Texas has the second highest population, estimated to be nearly 24 million in 2007. Given the population, Texas needs to be part of an Amtrak national system; and ways need to be found to make services more viable. What can be done?
Even limited improvements for $10-million passing sidings on the Sunset and Eagle routes in Texas is hard to justify in order to raise short-distance travel on unreliable long distance trains. Would a basic and complementary 2-train corridor services between Dallas and San Antonio and Houston and San Antonio attract 150 or more passengers per train and begin to justify even more the investment in sidings for faster an more reliable schedules?
According to Wikipedia, the Amtrak Texas Eagle serves three of the four largest metro areas in Texas: Dallas-Fort Worth (6.1M), San Antonio (2.0M), and Austin-Round Rock (1.6M). The Eagle also serves the 15th and 20th largest State areas of Longview (0.23M) and Texarkana (0.13M-TX); and a re-route through Waco adds the 14th largest area. The rest of the Eagle route links in order of population Chicago (9.7M), Saint Louis (2.8M), Little Rock (0.84M), Springfield (0.19M), Texarkana (0.14M-AR), and Bloomington-Normal (0.12) metropolitan areas and numerous non-metro areas.
The Sunset serves Houston (5.6M) and El Paso (0.73M) as well as San Antonio. Together, Amtrak provides service, and I use the term loosely, to 2/3 of the Texas' population and roughly 5% of the US total.
As Samantha pointed out in the NC thread, the Amtrak Texas Eagle route is a circuitous 39 miles longer from Dallas to San Antonio than by driving. This may not be as serious a handicap as it first appears, inasmuch as the circuitry can be attributed to a necessary 34-mile dog-leg at Fort Worth for the convenience of the large metro area.
The BNSF seems to have the better-engineered line between Fort Worth and Temple. The UP hacked up the MP and MKT south of San Marcos; but the MP seems to have less-restrictive curvature. Still, the entire UP route seems rife with mostly 2 & 3-degree, 60 & 50 mph curves, quite unlike Illinois. With some 79 mph running between curve restrictions, trains may be able to average around 65 mph over the road (not station to station with dwell time). Tilt trains might be allowed up to 79 and 65 mph respectively for these curves, raising the average running speed to around 75 mph.
I was wondering how the crossovers between the former MP-MKT joint mains between Ogden and San Marcos affected Amtrak?
My one personal experience on the Texas Eagle was back in 1999. At the time, UP did a credible job moving the train with minimal delay demonstrating that it's doable. The Eagle rolled through most of the many meets on the passing track without stopping. I read that UP was operating the Texarkana, AR - Dexter, MO directionally on the former MP and SLSW; but I don't know if this was in effect at the time.
Adding passing tracks or creating short two-main segments to contribute to increased capacity seems to be an obvious step.
It appears that a connection between the MP and SP at the Pan Am Expy and Walters St was removed. This would appear to offer a more direct and faster route into the San Antonio station. Is there any reason why this could not be restored?
UP is currently running directional between San Marcos and Taylor with Austin being on the north-bound line. Thus the south-bound Eagle is "swimming upstream." There is a lot of talk about a new dedicated freight line Austin to San Antonio to open the current line for more passenger operation. But IMHO it is just talk. Nobody is going to front the 2 or 3 billion that would take.
dd
Amtrak or its hoist carriers are not likely to make the investments required to improve the performance of the Texas Eagle and Sunset Limited.
As long as the political winds support running Amtrak's long distance trains, the Eagle and Sunset services are likely to be with us. Amtrak could improve them with a seemingly minimum investment.
Last year I sent a proposal to Alex Kummant with some thoughts on how to bring it about. He sent me a nice reply acknowledging that the proposal had some merit. The gist of what I proposed is discussed below.
Discontinue the Sunset. Run the Eagle on its current route from Chicago to Fort Worth, but beyond Cow Town run it on the T&P to El Paso and the Sunset route to Los Angles as a daily train. Extend the Heartland Flyer from Fort Worth to San Antonio and the City of New Orleans from the Crescent City to San Antonio as a daily train.
These changes, forgetting for the moment whether they are doable, would result in several improvements. Service would be provided to Abilene, Texas (area population 125,000) and the Permian Basin cities (Midland and Odessa) with an area population of 250,000. The cities between New Orleans and San Antonio would get a daily train in both directions that called at a reasonable hour. The cities between El Paso and LA would get a daily train and better calling times. Moreover, the Heartland Flyer could be scheduled to arrive in San Antonio and Oklahoma City at a reasonable hour. Passengers would be able to transfer to or from the Eagle and Heartland Flyer in Fort Worth.
There would be some losers in the above described scenario. Del Rio, Sanderson, and Alpine would lose service, although connecting bus service could be provided to San Antonio and Midland. These three communities have a combined population of approximately 40,000 compared to more than 375,000 along the T&P route. El Paso would lose its convenient morning and evening departure times, but it would gain daily service. Passengers wanting to travel from New Orleans to points west of San Antonio would have to stay over night in San Antonio, catch the Heartland Flyer to Fort Worth, and connect with the Eagle. Passengers to Del Rio could catch a bus in San Antonio. Eastbound passengers would have to reverse the exercise. A key question is how many people on the Sunset travel from New Orleans to points west of San Antonio and vice versa?
