answer, I for one am not convinced it is the answer needed now. What seems to be needed now is a large order for additional California cars to solve the immediate problem. Enough of my early morning ranting.Al - in - Stockton
You made some excellent points, West Coast Al. Amtrak's system is not first-come, first-served but more of a telephone lottery with no particular talent or commitment to "win" first-class space than a lot of down time and a redial. Why shouldn't the people who are willing to reserve in advance (and pay plenty for it, I might add) get what they want? There might be some safeguards, not accepting reservations more than a year in advance is one way; but the fact remains that the kind of system Amtrak STILL uses is designed more to discouraged L-D travel, esp. 1st Class.
Some people KNOW they want to go such-and-such a place on April 18, 2009, and why shouldn't they be able to book now? Don't tell me the run could be suspended because airlines suspend service too but try to find alternatives. Being told a train is sold out but to "keep trying" doesn't make sense with today's software systems in place. Airlines sure don't use "roulette" software, not does VIA as you point out, and you can bet business people and their travel agents wouldn't tolerate for that kind of laxity on the part of airlines.
The Sunset limited and its pork-and-beans car, "Dialing to Spend Dollars," and other phenomena make one wonder if time for Amtrak froze in the mid-Seventies, except for the NEC and perhaps a couple of corridor routes.
My experience with Amtrak reservations has been very good. I always use the on-line site to make my reservations. It is one of the best on-line reservation sites that I have used.
I have taken five trips on Amtrak over the past year. I booked all of the space (coach, business class, and first class) on-line. The process was simple to follow, and there were no errors in my reservations.
I have used the system since it was launched. In fact, when I lived in Australia, I booked my Amtrak travel plans from Melbourne, via my computer, for travel when I was back in the States on home visits. Again, I never ran into a problem.
I just looked at the system to see if I could book a sleeper from Austin to LAX for next May 1st. No problem! I don't think you can book more than a year in advance, at least on-line, and I would be surprised if you could on the telephone.
Southwest Airlines only opens its reservation system for booking six to nine months in advance. I believe most of the other airlines follow the same procedure. Very few people need or desire to book more than a year in advance. Accordingly, building the capability to do so would not be a good business decision.
Amtrak has a lot of challenges. But its on-line reservation system is as good as any airline system that I have used. And I have been booking reservations on-line since the Sabre System was opened up to Prodigy users in the 1990s.
For corridors, speed is relative. Fast is relative to highway congestion and driving time and to alternative air service for trips over 100 miles.
The Hiawatha #330 that is carded to arrive in Chicago at 7:57am averages just 50.6 mph. I suspect some of the slow running is due to compromises for Metra trains carrying as many as 1,400 passengers. Most Hiawathas are scheduled for 89 minutes for a 58.0 mph average.
Fast also does not trump convenience of suburban and strategic intermediate corridor stops that may add time; but also reach more riders and origin-destination pairs. I think the Hiawatha service should add stops at Gurnee and Truesdale (Kenosha) which would add six minutes.
Houston and San Antonio were cited as potential corridors on the Sunset Route; but there are only small travel markets outside the two urban areas. Stops may not generate enough riders to offset the the longer travel lost with a small increase in time. Only the convenience of a suburban stop would make rail service a more viable option than back-tracking to a downtown station for half the respective area's population.
Without sizable on-line markets to attract riders to the two cities, rail would face difficult competition from both air and highway travel. The driving time is 3 hrs, 4 min according to Google Maps. This is further exacerbated by a longer rail route and curvature frequently limiting speeds to 50 or 65 mph for conventional trains. Unless highway congestion increases travel time and aggrevation beyond a train's, there is little market for rail in this corridor.
Passenger rail can compete with air or other surface transport options only when air and highway congestion becomes so great that enhancing the airways or highways becomes cost prohibitive. The Houston to San Antonio corridor, or for that matter, any of the potential corridors in Texas, is a long way from that point. But it may happen some day.
Houston and San Antonio, as is the case with all Texas cities, are spread far and wide. The western suburbs in Houston and the eastern suburbs in San Antonio extend for west or east for more than 35 miles. As Harvey points out, several suburban stations would be required in both areas to make the trip convenient for people - that's most Texans - who don't and will not live near the city centre.
