Geez, Samantha, you would ask me that!! On the trip up (to Chicago on June 27), there was a full length Lounge/Observation car and it was staffed (by "Sandy", one very pleasant woman) but I believe (not sure) the diner was indeed only half dedicated to dining. But on the way back, (on July 13) again a full length Lounge/Observation car and staffed by the same gal...but you are right, only half a car for the diner and half a car for a Lounge. But there were no passengers in the lounge portion nor did it seem staffed...I remember walking through it to get to the dining portion and at the time, thought it odd as there were one or two what I thought were dining/kitchen people sitting around in this portion...maybe they were the lounge-portion staff...
AMTRAK should be giving thought to enhancing the Lounge/Observation car as it was packed with all kind of folks: adults chatting and playing cards, parents and their kids playing games, snacking, all generally having a good time. Enhancing? Well for instance, AMTRAK hasn't revived the onboard CD/DVD movies (dropped sometime back to save dollars) The monitors still stare vacantly and mute in the corners. And since the Observation/Lounge car and the Diner are adjacent, why not a "take-out" service for full meals to be eaten in the O/L car? It got more room (2 levels) and the Diner's food is a bit better, albeit more expensive, than the O/L's bill of fare. "Reservations for dinner", sucks.
I've got other thoughts...but I've run out of time. Harrie
Harrie wrote: Hey, Samantha...I regularly take the Texas Eagle to Chicago and beyond (via the Hiawatha) and I've never caught the Lounge Car unattended. (My last round trip - Houston/Chicago was the week of July 14 this year and the train was packed which was good to see...).
Hey, Samantha...I regularly take the Texas Eagle to Chicago and beyond (via the Hiawatha) and I've never caught the Lounge Car unattended. (My last round trip - Houston/Chicago was the week of July 14 this year and the train was packed which was good to see...).
Thanks for the feedback.
Amtrak had announced in the spring that it was going to assign the newly reconfigured dinning cars to the Eagle, ala the City of New Orleans, and drop the lounge car. Then it announced that it would continue running the lounge car on the Eagle, but that it would not be staffed to save on labor costs. Apparently they changed their mind.
Did your train have one of the reconfigured cars (I believe half the car is devoted to sit down dinning and half is devoted to a lounge) or was it the full length dinner?
Ridership on the Eagle was up 7.3 per cent from October 1, 2007 through May 31, 2008 compared to the previous like period. May 2008 ridership was up 27 per cent over May 2007. I suspect most of the increase was coach riders between St. Louis and Chicago. Sleeping car patrons increased by 2.4 per cent for the October 1 - May 31 period compared to the same period in 2007.
Unfortunately, the increase in the cost of operating the Eagle has outpaced the increase riders and revenues, resulting in an increase in the loss per passenger mile from 19.4 cents a passenger mile in 2007 to 24.2 cents a passenger mile to date in 2008. And the load factor still hovers around 48 per cent, which is well below Amtrak's system average.
The most fuel-efficient way (and potentially, sans carbon fuels) to move people and goods is the steel wheel on the steel rail. Therefore, that is the proper direction of public policy.
On another thread it was presented, discussed, and generally agreed-upon that the fuel saving of Amtrak over driving is comparable to that of replacing a conventional automobile with a hybrid-electric Prius.
Consider a Federal tax credit to purchase a hybrid car in the amount of $4000. Spread over a nominal 160,000 mile service life of such a car, that amounts to 2.5 cents per vehicle mile.
The Amtrak subsidy is about 24 cents per passenger mile. Which policy, subsidizing Amtrak or subsidizing the purchase of hybrid cars is more effective in saving energy?
Another difference: you can't get a tax break on purchasing a Prius anymore as with high gas prices that car has become so popular that the tax break has been phased out. Not only are there no signs that the subsidy rate on Amtrak is diminishing over time, even with high gas prices tipping travel choices towards trains, and any effort to reduce the subsidy rate, forget making a profit, is widely condemned in the advocacy community as a bogus "Amtrak reform" and as an effort to "kill Amtrak" because "everyone knows passenger trains don't ever make a profit."
The Prius still requires carbon fuels, but there are plans for a plug-in hybrid Prius: GM has a similar offering in development called the Chevy Volt. Strides have been made in the lithium ion battery. The Tesla Roadster all-electric has a battery pack offering multiples of the storage of the GM EV-1. The lithium-ion battery also offers higher efficiency in the "round-trip" of energy to charge and then discharge the battery to operate the electric motor.