There are at least five potential hurdles to this proposal. The UP would balk at a daily passenger train on the T&P between Fort Worth and Sierra Blanca. Equipment availability could be a problem. Operating constraints could be another issue. The politicians representing Del Rio, Sanderson, and Alpine would be opposed to losing their thrice weekly train. It would not be possible unless Amtrak found a way to run the trains on time. Given its dismal record outside of the Northeast, Illinois, and California corridors, running on time is not promising.
Samantha wrote: Passengers wanting to travel from New Orleans to points west of San Antonio would have to stay over night in San Antonio, catch the Heartland Flyer to Fort Worth, and connect with the Eagle.
Passengers wanting to travel from New Orleans to points west of San Antonio would have to stay over night in San Antonio, catch the Heartland Flyer to Fort Worth, and connect with the Eagle.
or take bus San Antonio to El Paso. I'd expect that to be more reasonable, just not palatable for railfans.
The thread title is "Saving the Eagle, Sunset". There are those who would argue that this proposal is destroying the village in order to save it. I tend to lean towards 3 days a week is close to no service, so I'm willing to grant that daily Chicago-Texas-LA and daily New Orleans-San Antonio is an improvement over what we have today. Any thoughts on sending your extended Heartland Flyer to Laredo instead of just San Antonio?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Samantha,
You have some interesting ideas.
Extending the City of New Orleans at least to Houston makes a lot of sense.
I like the T&P route through Abilene, Midland and Odessa serving a much larger population which is good for Texas. I've given some thought to working it and other extensions into a Texas Triangle service. The T&P shaves some miles off the Sunset Route and quite a few hours off the time to Tucson and Los Angeles. I'm a little concerned that people from Chicago, Springfield, and St Louis may be more inclined to go to Austin and San Antonio.
Extending the Heartland Flyer to San Antonio preserves intra-state travel between Ft Worth and San Antonio. Currently, the Heartland Flyer feeds into the Eagle to San Antonio, so the sb Eagle would need to be scheduled to arrive Ft Worth earlier and the nb to depart later.
A Kansas City - Ft Worth train would have flipped the schedule; but both trains would double the service between Ft Worth and Okahoma City.
The overwhelming majority of people going from San Antonio to El Paso on a commercial carrier fly. It is 553 miles from SA to El Paso via I-10.
My proposal envisioned two bus connections. One would be from San Antonio to Del Rio. The other would be from Alpine to Midland. This might reduce the angst amongst the Del Rio and Alpine residents over the loss of the Sunset. Frankly, I don't think the bus connection would last very long. Most people in these communities drive to San Antonio or Midland and, if they are traveling long distance, they fly from those communities.
For several years Amtrak ran the Inter American to Laredo. It did not attract many passengers. Moreover, the track south of San Antonio would only permit 50 mph running, so it took seemingly forever to get to the border city. The UP has probably improved the track since then, but I don't think there is a market for service south of San Antonio.
Amtrak is not going to expand its long distance train network unless the Congress gives it a lot more money than has been proposed or the states pony up a lot of money. I don't see that happening in Texas.
My proposal is all about improving the existing service without the incurrence of significant additional cost. About a decade ago TXARP proposed running the Eagle over the T&P to El Paso and on to Los Angles as a second train. They did not want to touch the Sunset. They also wanted to add a new train from Kansas City to San Antonio and Houston, if I remember correctly. To me this illustrates one of the problems of the rail advocacy groups. They want to expand a lightly patronized system, without saying how they would pay for it other than to get more government money. This is self defeating. Most people know that frequently you have to give to get. If advocates show no willingness to compromise, most executives, managers, and politicians will ignore them.
I forgot to mention two points in my previous post. A station would have to be constructed to serve Midland and Odessa. It could be located half way between the two cities. They are only 30 miles apart. The tracks run just south of the Midland Airport. Thus, any passengers who wanted to take the train to Midland and connect to a flight would have an easy transfer, although I don't imagine that there are many people who would want to do so.
The other thing that I would do is eliminate all the ticket offices south of St. Louis except for New Orleans, Fort Worth and Los Angles. Passengers would be required to buy their tickets on-line, which the airlines have shown is doable, or from station kiosks. Those wanting to check their bags would have to take them to a designated train side location, where a crew member could check them, and place them in the baggage compartment. If the baggage man had pre-printed checks for every stop Enroute, it would not take long to tag the bag and give the check to the passenger. This system is already in effect at most of the smaller stations along the Eagle and Sunset routes. The savings in labor could be used to help improve the services as recommended.
dldance wrote: UP is currently running directional between San Marcos and Taylor with Austin being on the north-bound line. Thus the south-bound Eagle is "swimming upstream." There is a lot of talk about a new dedicated freight line Austin to San Antonio to open the current line for more passenger operation. But IMHO it is just talk. Nobody is going to front the 2 or 3 billion that would take.dd
This is not entirely correct. Tell the MFWSA crews that, along with several other southbounds that utilize the line through Austin. Yes, the majority of traffic is northbound, but the lion's share of the delay to No. 21 occurs well before the train hits Taylor, and recent run times are in the 2 hour 10 minute to 2 hour and 20 minute range range between Austin and San Antonio.