Greyhound figured it out years ago. It has suburban stops in every major Texas city that it serves. If it can do it, surely the planners for a serious train option could figure it out. Well, maybe!
Many people assume that the train would run downtown to downtown, thereby being inconvenient for people living east of Houston or west of San Antonio. But the service could start 25 miles east of Houston and 25 miles west of San Antonio, depending on the population in those areas. Undoubtedly, this would add to the time to complete a trip from one extremity to the other, but when drive time to the airport is considered, it may not be an impediment.
Maps can be deceiving. In addition to the population on the east side of San Antonio, New Braunfels and San Marcos are less than 25 miles from the rail line. Texas State University - San Marcos is a large state university with many students from the Houston area, who could be candidates to use a train.
As I stated in my post, the running time would have to be chopped to at least three hours or less from downtown to downtown to complete with alternative transport options. Greyhound has 11 schedules a day between Houston and San Antonio, with times of 3 hours and 15 minutes to 3 hours and 35 minutes. With enhancement of the rail line and the use of tilt type equipment, it is probably doable. In 1957, as an example, The Sunset Limited ran from Houston to San Antonio in four hours and five minutes with a stop in Schulenberg.
I am in my late 60s. I don't expect to see a rapid rail corridor in Texas, with the possible exceptions of Austin to San Antonio and Houston to Galveston, in my lifetime. Of the potential Sunset corridors, Houston to San Antonio is probably the best bet along with Tucson to Phoenix.
HarveyK400 mentioned the time of the 7:57 train from Milwaukee to Chicago as only averaging 50 something MPH I dare say taking the highway from Milwaukee to Chicago at that hour would average nothing like 50mph in fact I would be surprised if it would average 30 mph.
passengerfan wrote: HarveyK400 mentioned the time of the 7:57 train from Milwaukee to Chicago as only averaging 50 something MPH I dare say taking the highway from Milwaukee to Chicago at that hour would average nothing like 50mph in fact I would be surprised if it would average 30 mph. Al - in - Stockton
City center to city center, during our ever-expanding rush "hours," it might be even worse! - a.s.
In Illinois, a passenger survey was taken a decade ago now, and a quarter of the passengers from Downstate, anywhere outside the SMSA, detrained at a Chicago Area suburban stop. Half the Region's population comes from the suburbs; but considering the distances around the suburban ring and lack of circumferential transit, this is not a bad result. Suburban travel continuing on Metra was included in downtown destinations resulting in some under-counting.
As you suggest, continuing service through the farther side of a metropolitan area could capture more riders with the convenience. Judging from the aerial photos, the tracks around Houston and San Antonio are quite insulated from access and trackside communities making satellite stations difficult.
For years I preached extending Amtrak trains to O'Hare, about 17 miles from Union Station and the idea was picked up by Midwest High Speed Rail. More than a train-to-plane service, O'Hare is stategically located with access from the Tri-State (beltway) and Northwest/Jane Adams Tollways, the nearer Northwest Suburbs, almost as much office space as downtown, hotel and meeting facilities, and car rental services.
Stations on the far side of a metroplitan area corridor teminus are tricky. The typically slower track speeds approaching a downtown station and the time necessary to board or unload passengers offsets convenience to some degree. Some may find it faster to drive around to a beltway station on the near side of the corridor.
Going to Springfield last year with a group, people from the Northwest Suburbs chose to drive to Joliet southwest of Chicago, a distance of 40-50 miles, rather than taking an early Metra train to Ogilvie and walking two blocks to Union Station. I used Metra to Ogilvie from my far North Side neighborhood because it was more direct.
I took the liberty of Googling the more likely station cities and the respective counties between Houston and San Antonio and came up with a list. One political problem may be that many counties on the line will want a stop despite low expectations for attracting riders. Three stops, Eagle Lake, Columbus, and Schulenburg, are suggested just because it is a corridor and the communities being some distance apart are strategically located. Sugarland and Rosenberg are suggested for Houston suburban stops; and Luling and Seguin are suggested for San Antonio and Austin-Round Rock area stops. An additional station closer in to the respective city centers would be helpfull; but a quick look didn't reveal any suitable locations.
