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