Trains.com

Sunset Limited Question

5084 views
20 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    October 2010
  • From: Centennial, CO
  • 3,218 posts
Posted by Stourbridge Lion on Monday, May 21, 2012 3:40 PM

jasandros - Welcome to trains.com! Cowboy

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 2 posts
Posted by jasandros on Monday, May 21, 2012 2:17 PM

The Gulf Coast is as much a part of the U.S. as any other area yet it seems that from Washington to Tallahassee, Gulf Coast communities don't exist. This is evident in many ways including Amtrak's allocation of passenger train service. Whenever I rode the Sunset east to JAX from Pensacola, the train was heavily patronized despite the surliness of many in the train crews. America is far behind most of the rest of the civilized world where passenger trains are concerned. The lack of train stations along the Gulf Coast is not an excuse to with hold train service. Amtrak employed a simple trailer with water and electrical services when it started service in Pensacola. These trailers are plentiful and cheap when compared with the cost of building new stations. In MOST cases, the so-called train stations along the Gulf Coast consisted of a simple shed no bigger than a bus stop so the argument about a lack of viable services is not valid.

Any country in Europe or Asia will tell you that Passenger train service is vital to the infrastructure of their countries and profit is not a factor in determining how to allocate trains. The "for profit" mindset that permeates the government, Amtrak and the many in the public is wrong especially for those who only exist through government funding. The Interstates system is freely funded year after year without the infighting that accompanies every Amtrak request for additional funds yet is over crowded, deteriorating and in many cases, unsafe.

Atlanta, as an example, has one through passenger train in each direction when several would be better utilized. High speed service would connect Atlanta and the northeast in a day and would be of great benefit to public transportation vice spending having to spend long and tiresome hours fighting traffic on the highways.  Most of the worlds train service is electrified thereby lowering emissions and costs while making much higher ground speeds possible yet, here in the U.S. most trains outside of the North East corridor only travel at an average speed between 45-60 MPH and that is totally unacceptable for one of the richest countries in the world.

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:49 PM

    As much as people around here love their football, it would hardly be worthwhile to have regular service between these southern cities just for the few weekends of football.   Many of the most avid fans take their motorhomes and campers so they can have cook-outs and parties around the stadiums.   Chartering special trains just for these occasions would make more sense.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 42 posts
Posted by I C Rider on Friday, December 9, 2011 6:13 PM

i beg your pardon I plum forgot about the College football and by the way the university of Southern Mississippi is right on the Crescent line In Hattiesburg  MS. Even so i know that tailgating  and partying is a big thing. I really was referring to the professional market. i was understanding that Amtrak was trying to get a east- west passenger line on the Meridian Speedway to connect Atlanta to Dallas through Jackson MS and Shreveport LA much more directly (I-20 route) Sports enthusiast I know would welcome these connections

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 6:51 PM

I C Rider

 There are no major sports in MS or AL except, NASCAR at  Taladaga and the Crescent has that covered. Does this make sense?

The supporters of the current #2 college football team in the nation (the University of Alabama) would take great issue with this statement; the Crescent goes right by the campus, and stops in Tuscaloosa. Auburn University, southeast of Montgomery, has no passenger rail service nearby; however, the supporters of the Auburn football team would also take great issue.

It is true that neither the University of Mississippi or Mississippi State University football teams did well this year, but they also are in the Southeastern Conference, which has not only the #2 team but also the #1 team in its ranks this year.

I do not know how many readers of this forum live in the two above-named states, but the statement would not play well among any such who support college football. I myself do not follow other sports (not even the Utah Jazz or Grizzlies), except major league baseball for the last four to seven games of the season, but I will not deny that there are many major sports.

Hmmn; would you detrain at Anniston, rent a car, and drive to Talladega?

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,276 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 5:00 PM

It doesn't make economic sense - just a railfans hopeful synergy.  You can't tailgate from a passing train.