I am not familiar with Milwaukee-area traffic; but assuming it is free-flowing toward Chicago in the morning, about 30 minutes delay can be expected driving into Chicago in the rush hour. About 15 minute's delay can be expected most of the day; and rises back to a half hour or more for the evening rush. This results in a 47 mph average downtown-to-downtown.
Now the Edens is being resurfaced and the delay may be around an hour with lanes reduced. Metra trains are packed, as if the situation wasn't bad enough already with commuters switching to the trains because of the price of gas. There has been no capital bill for additional equipment or anything else in the last three legislature sessions.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Rapid corridor rail (average speed of 80 mph) will not come to Texas until air and traffic congestion compels it. As I said, these conditions are not likely to be extant for decades.
It is 52 miles from Austin, or 70 miles from Round Rock, to Sequin, which would be the closest connection point. It is 165 miles from Austin to Houston. If a person has to drive 52 or more miles to catch a train, he is more likely to stay in the car and drive to Houston. Accordingly, the Austin area is not a good target population for a rail corridor between San Antonio and Houston, although it is a good candidate for rail service from Austin to San Antonio.
Of the other communities along the line, i.e. Sequin, Schulenburg, Eagle Lake, Columbus, etc., only Sequin has enough population to have a potential political voice in the legislature, assuming that it would have some influence on where the trains stopped. As of now legislative action would be required to fund any rail corridor in Texas. But in several decades, who knows? Conditions may change to the point where investors would put up the money. And then the trains could be operated by a real business. That would be a shocker.
In many instances past practices are a major impediment to the implementation of new passenger rail corridors. Too many rail advocates think in terms of current paradigms, i.e. downtown to downtown, low capacity cars, one or two trains a day, conductors collecting tickets on the train, dinning cars, etc.
Making rapid rail a viable option between Houston and San Antonio would require a significant upgrade of the track, grade crossings, and signal systems. It would also require greatly improved stations, parking areas, and accesses. These steps, by the way, were implemented for the Trinity Railway Express between Fort Worth and Dallas.
Labor and overhead costs would have to be reduced. The train would have to get by with a driver, a trainman, and a person(s) to serve passengers pre-pared food at their seats, assuming that food service is necessary for a three hour trip. The airlines and Greyhound don't serve food between Houston and San Antonio. Tickets would have to be sold on-line or at a station kiosk. There would be no ticket agents. Passengers would insert their ticket into an automatic gate to access the station platform, and they would follow a reverse procedure at their destination. This is essentially how BART works.
When Southwest Airlines begins service in a new location, it offers frequent departures. This is one of the factors in its business model that has made it successful. A train service between Houston and San Antonio, or any other rapid rail corridor in Texas, would have to do the same thing. One or two departures a day would not work.
It's 44 miles from Austin to Luling which is 20 miles closer to Houston. I would not dismiss this potential stop out of hand. One HSR proposal was a three-pointed star centered on Austin. This certainly would not be possible with the existing rail lines.
Schulenburg, Columbus, and Eagle Lake are definite question marks which leaves a long distance between Luling and Rosenberg. As I mentioned earlier, these stops are proposed more for the surrounding area - rural access - along the corridor. How much would 9 minutes affect the ridership?
San Antonio could use an additional stop at TX-1604 and maybe at I-10.
You say an 80mph average is needed. This seems to go beyond what tilt trains could accomplish over the existing alignment. Speeds would need to be increased to 110 where practical, and some curve reduction also would be needed. In the end, you seem to be saying a 2.5 hour schedule is needed to compete with driving time.
MapQuest says that it is 46.35 miles from Austin and 60.13 miles from Round Rock to Luling. This is nearly a third of the average driving distance from Austin/Round Rock to Houston. Most Texans, at least the ones I know, would stay in their car as opposed to driving more than 45 miles to catch a train.
