On Thursday and Saturday the Sunset Limited (Amtrak Nos. 1 and 2) are scheduled to arrive in Alpine, TX at 1:24 PM and 1:25 PM. There is just one track in Alpine, which means it is impossible for both trains to be on time. Or depart on time. Why would Amtrak create a schedule that is an apparent conflict?
Alpine is a great train watching spot. It is a crew change point for UP and Amtrak. There are lots of freight trains to observe. And when the Sunset Limited calls at Alpine, one can see the Border Patrol in action. Agents have been boarding the train on a regular basis. They apper to be looking for drugs and illegal immigrants, although I suspect the primary motive is drugs. Last week I saw them pull two rather rough looking characters off the train. They put the cuffs on them and put them into a patrol vehicle.
Sam,
I'm sorry no one ever replied to your post. What a dumb situation, Is it still the same? Just another item to confirm my suspicion that Southwest Airlines controls all aspects of the Amtrak Sunset. How else can you explain serving the biggest tourist attraction in Texas, San Antonio in the middle of the night, or Houston at 5:00 am eastbound.
Doug
Schedules are set based on the Origin time and the destination time. Depending upon the significance of intermediate locations, the schedules may be adjusted to better serve the intermediate location.
Times at minor wayside locations just fall where they may. The Amtrak Incentive pay is based On Time performance at designate Checkpoint. Normally there are only a handful of checkpoints for each train. I would expect the schedule times at Alpine are not Checkpoint times and as such are more for information of the traveling public rather that operational necessities.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yes, Doug, it stinks, but on a LD route of a couple of thousand miles served by a single pair of trains, somebody's got to be in the middle of the night. Look at Cleveland, Ohio, on two routes half that long.
That's true, and it points out the difficulty of trying to serve a route with only one train. But San Antonio COULD be a major tourist attraction generating a lot of traffic; same thing for the pairing of Houston with New Orleans, especially now that so many Katrina evacuees live in Houston. But families are not going to plan a trip that begins and ends in the middle of the night, and potential tourists to the French Quarter are NOT going to begin their trip at 5:00 in the morning! I understand this schedule is the product of SP's combining the Sunset with the Golden State in the late '60's and Amtrak has never tried to fix it. It just makes me feel like Amtrak just plain doesn't give a ***.
It's more like Amtrak has no money to throw at additional money-losing trains. And it's a given that almost anything you add outside the Northeast Corridor, no matter how well patronized, WILL lose money.
Does anybody remember the despairing Western Pacific spokesman when that road was trying to convince the I.C.C. that it should be allowed to discontinue its portion of the California Zephyr?
"You could sell seats on the roof, and this train would still lose money," he said.
WP's self-serving statements of 45 years ago aside, how do we really know whether a service can really make money, if we don't even try to provide the best, most-attractive-to-potential-customers, type of service?
We are constantly comparing rail to air passenger service. If the only service available between any two city-pairs was one middle-of-the-night flight, maybe only 3 nights a week, I am sure that it would be unprofiable for the airlines (unless subsidized by something like the DOT's Essential Air Service, which apparently pays airlines some $170 million to serve 100 or so cities).
I agree the Essential Air Service program is a bad joke. We have four airports in North Dakota that "qualify" for EAS, and their boardings are preposterous ... a benefit for a handful of business people and government types who could well afford to make their own travel arrangements and some towns that want to feel important beyond their size. The average flying citizen in these places drives to the nearest decent-sized airport -- we also have four of those -- where he can get a better deal that does not require direct taxpayer subsidy.
My point exactly! It is possible to make up a schedule that serves the most attractive stops at decent hours, but it does take the desire. That is why I said I felt like Amtrak didn't give a d***n. They inherited a schedule designed by the SP to fail and have done nothing at all to improve it. With the Sunset only running 3 times a week in each direction, it's impossible to plan a weekend trip to either the east or west, and there is so much padding in the schedule that No. 1 consistently arrives in Houston almost an hour early. And finally, in the last couple of years, when Amtrak did make some noise about improving the service, they wanted to drop the name "Sunset," one of the most historic names in passenger railroading and just extend the "Eagle" all the way to LA through San Antonio. Houston would have gotten a daily connection, but with no sleepers. There are already plenty of Chicago-LA trains! I am tired of Houston, the 4th largest city in the nation, being treated like an ugly step sister. First, tieghten the schedule and give us decent times in SA, Houston and NO on a tri-weekly schedule and add a little advertising to let people know we HAVE a train. Then perhaps Amtrak can see that a daily schedule could do even better.