A certain Presidential candidate has floated the idea of offering a 300 million prize to the developer of a lithium-ion battery that would be practical for more than limited-production cars. The Presidential candidate of the other party has criticized this effort as inadequate, arguing for a multi-billion dollar government "Manhatten Project" level of funding to get this battery.
Let's say things are in a real crisis and we have at most 10 years to develop technology to get on electric power. Ten years of Amtrak is 10-15 billion dollars, carrying .1 percent of passenger miles in the US. Ten years of the Vision Report plan is 100 billion dollars, carrying 1 percent of passenger miles. We have a lower bound of one candidate who thinks spending 300 million on a lithium battery prize would do the trick, and another candidate who wants to spend 150 billion (billion with a B) over 10 years on a Manhattan Project style crash program on alternative energy, only part of it to be spent on this battery I presume.
If you had 100 billion to spend, would you give priority to making 1 percent of trips by train, or would you give priority to solar energy and the lithium-ion battery?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
For those folks and their comments regarding the Hiawathas...1st, on the average speed of these wonderful, mostly on-time trains...keep in mind the Hiawatha now has three stops between downtown Milwaukee and downtown Chicago to take on and to discharge passengers with their luggage, wheelchairs, strollers, etc.; 2nd, there's an AMTRAK person on board with a cart of cold sandwiches, drinks & snacks for sale to passengers; and 3rd, I don't see how any one driving the same route (downtown to downtown) could do it in an hour and a half regardless of the time of day, and do it for $17.85 (OK, I get the Sr discount).
Harrie
I recently rode the SL from Palm Springs (PSN) to New Orleans (NOL) round-trip.
We were 2 hours late arriving at NOL and 2 hours late arriving at PSN, entirely due to freight train interference due to YouPee desire to place profits over people in their dispatching decisions. However, double track would have helped, particularly between El Paso and San Antonio.
I did hear several passengers expressing their disappointment that the train did not continue to Florida.
The onboard crew on both trains were very courteous and efficient.
I plan to take the SL again, and again. And trains everywhere I go. I would never fly. I have taken airplanes and hated it.
The most fuel-efficient way (and potentially, sans carbon fuels) to move people and goods is the steel wheel on the steel rail. Therefore, that is the proper direction of public policy. The "goverment expenditures at the lowest possible level" and "free market" arguments of the Republicans are no longer an appropriate response to evaluating the proper place of trains in our transportation policy in light of air pollution and the every higher price of oil. Simply put, we need to change the way we get from A to B in light to the current environment and economics. In no country does the passenger train system operate at a profit such that it is worthwhile for private enterprise. It is a public utlility for the public convenience and necessity from which everyone benefits and for which everyone should pay and everyone should use. Tax and regulatory policy that favors passengers train travel and discourages air and auto travel are what is needed.
The airlines are basically a very stupid method of transportation. If God intended us to fly, He/She would have given us wings.
The transition sleeper on the Sunset is intended primarily for the on-board service personnel who work the train from end point to end point, i.e. Los Angeles (LA) to New Orleans (NO) and vice versa. These include the dinning and lounge car personnel, sleeping car attendant(s), and coach attendant(s).
The eastbound Sunset is scheduled to arrive at San Antonio (SA) at 10:25 p.m. on Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. It is usually 60 to 90 minutes late. The Eagle sleeper and coach are uncoupled from the train in San Antonio and positioned to be coupled to the Texas Eagle, which is scheduled to depart San Antonio at 7:00 a.m.
The sleeping car attendant who works the Eagle sleeper from LA to SA stays on the car until 6:00 a.m., when she is relieved by the attendant who will work it between SA and Chicago. The LA to SA attendant stays in SA until the next westbound train, following coming off duty at 6:00 a.m., which departs SA on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday at 5:40 a.m. This means that the Eagle sleeping car attendant who arrives in SA on Monday night does not leave SA until Thursday morning. This procedure was explained to me last February by the Eagle sleeping car attendant on the train that I rode from El Paso to Austin. It may have changed, but as far as I know it is the same.
The transition sleepers have more sleeping spaces than are required for a typical Sunset and Eagle crew. Accordingly, if the regular sleeper is full, Amtrak will sell the roomettes in the transition sleeper. They appear to be comparable with the roomettes in the regular sleeping car.
The coach baggage car contains an area for checked baggage, which is baggage that passengers have check through to their destination as opposed to taking it on the train. It is put in the checked baggage area in the coach baggage car with a tag telling the train crew its destination. At the destination the train crew removes the bag from the train and delivers it to the passenger. This transfer usually takes place in a designated area of the station, at least for large stations. However, at some smaller stations, the baggage may be delivered to the passenger at train side.