No. 21 does tangle with northbounds regularly at Bergstrom, where a road crossing shortens the effective length of the siding, and at Kyle where crews "lay off crossings", generally preferring not to move their trains until No. 21 is between siding switches and the freight can get a green signal some 5200 feet down the line. Grade crossings within the limits of these sidings cut the effective length of the siding, making efficient meets almost impossible. Once past these two locations, No. 21 generally runs pretty hot straight and normal to San Antonio.
While Laredo itself is not large, the combined Laredo-Nuevo Laredo area population was estimated at 718,000. Laredo would not be a bad extension for the Texas Eagle in itself; but turning the train reliably could be an obstacle. Do not underestimate the potential Mexican market for a train from Chicago to the border and connections with the NdM. The impact of bus and even plane being less expensive as well as faster is another consideration.
Another possibility is a route to Brownsville-Harlingen (408,000 pop) and Matamoros (423,000 pop) through Corpus Christi-Kingsville (445,000 pop) from San Antonio. The combined metro areas have a population of 1,276,000, 78% greater than Laredo-Nuevo Laredo. The route would be even longer and slower, making scheduling between Chicago even more difficult.
Currently the Texas Eagle schedule with Chicago midday arrivals and departures compliments the commuter schedules of the Lincoln Service.
I'd like to look into the possibility for rerouting the Sunset New Orleans - Houston - Dallas-Ft Worth - El Paso. Dallas-Ft Worth is larger than San Antonio for a National system route; but the question again is of a schedule fit. Any thoughts in the meantime?
Geez, give Midland and Odessa their separate stops.
I like the idea of agent-less stations where a smaller number of passengers passengers board, and where the work involved to check identification, to tag and stow baggage, and to operate lift devices or ramps would not delay the train for more than a couple minutes.
Amtrak already has some ticket kiosks for self-serve ticketing and will-call for on-line reservations. A system is in place that could be improved. For a person without a bank card; a phone card could be purchased at a vendor such as a Walmart or supermarket where cash is handled significant volume. Pre-paid parking could be assessed on the same charge or debit as the ticket.
Ideally, boarding and alighting passenger should be divided as evenly as possible for each car in order to minimize boarding and alighting time. Computer-generated space assignments wouild including platform boarding position to give passenger a clue.
Realistically, there may be fewer conductor and assistant conductors and car attendants on a long-distance train than the number of coaches and sleepers. Certain cars can be filled for particular destinations, eg, Chicago - Dallas, and a car for short trips between Chicago and St Louis may first become a St Louis - Dallas car, then Dallas - San Antonio.
Sorry for all the typos in the previous post.
I can see why the Eagle/21 doesn't attract many riders westbound: arriving in Los Angeles on the fourth morning and in Tucson and Maricopa very late, if near on-time, the third evening.
Similarly, the westbound Sunset/3 doesn't do much for Texas, arriving in San Antonio in the dead of night. Furthermore, the over-night layover imposed in New Orleans for connections from Chicago and New York must discourage connections in addition to the poor timing at San Antonio and Arizona.
Samantha's suggestion for an Eagle reroute serves the Midwest-Arizona market better with third morning arrivals in Tucson and Maricopa, a late afternoon arrival in Palm Springs, and an early evening Los Angeles arrival on the third day.
Interestingly, an evening Sunset/3 departure from New Orleans connecting with both the Crescent/19 and earlier City of New Orleans/59 would put the train into Dallas and Fort Worth by way of Houston at the same time as the Texas Eagle/21. Houston would be reached early the third morning from New York on 19 rather than late the third evening, beating a possible connection through Chicago even if the Eagle split at Marshall. Arizona and California arrivals would be on the fourth day from New York. The Sunset/3 could continue between New Orleans and Los Angeles via Dallas with the timing of a re-routed Eagle/21.
The Eagle/21 could continue to San Antonio or to either Laredo or Brownsville connecting with a Sunset/3 re-routed through Fort Worth. Although smaller, Laredo is the shorter route to Monterrey and Mexico City while a Thruway express currently operates between San Antonio and Brownsville. A second bus might be added to Corpus Christi and provide continuing service to Brownsvill.
Does anyone know if rail passenger service is still provided between Laredo and Mexico City? If not, connecting buses to Monterrey and Mexico City would avoid another transfer and establishing a separate security and customs checkpoint.