Studies have shown that once people are in their car, unless they are flying long distances, they tend to stay in it unless traffic conditions significantly impede driving. Of course, with gasoline averaging more than $4 a gallon, economics will play a bigger part in the decision than when it was $2 a gallon.
The train would have to be quick enough to beat driving, which Map Quest estimates at just over three hours. It would also have to be quick enough to beat the bus. Greyhound shows 3 hours and 15 minutes for its quickest schedule between Houston and the Alamo City. And it would need to be quick enough to compete within a window with the airlines. Southwest requires 50 minutes to fly between Houston and San Antonio. It would need to be less than three hours; whether it needed to be 2.5 hours is problematic.
The Map Quest estimate is only doable if one arrives in either city outside of the morning and evening rush hours. It is probably a stretch for someone departing or arriving during rush hour. Depending on where one is going, it could add 15 to 30 minutes to the travel time.
Airline passengers need to add an hour at the departure point to comfortably clear security and 15 minutes upon arrival to get any check luggage. Thus, they are looking at slightly more than two hours to fly.
Driving time to the airport vs. the train station is part of the equation, but it is difficult to weigh. It depends on each passenger's situation. If a potential traveler is near a rail line station and is going downtown or to an address near a suburban stop, the train could beat flying. But if he is closer to the airport and is going to an address near the airport in the arrival city, flying could win hands down.
Clearly, to be competitive, as I said, the tracks, signals, and equipment would have to be upgraded significantly to make passenger rail competitive between Houston and San Antonio or any rail corridor in Texas. In addition, the station facilities would have to be upgraded significantly. Middle class people, especially business travelers, are not going to settle for a dimly lighted station with the option of buying a three day old pastry from a vending machine and a sign in the parking lot advising them not to leave their vehicle overnight, which pretty much describes the Austin station.
Moreover, if I were in charge of it, I would not do it until the train could cover all of its variable operating expenses and half of the annual depreciation. In addition, I would only do it in a private enterprise/government partnership, unless a miracle happened, and all forms of transport were required to cover their true costs at the pump or ticket counter. Then I would insist on using only private money.
Moreover, congestion has to get a lot worse than it is now before people will look to trains as a viable alternative to other surface transport options or flying. One indication that we are not there is the mean commute time in Texas vs. the U.S. It is nearly the same at approximately 25 minutes. But we may be there in 2030. The population of Texas was 23.5 million at the end of 2006. It is projected to be nearly 34 million by 2030. Nearly 70 per cent of the growth is expected to occur in North Texas, along the Fort Worth to San Antonio Corridor, and in the Houston/Galveston area.
Maybe Round Rock is a bit of a stretch; but Austin and the Capitol seems reachable for the Houston market given the willingness of at least one person of a small group to drive from Barrington to Joliet, 53 miles, to catch the train to Springfield, IL, 148 miles. A bus connection to Austin from the Houston train at Luling would seem to be needed.
A 3-hr schedule would have a fight to get riders other than for commuter runs. If bus operations in Texas are similar to the Midwest, you'll find few buses scheduled in the rush hours to compete with. Similarly, if rush hour driving time is 3.25 hrs, a train would have some appeal. This is somewhat comparable with the Chicago - Milwaukee Corridor auto-train time differential until recently.
I think we are agreed that a 2.5-hr schedule would win a lot of riders; but that significant improvement costs would need to be evaluated.
Parking security in Austin and elsewhere may be a problem; but that is something that needs action. I imagine parking during the day is risky as well.
As a follow-up, what should be the relationship between significant public investment in a passenger service and a railroad, in the Sunset Corridor's case an important and busy Union Pacific freight route? Does the railroad get a free ride for curve reduction, signal, and crossing improvements and a reduction in freight transit time? Does the public get a commensurate equity stake in the railway line?
I'm guessing the Sunset Route is in line for capacity improvements for export and chemical traffic. The former T&P is being upgraded to relieve the burden of Cotton Belt traffic on the Sunset east of Sierra Blanca. This would have been a major impact between San Antonio and Flatonia.
At the least, three passing tracks would be needed for passenger meets. As many may be desired for passenger-freight meets and a second main and hold-out track may be desired approaching Houston and San Antonio.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.