The coach baggage cars on the Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited are Superliner coaches that have a baggage area on the lower level. For relatively short, lightly patronized trains like the Sunset and Eagle, which don't require a full length baggage car, the coach baggage format is a better fit.
The locomotives that pull the Sunset Limited, as well as most if not all of Amtrak's long distance trains are General Electric built P42 "Genesis". Most of the time one locomotive is sufficient to handle the Sunset and the Eagle. However, on occasion, I have seen two locomotives pulling the Sunset. The locomotive runs through from end point to end point. This is also true for the locomotive that pulls the Texas Eagle from Chicago to San Antonio and back to Chicago.
If you type Amtrak Passenger Locomotives or Amtrak P42 into Google, Yahoo, or Live Search - I am sure there others, you can get the specifications for the Genesis locomotives.
Thks Samantha.
What is a transition sleeper? Material Handling Car or Baggage Car?
a. Do you know what are the locos that Amtrak used for Train #1 and #2?
b. How many locos are pulling the consists for Train #1 and #2?
b. Do they change locos along that route?
Thks again :)
jimmylow wrote: Does anyone know the consist configuration of the Amtrak Sunset Limited (LA to New Orleans) Eastbound and Westbound (New Orleans to LA)?Is any Superliner coach added or removed along that route?Thks
Does anyone know the consist configuration of the Amtrak Sunset Limited (LA to New Orleans) Eastbound and Westbound (New Orleans to LA)?
Is any Superliner coach added or removed along that route?
Thks
I ride the Sunset two or three times a year. My last trip was in late February, when I rode the train from El Paso to Austin.
The Sunset normally consists of a loco, transition sleeper, New Orleans sleeper, dinning car, lounge car, New Orleans coach, New Orleans baggage coach, Chicago coach and Chicago sleeper. The Chicago cars come off the eastbound Sunset at San Antonio and become part of the Texas Eagle from San Antonio to Chicago. Westbound the cars come off the Eagle and are attached to the Sunset.
Amtrak shows the Eagle as a through train from LA to Chicago and vice versa, but beyond San Antonio the two through cars are attached to the Sunset Limited.
The Texas Eagle normally has a loco, transition sleeper, sleeping car, dinning car, lounge car (not staffed) and two coaches.
During heavy travel periods a third coach may be added to the Sunset as well as the Eagle.
The current issue of Passenger Train Journal contains an interview of Amtrak President Alex Kummant by the magazine staff.Kummant does not see the Sunset service east of New Orleans returning anytime soon.He is quoted as saying "The east(end) can't really come back...It's just time for everyone to get over it."
Poster's editorial comment on kummant's quote,( ).
If 60 per cent of benefit associated with the upgrading of a rail line, as well as ancillary facilities, accrues to the owner, the owner should fund 60 per cent of the cost. The incremental user (passenger rail), whether it is a private investor or the government, should fund the balance.
All kinds of arguments could be put forth why the incremental user should pay a higher percentage of the cost of the upgrade. Or perhaps all of it! If I were a railroad executive, I would argue that the upgrade is being made only because of the pending implementation of passenger rail and, therefore, the railroad should not pay any of the upgrade costs, since it did not need the upgrade, even though it would likely benefit from the improved right of way capabilities. And there are probably a hundred other arguments that could be thrown into the pot.
Clearly, there is a lot of bridge traffic on the Sunset route, as well as the T&P from Sierra Blanca to Fort Worth, etc. Midland, Texas, has become a pretty good train watching spot. To what level it will build and how long it will last is problematic.
Panama is upgrading the Panama Canal. It will be able to handle many of the larger container ships that must dock at a U.S. or Mexican west coast port. Texas is planning to improve its Houston and Corpus Christi port facilities. They plan to get some of the traffic that will eventually go through the canal as opposed to berthing on the west cost.
Dallas is building an inland port (oxymoron) south of town. It supposedly will be a major distribution center. Thus, instead of shipping the containers from the west cost to the east cost of the U.S., or points in between, many of them could go to the east coast of Texas, be off loaded, and shipped by rail to Dallas, for local as well as regional distribution.
To further complicate the matter, some economists believe that engineering it in the U.S.; building it in Asia; and shipping it to North America may not work in a high cost energy market. If this is true, it raises an interesting question. What happens to the bridge traffic if a significant number of North American manufacturers decided to relocate their manufacturing to Mexico or Central America? It could change the patterns for rail traffic in the U.S., which could have a major impact on the upgrade of the Sunset route.
No easy decisions for those who must plan for rail capacity!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.