Photos of the Copper Canyon train demonstrate the idea of transporting mobile homes by rail that might be applied to the Eagle. All it takes is tying down mobile homes on piggy-back flats. Maybe an auto-mobile home train with flats, racks, and Superliners could be combined on the Eagle. Service could run just over night between Saint Louis and Dallas, all the way between Chicago and Mexico City, or in other combinations.
"My proposal is all about improving the existing service without the incurrence of significant additional cost."
Unfortunately, there is/could be significant cost in the restructuring of crews, layovers and additional personnel required for such a reroute.
San Antonio is currently the point for the mandated 1500 mile inspection on the Sunset, and the Eagle recieves repairs and maintenance/cleaning and servicing there as well. Crewing the Eagle from the T&E side is problematic at best, since relocating crews from San Antonio to man the rerouted train would be expensive if not cost-prohibitive altogether. Watering and fuel are issues, as well with delays causing fuel levels to get to an unacceptable level. Also, given the grades on the west end, a second unit may have to be added to maintain schedules with the current 8 cars. Add an additional one and you will need that second unit for certain, driving fuel costs way up. There are no places to obtain potable water in quantity for passenger cars on the route, and trash disposal is another issue that would require more cost, although minimal. Locomotive maintenance forces and such are virtually non-existent enroute.
Currently, the Eagle runs with a single Engineer on the Ft. Worth-Austin and Austin-San Antonio segments, using a total of 4 regulars plus protection of 1 extra board space for a total of 5. A reroute of this train would cost 8 Engineers, at a minimum and without accurate run times available, could run the total to as high as 10. The layovers on such a train would run up HAHT and could potentially run into true service outages and delays, as the railroad follows Toyah Canyon, and that part of the T&P has seen significant washouts in its lifetime.
Elimination of the ELP-SAS segment of the Sunset likely would not kick in C2 protections, but it would create a mess with crew relocations as has been demonstrated in the past.
The train crew situation is similar in scope, and to lose current stations in favor of Abeline and Midland-Odessa is noble, but questionable, given the cost involved in executing such a move and the ongoing cost to sustain it. Designated train side locations are also problematic, as the consists frequently change although line numbers generally do not. Also, recent statistics, which I cannot quote, do show the majority of tickets are on line purchases and that figure is growing.
Samantha, what smaller stations with checked baggage are you referring to? What baggage man? Our trains do not use TBM's any more, with simply a Conductor and Assistant on most trains with minimal OBS staffing. Even Austin does not have checked baggage anymore, and on the Eagle's route south of Ft. Worth, there is no checked baggage handled at any station, except San Antonio. Ticket machines do exist here in Austin, San Antonio and Temple, I believe, as well as others.
All this chatter went around the horn with ideas very similar to Samantha's several years ago. The bean counters looked, and re looked at the numbers and we are still runniing on the current route. Not that it shouldn't be revisited again, but that isn't going to guarantee that the results will be different. And all the bean counters know what the definition of insanity is.
Sometimes ya gotta break a couple eggs to make an omlette.
If the service can be made more convenient to attract more passengers, this would seem to trump costs of dislocations of staff and relocated facilities. The alternative may be to discontinue the Sunset which would allow staff to stay home without a job. How many jobs are there between New Orleans and Los Angeles?
I don't see how extra crews are needed with Samantha's proposal: an eastern leg of the Sunset would operate New Orleans-San Antonio, the San Antonio-Ft Worth leg of an extended Heartland Flyer would replace existing Eagle service, and a 4 mile longer rerouted Eagle between Ft Worth and El Paso should be comparable to current San Antonio and El Paso crewing without exiling people to a remote outpost.
How many times in the last ten years has the line washed out in Toyah Canyon?
I would think UP would rather have the Sunset off the Alpine-Houston route, notwithstanding that they are said to be interested in diverting St Louis and Memphis traffic to the T&P and are adding capacity with new and extended sidings and CTC.
First, the Texas Eagle needs to make its current schedule (eg, within 1/2 hr) between Ft Worth and Chicago 86% of the time, six of seven trips each way. The UP agreed to the current Texas Eagle schedule, implying that it is doable. A Ft Worth-San Antonio train needs a 6-hour schedule that averages a modest 47 mph. Five hours would be better, but we're dealing with Superliners and single-track operation.
An earlier and reliable schedule would facilitate a rescheduled connecting bus service that arrives in Brownsville late at night rather than expecting customers to wait in San Antonio until the early morning departure. A separate bus to Corpus Christi would save half and hour to McAllen, Harlingen, and Brownsville. An earlier San Antonio arrival also would permit extending the Eagle or a connecting bus to Laredo before midnight. More convenient connecting bus services might fill a coach or two north of San Antonio; but train comfort must compete with through bus speed to Austin and Dallas-Ft Worth.
Rerouting the Eagle via Odessa would offer a reasonable evening arrival from Dallas-Ft Worth. A convenient connecting bus schedule from Sweetwater to Lubbock and Amarillo would attract even more riders on the California experience. The down side is a late-night arrival in El Paso; the alternative was an inconvenient and almost useless service to San Antonio.
Previously I wrote about rerouting the Sunset from Houston to Dallas in conjunction with evening connections with the Crescent and City of New Orleans, over night to Houston, and an early afternoon timing at Dallas-Fort Worth coinciding with the Eagle schedule. This puts a much larger market, Dallas-Ft Worth, on the Sunset route; and it adds only 122 miles to the route.
The Heartland Flyer would continue to terminate in Fort Worth with the Eagle following southbound and preceeding northbound. Extending the Heartland on the current schedule would break the connections with the Eagle from Chicago and St Louis and the Sunset from Houston.
I presumed using the SP route through College Station, and thats about the only on-line traffic of any consequence that I see. I'm just guessing this may be more favorably received by the UP than continuing Houston-San Antonio.
The San Antonio inspection could be changed to Fort Worth for both the Sunset and Eagle and remain under 1,500 miles from Los Angeles.
Railroad people are notoriously resistent to change, "It's always been done this way;" so it's no wonder the trains are on the same routes. The dots remain connected, even though the schedule is abismal and unattactive for nearly everyone.
4merroad4man and HarveyK400
As I said in my first post, there are four or five barriers that would have to be overcome to implement my recommendations regarding the City of New Orleans, Eagle, Sunset and Heartland Flyer. Clearly, I don't have access to the inside information necessary to determine if they could be overcome.
Others have made similar proposals. However, the ones that I reviewed envisioned an expansion of the long distance train system, i.e. keep the Sunset Limited and extend the Eagle to LA as a daily train, whereas I am only advocating a change of service along most of the existing routes, i.e. daily service between New Orleans and San Antonio as well as west of El Paso. I don't think there is any real support for expanding the system, but there could be support for making the existing system better if it only require a relatively small investment.
Rerouting the City of New Orleans, Eagle, and Heartland Flyer, as well as discontinuing the Sunset, would produce two improvements. It would open up a substantial Texas market to train service. But most importantly, it would improve the calling times and frequency at most of the major cities along the existing routes. Most people, who might consider taking the train, are not going to get up in the middle of the night to catch one. Only the diehards will do so.
The key question is whether improved scheduling and frequency would generate enough incremental revenues to offset the incremental costs. I don't know. But an organization that will not experiment with its service patterns will never know if there are better ways to do things. And in the business world, where I spent my working career, those who won't experiment and change die on the vine.
Having grown up in Altoona, Pennsylvania, which at the time was the home of the heavy works of the Pennsylvania Railroad, as well as a crew change point for all freight and passenger trains, I have a deep respect for railroad people. Most of my friend's fathers and uncles worked for the PRR. Railroaders are no more resistant to change than the rest of us. Most of us don't like to get outside of our comfort zone, especially after we have put down roots. But change is a part of our world. And sometimes it can produce great opportunities.
When I was 60, my company asked me to move to Australia to take over a function at our Australian subsidiary. Sure, why not, I told myself. Off I went. And it turned out to be the best five years of my life. Picking up roots at 60 was not easy. But the payoff was better than anything that I imagined.
Up until this spring Amtrak had station agents in Texarkana, Marshal, Longview, Dallas, Fort Worth, Temple, Austin and San Antonio to serve the Eagle, for the most part, as well as the Heartland Flyer in Fort Worth.
I was in Alpine this past week. Amongst other things I had time to observe Numbers 1 and 2. The configuration was two locomotives, a baggage car, transition sleeper, two sleepers, one lounge car, one diner, and four coaches. One sleeper and one coach, at least, were Eagle connection cars. So the Sunset, at least during the summer, is using two locomotives.
The probability of Amtrak making any significant changes in the long distance service, especially along the lines that I have suggested, is slim and none. But it is fun to think what might be.
As I have said in previous posts, the future of the long distance passenger train is doubtful. I would prefer to see them discontinued and implement instead viable rail passenger service in the Texas Triangle. But as long as the long distance trains run, Amtrak should provide the best possible service within its budgetary capabilities. It needs to think outside of the nine dots.
I agree that the ideas put forth are not only admirable, but well intentioned and designed to assist the long distance system rather than tear it apart. I also agree that the problems involved in creating proposals from these ideas revolves around significant logistical and financial issues contained in the information which is well beyond the authorized grasp of the public and a lot of Amtrak employees.
I do not believe that Amtrak personnel are any more resistant to change than anyone else, and in fact their history shows them in many cases to be more accepting of change, starting with their coming to Amtrak from relatively secure freight jobs, and goes through acceptance of an hourly wage when such was not common, train offs during the Carter Administration and on and on.
The trains mentioned could be placed on the routes suggested and in fact many of these ideas have been investigated internally over the years, most recently when Amtrak crews were sent out on KCS freight trains to qualify in anticipation of the proposed service between Dallas and a Crescent Connection via Shreveport and Vicksburg. I still have my KCS timetables and special instructions from that event. That fell through due to funding issues, and the Amtrak folks stopped the qualifying, but the intent was there.
For many years there has been talk of rerouting either the Sunset or the Eagle via Ft. Worth and Dallas, but the issues I mentioned earlier and a host of others have always put a damper on things. I am certain the idea will be revisited again, in different configurations and maybe one day a solution which is logisticaly and financially viable will appear.
Harvey, leave it sufficient to say that the crewing issues ARE significant, especially when you speak of eliminating a tri-weekly train between San Antonio and El Paso and replacing it with a daily train on a new route. Just by frequencies alone, the number of crews increases, not to mention logistics in promoting reliability with resposnbile crewing of these trains. Not to say it can't be done, but Amtrak probably would have to get its checkbook out.
Also, just as info, UP now tends to run, by my observations, anywhere between 20 and 35 trains a day over the ex-T&P. The number gets larger east of Sweetwater, with BNSF trackage rights trains adding to the mix. The line has largely been rebuilt but as you can see, there is a significant amount of traffic already out there, and just as much, if not more density as the Sunset Route between ELP and SAS.
Toyah Canyon last had flooding issues in 2007, and a major washout occurred, if I am not mistaken in either 2005 or 2006.
Samantha, No. 1 and 2 do use two units west of San Antonio, and any Eagle reroute would likely require the addition of a second unit, to the aforementioned daily train.
To the positive, a daily train would be the end result, and that can only increase ridership, as that is the only means in these days of limited equipment, to gain additional seats.
As to a Laredo job, unfortunately, the line to Laredo is also saturated, and it has, I believe, only five sidings over the course of some 185 miles. Not good capacity, which explains the burgeoning Eagle Pass gateway.
I don't mean to be a party pooper, but if we are going to discuss these things, then a shot of reality can't hurt, for those who come up with the ideas can then use the new information to search for solutions to the issues which prevent implementation.
That cannot be a bad thing.
4merroad4man wrote: I agree that the ideas put forth are not only admirable, but well intentioned and designed to assist the long distance system rather than tear it apart. I also agree that the problems involved in creating proposals from these ideas revolves around significant logistical and financial issues contained in the information which is well beyond the authorized grasp of the public and a lot of Amtrak employees.I do not believe that Amtrak personnel are any more resistant to change than anyone else, and in fact their history shows them in many cases to be more accepting of change, starting with their coming to Amtrak from relatively secure freight jobs, and goes through acceptance of an hourly wage when such was not common, train offs during the Carter Administration and on and on.The trains mentioned could be placed on the routes suggested and in fact many of these ideas have been investigated internally over the years, most recently when Amtrak crews were sent out on KCS freight trains to qualify in anticipation of the proposed service between Dallas and a Crescent Connection via Shreveport and Vicksburg. I still have my KCS timetables and special instructions from that event. That fell through due to funding issues, and the Amtrak folks stopped the qualifying, but the intent was there.For many years there has been talk of rerouting either the Sunset or the Eagle via Ft. Worth and Dallas, but the issues I mentioned earlier and a host of others have always put a damper on things. I am certain the idea will be revisited again, in different configurations and maybe one day a solution which is logisticaly and financially viable will appear.Harvey, leave it sufficient to say that the crewing issues ARE significant, especially when you speak of eliminating a tri-weekly train between San Antonio and El Paso and replacing it with a daily train on a new route. Just by frequencies alone, the number of crews increases, not to mention logistics in promoting reliability with resposnbile crewing of these trains. Not to say it can't be done, but Amtrak probably would have to get its checkbook out.Also, just as info, UP now tends to run, by my observations, anywhere between 20 and 35 trains a day over the ex-T&P. The number gets larger east of Sweetwater, with BNSF trackage rights trains adding to the mix. The line has largely been rebuilt but as you can see, there is a significant amount of traffic already out there, and just as much, if not more density as the Sunset Route between ELP and SAS.Toyah Canyon last had flooding issues in 2007, and a major washout occurred, if I am not mistaken in either 2005 or 2006. Samantha, No. 1 and 2 do use two units west of San Antonio, and any Eagle reroute would likely require the addition of a second unit, to the aforementioned daily train.To the positive, a daily train would be the end result, and that can only increase ridership, as that is the only means in these days of limited equipment, to gain additional seats.As to a Laredo job, unfortunately, the line to Laredo is also saturated, and it has, I believe, only five sidings over the course of some 185 miles. Not good capacity, which explains the burgeoning Eagle Pass gateway.I don't mean to be a party pooper, but if we are going to discuss these things, then a shot of reality can't hurt, for those who come up with the ideas can then use the new information to search for solutions to the issues which prevent implementation. That cannot be a bad thing.
It is nice to have the well expressed views of an Amtrak employee. At the end of the day, most of us only know what we read about Amtrak or from trips that we have taken on the trains. Your views, as a working insider, are invaluable.
Do you only work the Eagle or do you also work the Sunset Limited?