I C Rider

What you are saying is in terms or railroading about the Sunset east of new Orleans but what is was really about connecting football towns together. NO has a link to Atlanta via the crescent and Texas was next door and the City of New Orleans connected them to the north. However Jackson ville and Orlando and Miami Had no rail connections. Sure it is easier to fly or just drive But think about the partying on a train. My understanding was if enough people or groups  chartered whole car which would be shuttle from Chicago and or New York Amtrak would have a special east of NO in the the quise of The Sunset There are no major sports in MS or AL except, NASCAR at  Taladaga and the Crescent has that covered. Does this make sense?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 42 posts
Posted by I C Rider on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 2:50 PM

What you are saying is in terms or railroading about the Sunset east of new Orleans but what is was really about connecting football towns together. NO has a link to Atlanta via the crescent and Texas was next door and the City of New Orleans connected them to the north. However Jackson ville and Orlando and Miami Had no rail connections. Sure it is easier to fly or just drive But think about the partying on a train. My understanding was if enough people or groups  chartered whole car which would be shuttle from Chicago and or New York Amtrak would have a special east of NO in the the quise of The Sunset There are no major sports in MS or AL except, NASCAR at  Taladaga and the Crescent has that covered. Does this make sense?

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Tuesday, December 6, 2011 11:28 AM

Paul of Covington
   By the way, if business was better eastward on the Sunset, why was it not reinstated after Katrina? 

The idea to connect the larger metro areas of Florida with those of the Gulf Coast and the Southwest did, and my humble opinion still does, make sense. However, doing so turned into a logistical and political nightmare.

As has been mentioned the former Seaboard Air Line west of Jacksonville was not nor continues to be a major freight line for CSX. All of us who live here know the true hub for the southeast of the Southeast is Waycross, Georgia and any freight using this line has to backtrack to the northwest to get there.

There also was a problem with servicing the Superliners of the Sunset in Hialeah. For whatever reason, more likely political than technical, they never could quite get it right which hastened the move of maintenance to Sanford and the Auto Train terminal.

The onboard service crews were with the train all the way from Los Angles to Florida and back meaning they were always away from home for more than a week at a time. In contrast the Canadian switches out OBS crews at Winnipeg.

Ultimately the Sunset west of New Orleans was a heritage route as it existed as part of the original route structure of Railpax. Amtrak still pays the original price per train mile for access. East of New Orleans it was a new train with a higher per mile cost. The money invested by the states for track and station work is long since spent and no more was forthcoming. Katrina gave Amtrak a convenient excuse to pull the pin and the stations at Pensacola, Tallahassee and Lake City (what there is of it) stand empty and quiet. If you built they may come but they may not stay.

 

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, December 6, 2011 6:36 AM

BaltACD

As I recollect - from way back when - extending the Sunset eastward beyond New Orleans was exercise that was actively pushed by the states of Mississippi, Alabama & Florida as a means to increase tourism revenues.  It was something that Amtrak acquiesced to, rather than actively promoted on it's own.

Originally the extension went all the way to Miami - as more and more Amtrak equipment went into bad order status - the run was cut back to Orlando in order to free up equipment to the balance of the Amtrak system.

Having had to play Moses, and part the waters of freight traffic for the Sunset to run - it was no easy task - especially with the route between Flomaton, AL and Tallahassee, FL being unsignaled dark territory (it was then and it remains so today).  With 3 day per week operation it was difficult enough to part the waters, however, on the one day a week that both the Eastbound and Westbound trains were on the territory at the same time - neigh on to impossible.  The entire route East of New Orleans is single track.

First, it never made sense to me that the train would help Gulf tourism.  The flow of traffic to/from the beaches and resort towns is generally north/south, not east/west. Who would travel from one Gulf town to another, generally?

Second, the gulf towns have considerable auto-based sprawl.  You pretty much need a car to get around.

Third, much of the tourist trade along the Gulf is family oriented.  Most are going to pile into the minivan, along with all their beach stuff.  It's just too easy and cheap compared to using another mode.

It might some sense to connect the larger Gulf towns to the interior cities of the south in a network fashion, but the Sunset?  I don't think so.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, December 5, 2011 7:42 PM

THEKINGOFDISTRUCTION

I never got how come UP didn't want Amtrak hauling freight. That express freight was just to help Amtrak's LD trains. And didn't UP do the same in the past when it had passenger service? Why would they be upset about something they did themselves when they ran LD trains? That right there is what really blows my mind about the express freight.

UP thought Amtrak had crossed the line into carload and intermodal freight that was beyond their charter.  Certainly,  reefer full of apples moving on Amtrak could move almost as well on UP. It was a gray area, for sure, but UP chose to draw a line in the sand.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, December 5, 2011 5:16 PM

THEKINGOFDISTRUCTION

I never got how come UP didn't want Amtrak hauling freight. That express freight was just to help Amtrak's LD trains. And didn't UP do the same in the past when it had passenger service? Why would they be upset about something they did themselves when they ran LD trains? That right there is what really blows my mind about the express freight. 