Amtrak is talking to UP Railroad running the Texas Eagle Daily from Chicago to LA, CA daily and making the Sunset Limited at at SAS, TX to NOL, La. a Coaches and lounge car train. But UP wants 750 Million from Amtrak to make the train daily.
This discussion underlines the point of difference between running a train or trains and providing service. It is not Amtrak's fault by any means, it is what was handed them by Congress, what is given them yearly by Congress, and what the railroads will allow.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Run a train each way each day between NO and SA say 7AM to 10PM. Add a round trip between HOL and SA. Cancel the rest of the Sunset Limited. Send the sleepers to where they can be better used.
conrailman Amtrak is talking to UP Railroad running the Texas Eagle Daily from Chicago to LA, CA daily and making the Sunset Limited at at SAS, TX to NOL, La. a Coaches and lounge car train. But UP wants 750 Million from Amtrak to make the train daily.
Assuming the point that UP wants $750 million from Amtrak to make The Texas Eagle daily from Chicago to LA, with a connecting train from NO to San Antonio, is accurate (I have not reason to doubt it), what is preventing Amtrak from implementing the proposed schedule improvements with the three day a week service on the Sunset route? The most recent schedule shows the train adhering to the same schedule, with the awful layover in San Antonio.
As I understand it, Amtrak proposed a schedule that would greatly reduce the dwell time in San Antonio. It (the dwell time) is a turnoff for anyone traveling from a point north of San Antonio to a point west of there and vice versa. It seems to me that Amtrak could implement the improved schedule now, as well as the connecting train from NO to SA, on a three day a week basis until the UP becomes more reasonable about allowing Amtrak to run the train daily.
My guess? Lack of imagination on Amtrak management's part! Other thoughts please!
Amtrak is ready to go and make the Texas Eagle a daily. You can read the entire plan at the Amtrak site, the problem is the GREED on the part of U.P. I use the train on a regular basis from LA to Dallas r/t and the sleeping cars are always full and the chair cars seem full as well. If UP would cooperate they could have the daily in operation with in 6 weeks!
You cannot say out of hand that Amtrak lacks imagination and management. Hands are tied by their charter from Congress, tied by lack of funding from Congress, tied by having to do the best they can with the equipment they have on hand, tied by being able to employ as few people asa they have,tied by being at the mercy of the host railroads. Imagine what they could do with adequate funding for empoyees, equipment, facilities, and pay offs to freight railroads.
henry6 You cannot say out of hand that Amtrak lacks imagination and management. Hands are tied by their charter from Congress, tied by lack of funding from Congress, tied by having to do the best they can with the equipment they have on hand, tied by being able to employ as few people asa they have,tied by being at the mercy of the host railroads. Imagine what they could do with adequate funding for empoyees, equipment, facilities, and pay offs to freight railroads.
When the trains are on time, which has been frequently, Number 1 is held on a siding about two miles east of the Alpine Station until Number 2 unloads and loads passengers as well as changes crews. It takes about 10 minutes to make the stop.
If I were writing the schedule, I would change the time at the station for Number 1 to be 10 minutes later than the current time shown in the timetable. I doubt the Congress has restrained Amtrak management from making this or similar changes. The Congress gives Amtrak a framework within which to operate. I don't believe the members micromanage the company to the point of dictating the schedules.
Avianwatcher Amtrak is ready to go and make the Texas Eagle a daily. You can read the entire plan at the Amtrak site, the problem is the GREED on the part of U.P. I use the train on a regular basis from LA to Dallas r/t and the sleeping cars are always full and the chair cars seem full as well. If UP would cooperate they could have the daily in operation with in 6 weeks!
Interestingly, the Texas Eagle has gone from being one of the biggest dogs amongst the long distance trains to one of its better performers. In FY10 it had an average load factor of 69.5%, which was the highest load factor for any of the long distance trains. It even beat out the Auto Train. Moreover, the Eagle's loss per passenger mile (17.7 cents) was the third best for the long distance trains, following 16.0 cents for the Empire Builder and 10.2 cents for the Auto Train.
The improvements for the Eagle can be attributed largely to the improved schedule performance, I suspect. For years it had been amongst the worst of the long distance trains for on-time arrivals.
Whether it would cost $750 million to make the improvements necessary to operate the Eagle daily is unknown to those of us who don't have access to UP's books. I suspect UP management adopted the high side estimate from its cost accountants. But I would not attribute it to corporate greed. UP's management has an obligation to protect the interest of its key stakeholders, including the investors, whilst considering its public image. It is, after all, a business that must earn a return for its investors. The same cannot be said for Amtrak.
Sam has a great idea--give the Sunset a decent schedule, connecting NOL with HO and SA at reasonable times and reducing the long dwell in SA for travellers from north of there. This would not cost UP a cent, but it would add revenue to a long neglected schedule. I would still keep the name "Sunset Limited" and Nos. 1 & 2 for the whole route.
It's not so much lack of imagination as it is tunnel vision for Amtrak--all they have ever been able to see is Chicago and the NE. They show plenty of imagination--or at least interest for northeastern routes and those connecting Chicago with the west coast, but the rest of us--in the part of the country with a growing population can take the bus!
Would someone please post a link to Amtrak's plan for "improving" the Eagle and making the connection between NOL and SA daily?
Thanks!
The $750 mil figure UP is quoting does sound greedy to me. I think they are looking to cover as much as they can of the costs of upgrading the Sunset route for freight purposes and just know a patsy when they see one, but perhaps that is more due to ignorance of railroad infrastructure costs. I would love to see Fred F. or someone do a detailed article for Trains on the costs involved in this--or a similar--proposal.
Texianbear54 Sam has a great idea--give the Sunset a decent schedule, connecting NOL with HO and SA at reasonable times and reducing the long dwell in SA for travellers from north of there. This would not cost UP a cent, but it would add revenue to a long neglected schedule. I would still keep the name "Sunset Limited" and Nos. 1 & 2 for the whole route. It's not so much lack of imagination as it is tunnel vision for Amtrak--all they have ever been able to see is Chicago and the NE. They show plenty of imagination--or at least interest for northeastern routes and those connecting Chicago with the west coast, but the rest of us--in the part of the country with a growing population can take the bus! Would someone please post a link to Amtrak's plan for "improving" the Eagle and making the connection between NOL and SA daily? Thanks!
Your key misunderstanding here is "This would not cost UP a cent." Even if it wouldn't, UP could say so. But it actually could if they can clear even one freight train in front of the Sunset by holding at SA or anyplace else. What fans often miss is that there is a lot more to railroading, freight and passenger, than just running trains. Collisions of trains is bad, but collision of services and needs can be worse on the pocketbook. In the East, things are easier because the number of trains in most cases are services or at least apporoach "service" levels. California does that well, too, as does Washington state; commuter zones are all about service. I wonder if shorter trains on the Sunset route every two or three hours might provide better utilized service than one train a day; same for the Empire Builder and other similar LD routes. Lets see, baggage/dorm. coach diner coach, sleeper with one locomotive might be an idea. Shorter, more frequent, and faster trains might even help UP operate their freight trains through and around the passenger trains.
You have a great idea, Henry. I would even say just two trains a day on opposite schedules would remedy most of the scheduling problems, but considering your point that all UP has to do is "say" that a schedule change causes a problem then I can't see it happening. And multuple trains--even short ones--are going to require more crews.
The problems on the Sunset route are threefold:
1. Apathy in the general public as a result of more than a generation of poor service and unfulfilled promises.
2. A host freight railroad that just doesn't care, and sees passenger trains as minor annoyances.
3. Am Amtrak that just doesn't care, either, for providing service outside the Northeast and Chicago.
Texianbear54 Sam has a great idea--give the Sunset a decent schedule, connecting NOL with HO and SA at reasonable times and reducing the long dwell in SA for travellers from north of there. This would not cost UP a cent, but it would add revenue to a long neglected schedule. I would still keep the name "Sunset Limited" and Nos. 1 & 2 for the whole route. Amtrak's plan has all that in their proposal!! It's not so much lack of imagination as it is tunnel vision for Amtrak--all they have ever been able to see is Chicago and the NE. They show plenty of imagination--or at least interest for northeastern routes and those connecting Chicago with the west coast, but the rest of us--in the part of the country with a growing population can take the bus! Would someone please post a link to Amtrak's plan for "improving" the Eagle and making the connection between NOL and SA daily? Thanks!
Amtrak's plan has all that in their proposal!!
Here is your link.See section PRIIA submissions then Go to report on sunset/eagle improvement!
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid=1241245669222
blue streak 1 Texianbear54: Sam has a great idea--give the Sunset a decent schedule, connecting NOL with HO and SA at reasonable times and reducing the long dwell in SA for travellers from north of there. This would not cost UP a cent, but it would add revenue to a long neglected schedule. I would still keep the name "Sunset Limited" and Nos. 1 & 2 for the whole route. Amtrak's plan has all that in their proposal!! It's not so much lack of imagination as it is tunnel vision for Amtrak--all they have ever been able to see is Chicago and the NE. They show plenty of imagination--or at least interest for northeastern routes and those connecting Chicago with the west coast, but the rest of us--in the part of the country with a growing population can take the bus! Would someone please post a link to Amtrak's plan for "improving" the Eagle and making the connection between NOL and SA daily? Thanks! Here is your link.See section PRIIA submissions then Go to report on sunset/eagle improvement! http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid=1241245669222
Texianbear54: Sam has a great idea--give the Sunset a decent schedule, connecting NOL with HO and SA at reasonable times and reducing the long dwell in SA for travellers from north of there. This would not cost UP a cent, but it would add revenue to a long neglected schedule. I would still keep the name "Sunset Limited" and Nos. 1 & 2 for the whole route. Amtrak's plan has all that in their proposal!! It's not so much lack of imagination as it is tunnel vision for Amtrak--all they have ever been able to see is Chicago and the NE. They show plenty of imagination--or at least interest for northeastern routes and those connecting Chicago with the west coast, but the rest of us--in the part of the country with a growing population can take the bus! Would someone please post a link to Amtrak's plan for "improving" the Eagle and making the connection between NOL and SA daily? Thanks!
My post states clearly that the proposed schedules changes are Amtrak's. I did not mean to imply that it was my idea.
Amtrak could improve the current schedule, i.e. eliminate the Sunset Limited, run the Texas Eagle through to LA three days a week, reduce the dwell time in SA, and create a three times a week NO to SA train until Amtrak can work out a daily schedule for a through Texas Eagle and connecting train.
[quote user="Sam1"].
[/quote
We need to send this sugestion to AMTRAK. I agree with Sam that the hours long layover for the Eagle in SAS is completely without foundation. The schedule in the proposed PRIIA plan appears capable to be implemented quickly for a 3 day a week schedule. (of course what 3 days??) Would it decrease train crew costs (?) but some one needs to figure if same number of T&E crew can operate the train depending on which 3 days? Probably will take a big spread sheet to calculate,?? Suspect different times might unbalance T&E crew needs because of HOS?
OK, how do we send this--or any suggestion--on to Amtrak, to someone who might listen, know something about the routes and have the inclination to actually try to do something? I still do not like the fact that the old Sunset is now just the tail on the dog of another Chicago/West Coast train, but the arrival times in San Antonio and Houston are better. And you would think they could afford a diner and a sleeper to serve the 4th largest city in the nation!
The Problem is Amtrak needs more Superliner cars, to run more trains.
If you read the proposal they have all the cars they need to make the Eagle a daily train.
Avianwatcher If you read the proposal they have all the cars they need to make the Eagle a daily train.
You are correct. However the Sunset will require 2 single level train sets to cover the trains between SAS - NOL. They would probably be Horizon cars as Amtrak wants to move the Horizons out of the bitter winter locations. the shortage of SL equipment still bedevils Amtrak.
Also Amtrak claims SAS at present does not have a track layout to easily remove / add cars at the present since both direction trains would possibly be there at the same time??
In the first place, why shoudl the San Antonio--New Orleans run get stuck with single level Horizon cars? In the second place, if there is no through service from New Orleans and Houston to the west, what difference does it make that San Antonio's track layout does not make it easy to add cars? The *new* Texas Eagle would just be whisking through Texas as a little detour from taking Amtrak's *important* passengers from Chicago to LA anyway?
the point is that the present layout of SAS does not allow for adding and subtracting cars to the Eagle. Terminating NOL - SAS is not a problem as there will only be 3 train sets at SAS at one time 4 train sets is a real problem. SAM1 can you elobrate?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.