4merroad4man,
I did not intend to impune train service employees regarding resistance to change. My complaint, which I did not make clear, derives from now long-past experiences with Amtrak planners and managers related to services in Illinois and Indiana.
I understand the personnel relocations are a hardship; but this seems to be an unavoidable aspect of the transportation industry and railroads in particular. Let me repeat that relocation would seem to beat bidding on a job somewhere else because the Sunset is gone. If more ridership can be gained with a reroute and rescheduling, the Sunset will not be the loser it is now.
Adding jobs with daily service would seem to be a good thing.
I only read that UP was upgrading the T&P for more West Coast - South Central traffic. If it is greater than the SP to Houston, I would understand a reluctance of UP in rerouting the train from Houston through Fort Worth to El Paso. Even so, Amtrak could ask.
Toyah Canyon may be an occassional and more frequent problem than I envisioned. This is something the UP would want to improve. In the meantime, a yearly event should not be a deal-breaker.
Laredo would be nice; but if line capacity is too tight, buses to Laredo and to Monterrey and Mexico City would offer an alternative more congruent with the border situation.
As it is, extending the Heartland Flyer to San Antonio would require a second trainset. I haven't taken a look at the affect rescheduling the Sunset would make; but saving half a day has got to be a good thing. However, daily service would take more equipment; and I would agree that expanding capacity to meet higher demand on existing routes through rolling stock repairs should be considered. Maybe the Sunset could continue tri-weekly on the new route to validate greater investment and asset utilization.
With a Sunset rescheduling, connecting bus service to Phoenix, Flagstaff, and the Grand Canyon can be more civilized.
HarveyK400 wrote: 4merroad4man,I did not intend to impune train service employees regarding resistance to change. My complaint, which I did not make clear, derives from now long-past experiences with Amtrak planners and managers related to services in Illinois and Indiana.I know that......gotta defend my coworkers, y'know. No impuning taken.......I understand the personnel relocations are a hardship; but this seems to be an unavoidable aspect of the transportation industry and railroads in particular. Let me repeat that relocation would seem to beat bidding on a job somewhere else because the Sunset is gone. If more ridership can be gained with a reroute and rescheduling, the Sunset will not be the loser it is now. Having relocated to Oakland, San Antonio, Dallas, Ft. Worth, San Antonio, New Orleans, Seattle, Oakland and back to San Antonio during my Amtrak career (this does not address relocations while with SP) from a personal standpoint, I will take my chances as relocation is less frightening for me than for others. There are too many options for "saving" the Sunset (didn't know it needed "saving") and frankly, when one hires out with Amtrak, one knows movement is almost mandatory.Adding jobs with daily service would seem to be a good thing.Indeed. But adding jobs that cost so much more in terms of total overall expense may not be, except see above. Of course, long term this might work itself out to be beneficial.I only read that UP was upgrading the T&P for more West Coast - South Central traffic. If it is greater than the SP to Houston, I would understand a reluctance of UP in rerouting the train from Houston through Fort Worth to El Paso. Even so, Amtrak could ask.Union Pacific has its hands full right now, and I am sure Amtrak has no qualms about inquiring about any route; Amtrak is quite familiar with getting laughed out of the building. The T&P's traffic density could, I expect, rival anything on the UP in Texas, save east of Houston. UP simply does not seem to like passenger service, and the T&P may be viewed as a frieght pipeline and not one for passenger, although no one in Omaha has said as much. On the upside, a significant portion of the line is good for 70 mph. Cranking it up to 79 might take more convincing than actual doing.Toyah Canyon may be an occassional and more frequent problem than I envisioned. This is something the UP would want to improve. In the meantime, a yearly event should not be a deal-breaker.No, I do not believe it would be a deal breaker, but it might give both parties pause. Laredo would be nice; but if line capacity is too tight, buses to Laredo and to Monterrey and Mexico City would offer an alternative more congruent with the border situation.Significant traffic levels and more can't help but be on the way. BTW, Amtrak ran an "Aztec Eagle" inspection train into Mexico a few years ago, with Amtrak personnel on board to inspect facilities along the route. Please note nothing ever came of that.As it is, extending the Heartland Flyer to San Antonio would require a second trainset. I haven't taken a look at the affect rescheduling the Sunset would make; but saving half a day has got to be a good thing. However, daily service would take more equipment; and I would agree that expanding capacity to meet higher demand on existing routes through rolling stock repairs should be considered. Maybe the Sunset could continue tri-weekly on the new route to validate greater investment and asset utilization.It is generally up to the Congress of the United States, since that is where the $$$$ starts and ends. As it is, I think S492 mandates revisiting the North Coast Limited Route via Butte and the Desert Wind Route via Pendleton, as well as one or two others. Stand in line. :0)With a Sunset rescheduling, connecting bus service to Phoenix, Flagstaff, and the Grand Canyon can be more civilized. As a working passenger railroader, you cannot convince me that there is anything civilized about a bus.........:0)Has anyone looked at, or even heard of an idea to add cars to the rear of the SWC (with an ABQ-Clovis-Amarillo routing) and cut them off at Clovis for a jaunt down the BNSF via Lubbock, Sweetwater, Temple and Houston? Heard that one a while back, too. Could also work for a Sweetwater-FT Worth route, then on to Shreveport, Vicksburg and a Crescent Connection to MS.