Allowing Amtrak to compete against the freight railroads for any business would have pitted a government sponsored entity (Amtrak), with no binding requirement to cover its expenses, against an investor owned entity that must provide a return for its shareholders or go out of business.

When the investor owned railroads hoisted passenger service, express freight was carried on their trains because they could make money with it.  It helped defray the cost of hauling passengers.  But against the government they would have faced an uneven playing field.

The government, through its regulatory powers, calls balls and strikes for the industries that it regulates.  If it was a player, i.e. hauling express freight, it would be calling balls and strikes in a game where it would have been a player.  Foul!  

One of the reasons that I am opposed to having the government run passenger rail is because it is unfair to investor owned, intercity bus operators, all of which compete against it to some extent.  The same applies to the airlines.  

Amtrak can and has used its pricing power, which is supported by the taxpayers, to under cut is competitors. Just think what your reaction would be if you owned a business, and you had to compete against a business that did not have to earn a profit and received heaps of taxpayer money to bail it out if things did not work out as planned. 

Yeah, I know.  The bus companies, airlines, etc. have received heaps of subsidies and don't carry their fair share of the note, although the evidence does not support that contention.  

 

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • 44 posts
Posted by THEKINGOFDISTRUCTION on Monday, December 5, 2011 4:54 PM

I never got how come UP didn't want Amtrak hauling freight. That express freight was just to help Amtrak's LD trains. And didn't UP do the same in the past when it had passenger service? Why would they be upset about something they did themselves when they ran LD trains? That right there is what really blows my mind about the express freight.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,276 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, December 5, 2011 2:28 PM

As I recollect - from way back when - extending the Sunset eastward beyond New Orleans was exercise that was actively pushed by the states of Mississippi, Alabama & Florida as a means to increase tourism revenues.  It was something that Amtrak acquiesced to, rather than actively promoted on it's own.

Originally the extension went all the way to Miami - as more and more Amtrak equipment went into bad order status - the run was cut back to Orlando in order to free up equipment to the balance of the Amtrak system.

Having had to play Moses, and part the waters of freight traffic for the Sunset to run - it was no easy task - especially with the route between Flomaton, AL and Tallahassee, FL being unsignaled dark territory (it was then and it remains so today).  With 3 day per week operation it was difficult enough to part the waters, however, on the one day a week that both the Eastbound and Westbound trains were on the territory at the same time - neigh on to impossible.  The entire route East of New Orleans is single track.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Monday, December 5, 2011 1:43 PM

Deggesty

 Paul of Covington:

   By the way, if business was better eastward on the Sunset, why was it not reinstated after Katrina? 

 

There was too much damage to property that is not essential to freight operation but necessary for passenger operation. There has been comment on this in other threads, but I cannot direct you to them.

   Ah, makes sense; I hadn't thought of that.    Even after CSX repaired the tracks, there was tremendous other infrastructure destroyed.   Parts of the coast are still like a ghost town.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Monday, December 5, 2011 11:09 AM

Paul of Covington

   By the way, if business was better eastward on the Sunset, why was it not reinstated after Katrina? 

There was too much damage to property that is not essential to freight operation but necessary for passenger operation. There has been comment on this in other threads, but I cannot direct you to them.

Johnny

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, December 5, 2011 8:35 AM

The Sunset has been a poor performing train going back to the earliest days of Amtrak.  It certainly didn't get any better when UP merger with SP.

UP and Amtrak got into a bit of a feud when Amtrak started into RoadRailer and express box car freight.  UP claimed Amtrak had no right to carry freight and was threatening to sue Amtrak.  David Gunn became Amtrak's prez about that time and killed the express business, and extinguished some of UP's fire.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, December 4, 2011 9:47 PM

D.Carleton

 

 THEKINGOFDISTRUCTION:

 

This is something I really need to get off my chest.

 

Why did Amtrak send the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans in the first place?

Simply put, enough advocates convinced the right people (including Graham Claytor) that running east to Florida would be worth it. Passenger loadings east of New Orleans were higher than west even in the worst of times so it looks like the advocates were right.

Was ridership for the train ever high prior to it being sent to Florida?

Not really. It has been tri-weekly since the SP days.