I know that......gotta defend my coworkers, y'know. No impuning taken.......
Having relocated to Oakland, San Antonio, Dallas, Ft. Worth, San Antonio, New Orleans, Seattle, Oakland and back to San Antonio during my Amtrak career (this does not address relocations while with SP) from a personal standpoint, I will take my chances as relocation is less frightening for me than for others. There are too many options for "saving" the Sunset (didn't know it needed "saving") and frankly, when one hires out with Amtrak, one knows movement is almost mandatory.
Indeed. But adding jobs that cost so much more in terms of total overall expense may not be, except see above. Of course, long term this might work itself out to be beneficial.
Union Pacific has its hands full right now, and I am sure Amtrak has no qualms about inquiring about any route; Amtrak is quite familiar with getting laughed out of the building. The T&P's traffic density could, I expect, rival anything on the UP in Texas, save east of Houston. UP simply does not seem to like passenger service, and the T&P may be viewed as a frieght pipeline and not one for passenger, although no one in Omaha has said as much. On the upside, a significant portion of the line is good for 70 mph. Cranking it up to 79 might take more convincing than actual doing.
No, I do not believe it would be a deal breaker, but it might give both parties pause.
Significant traffic levels and more can't help but be on the way. BTW, Amtrak ran an "Aztec Eagle" inspection train into Mexico a few years ago, with Amtrak personnel on board to inspect facilities along the route. Please note nothing ever came of that.
It is generally up to the Congress of the United States, since that is where the $$$$ starts and ends. As it is, I think S492 mandates revisiting the North Coast Limited Route via Butte and the Desert Wind Route via Pendleton, as well as one or two others. Stand in line. :0)
As a working passenger railroader, you cannot convince me that there is anything civilized about a bus.........:0)
Has anyone looked at, or even heard of an idea to add cars to the rear of the SWC (with an ABQ-Clovis-Amarillo routing) and cut them off at Clovis for a jaunt down the BNSF via Lubbock, Sweetwater, Temple and Houston? Heard that one a while back, too. Could also work for a Sweetwater-FT Worth route, then on to Shreveport, Vicksburg and a Crescent Connection to MS.
A viable rail passenger system is essentially a matter of national policy, or the lack of it. The current mindset of the Administration, Congress, and the FRA, is to cut costs, then, only incidently run a service.
With the spike in gasoline prices, travelers have increasingly turned to Amtrak, and the bare boned system is strained beyond capacity. There is every reason to suppose that this trend will continue in the forseeable future.
Amtrak has a growing backlog of cars needing repair, and many cars are approaching mandated rebuilds. The GE Genesis locomotives have shown "teething problems", and while these will no doubt be worked, out, locomotive availability continues to be a recurring problem.
The Administration and Congress are totally isolated from the problems of the average traveler, and have shown no inclination to change this. When is the last time a member of Congress has ridden a train, short of a political photo-op?
I don't propose to hold Europe up as an example of an ideal rail passenger system. They are though, light years ahead of us in this regard. The well functioning rail passenger systems are largely the result of viable, well thought out, well funded, national policies.
If we want a comparable rail passenger service in the United States, we had better emulate Europe, at least in part.
Philcal wrote: When is the last time a member of Congress has ridden a train, short of a political photo-op?
When is the last time a member of Congress has ridden a train, short of a political photo-op?
Joe Biden, almost daily when Congress is in session.
Connecting at Albuquerque is a lot better than at Dalies, even if the direction of the cars is reversed. I've thought about such a Texas - California connection; but there are two issues.
Lubbock and Amarillo may be served better by a state-supported regional train oriented to Fort Worth - Dallas or a Texas - Colorado - Northwest long-distance train. The problem for a regional service is the lack of substantial intermediate population whereas a long-distance train reaches a second travel market.
Amarillo also seems to be the long way around to Lubbock from Clovis. And why not route the train through Fort Worth to Houston as you would a train to a Crescent connection, presumably at Birmingham?
I don't think capacity would be an issue, since the SWC once handled express that easily outweighed the necessary additional passenger capacity one might think of.
Also, I didn't mention the add-ons as replacements for the Sunset, merely augmentation, especially if the train were routed to a Crescent connection at Meridian, MS.
The logistics would have to be worked out with the necessary etities; I agree that ABQ would probably be better than Dailies, but that would necessitate using the RailRunner's portion of the route south of ABQ to the Clovis Sub.
I am not certain that Amarillo would be on the route, since just east of Clovis, the line through Lubbock splits. The idea here is to provide a direct east-west connection to south trains, but a better wolution might be to run the thing out of Denver to a Crescent Connection. I believe I have heard something about the "Caprock Chief" recently.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.