I also heard the reason for the Sunset's notorious delays in the past was because of the Union Pacific railroad. Is this true or is it a conspiracy theory that was stirred up in the railfan community?

It is true...sorta. The Sunset began running east in 1993. The UP acquired the SP in 1996. The whole railroad melted down affecting the Sunset as well. The Sunset Route became a stratigic link for UP as it now connected the ports of LA/LB to the former Texas Pacific route east of El Paso to the Mid-South (Memphis). As a result UP is undertaking a massive double tracking as has been documented in the General Forums of this board. (Thank you KP.)

If it is true what did Amtrak do to the Union Pacific that justified delaying the Sunset?

Nothing really, they were just there. 

I would like to see the ridership numbers for the segments east of New Orleans compared to the segments west of NO.  I have been told that the New Orleans to Florida load factor was very low.  Moreover, I was told that the train dropped a coach and one locomotive at NO, at least in the later years, for the run to Florida because of the light loads.

I have ridden the Sunset from San Antonio to LAX and back at least 10 times.  More importantly, I have driven along most of the route between Del Rio and Tucson many times (I go to Alpine and Tucson at least three times a year by car to bicycle).  The Sunset route is a single track railroad.  When freight traffic volumes are high, as was the case prior to the recession, serious bottlenecks developed.  Amtrak was a low priority, so the Sunset was shunted frequently off onto sidings.

Someone at Amtrak probably woke up to the fact that the Sunset Limited was losing more money per passenger mile than any other still operating Amtrak long distance train with the exception of the Cardinal.  Even bureaucrats in-charge of a non-competitive enterprise will eventually take notice of collapsing financials. Moreover, Katrina gave Amtrak management a good excuse to drop a train that was and still is hemorrhaging heaps of money.  Nothing like a little natural disaster to stiffen the backbone.  

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Sunday, December 4, 2011 9:25 PM

    D.Carleton, you'd be the one to comment on this.    If I remember right all passenger trains on UP started experiencing serious delays (Sunset seemed to be the worst) at about the time UP lost the suit against Amtrak for carrying express service.   I kinda had the feeling retaliation may have had a hand in it, but, just a feeling. 

   By the way, if business was better eastward on the Sunset, why was it not reinstated after Katrina? 

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Sunday, December 4, 2011 9:03 PM

   That's pretty much the way I felt about extending the Sunset Limited eastward when they came up with the plan.   I don't know, but I think there were influential politicians in MS and/or AL that wanted to advance development on the coast.   If I remember right, AL at that time was subsidizing the Birmingham-Mobile service that split off the Crescent at Birmingham.    It seemed to me that the effort should have gone to increasing the three times a week service on the original Sunset limited, though the longer distance would have required more resources.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Sunday, December 4, 2011 9:00 PM

THEKINGOFDISTRUCTION

This is something I really need to get off my chest.

Why did Amtrak send the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans in the first place?

Simply put, enough advocates convinced the right people (including Graham Claytor) that running east to Florida would be worth it. Passenger loadings east of New Orleans were higher than west even in the worst of times so it looks like the advocates were right.

Was ridership for the train ever high prior to it being sent to Florida?

Not really. It has been tri-weekly since the SP days.

I also heard the reason for the Sunset's notorious delays in the past was because of the Union Pacific railroad. Is this true or is it a conspiracy theory that was stirred up in the railfan community?

It is true...sorta. The Sunset began running east in 1993. The UP acquired the SP in 1996. The whole railroad melted down affecting the Sunset as well. The Sunset Route became a stratigic link for UP as it now connected the ports of LA/LB to the former Texas Pacific route east of El Paso to the Mid-South (Memphis). As a result UP is undertaking a massive double tracking as has been documented in the General Forums of this board. (Thank you KP.)

If it is true what did Amtrak do to the Union Pacific that justified delaying the Sunset?

Nothing really, they were just there.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • 44 posts
Sunset Limited Question
Posted by THEKINGOFDISTRUCTION on Sunday, December 4, 2011 7:35 PM

This is something I really need to get off my chest.

Why did Amtrak send the Sunset Limited east of New Orleans in the first place? Was ridership for the train ever high prior to it being sent to Florida? I also heard the reason for the Sunset's notorious delays in the past was because of the Union Pacific railroad. Is this true or is it a conspiracy theory that was stirred up in the railfan community? If it is true what did Amtrak do to the Union Pacific that justified delaying the Sunset?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy