Trains.com

Proposed Amtrak Consolidation of Western Long Distance Routes

12686 views
104 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2007
  • 194 posts
Posted by nyc#25 on Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:09 PM

In the Pullman Company days and even on the NYC (which operated

it's own sleepers after 1958) one could occupy the car until a

decent hour like 730am.  Any Amtrak porter that would rouse me

out of bed at 530am would get a VERY bad time from me and NO

tip.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, December 30, 2014 11:40 AM

thegreatpumpkin

I agree with CSSHEGEWISH. I believe most of the LD trains still operate close to the historical 1950’s schedule, timed to convenient arrival and departure at the endpoints.   Without taking the extensive time required to review the passenger statistics for each LD train, due to population growth/shifts since the 1950’s and the availability of much faster and relatively low cost air transport between LD endpoints, it seems that a new evaluation of the schedule of each LD train would be appropriate to determine if more passengers would be served (revenue generation) at the intermediate stations if the schedules were altered to better serve the medium-sized cities along each LD route rather than the endpoints. 

The schedule of the Sunset Limited was altered to call at better times for several intermediate cities between NO and LAX.

However, because of the changes, the train now arrives in LA at 5:35 a.m. Having ridden it last year, I am not kean about getting off a train in the very early morning.  

What really irked me is the sleeping car attendant rousted me out of bed at 5:30 a.m. and insisted that I get off the train by 6:00 a.m., although the schedule says or said that sleeping car passengers could occupy their space until 6:30 a.m.

I have some comparative numbers (2014 - 2013) for stations served exclusively by the Sunset Limited.  I believe the schedule was changed in early 2014 or late 2013, but I am not sure.  If someone can tell me when the schedule change was effective, I will post the comparative passenger boarding and detraining numbers for several of the key stops where the schedule was changed to improve the times served, i.e. Houston, El Paso, Tuscon, etc. 

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 22 posts
Posted by thegreatpumpkin on Monday, December 29, 2014 11:40 PM

I agree with CSSHEGEWISH. I believe most of the LD trains still operate close to the historical 1950’s schedule, timed to convenient arrival and departure at the endpoints.   Without taking the extensive time required to review the passenger statistics for each LD train, due to population growth/shifts since the 1950’s and the availability of much faster and relatively low cost air transport between LD endpoints, it seems that a new evaluation of the schedule of each LD train would be appropriate to determine if more passengers would be served (revenue generation) at the intermediate stations if the schedules were altered to better serve the medium-sized cities along each LD route rather than the endpoints.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, December 29, 2014 7:22 AM

If service to the intermediate points is to be the role of the Western long-distance trains, consolidation as suggested by the OP is not the answer.  Perhaps what should be done is re-schedule the trains to better serve the intermediate points and adjust the service amenities to suit this goal.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Sunday, December 28, 2014 7:11 PM

Also re. U.P.'s "City of Everywhere":

This "final solution" really represented only a marginal loss of service and certainly dropped no cities.

That's because, prior to consolidation, #105/111 (the City of Portland/Denver) left Chicago only 3 hours ahead of #103 (the City of LA/SF). By the time #105 reached Cheyenne -- minus the Denver cars, dropped at North Platte -- #103 was in its hip pocket, only one-half hour behind.

These two trains, and #9/101 (the City of Kansas City, off the Denver line, now the City of SF), left Cheyenne 15 minutes apart -- one, two, three -- and called on Wyoming towns down the line at about the same interval.

After consolidation, residents of Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming still had the same essential service to the three West Coast destinations as before -- just fewer train whistles. 

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 1,180 posts
Posted by ROBERT WILLISON on Sunday, December 28, 2014 8:15 AM

Right on dave, long distances  trains serve the intermediate passenger as much as they serve the end point passenger. Amtrak can not give up on serving local communities. You can not compare it to air lines operations, since airlines are primarily serving end points with feeder routes feeding a hub.

Also its not a good comparison to the up cities to everywhere concept since it was union pacific last ditch effort to reduce cost until Amtrak or the ICC could relief it of it passenger service obligations. Let's hope Amtrak is not at this point.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, December 28, 2014 4:51 AM

The main purpose of the Empire Builder is not to provide transportation between the Chicago area and Seattle/Portland, but to serve the intermediate communities, and ridership figures will support that statement.   I am certain this true of the EB, and others can way in on the other long distance trains you mention.

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Saturday, December 27, 2014 10:58 PM

The OP wants the three train split west of Denver, but also talks of three trains east of Denver, so I am not sure where there will be any consolidation savings.  It just makes Denver the hub of a western hub-and-spoke system.  Hub-and-spoke works for airlines because of the short travel times, and because they don't have any faster competition.  However, train travelers might not want to spend an extra half day to get to their destination.  ATK would also have to pay multi-millions to increase capacity on the Denver-Pueblo joint line.  And as has been mentioned, the routes have been tried and failed (Pioneer and Desert Wind).

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Saturday, December 27, 2014 9:43 PM

Amtrak had a City of Everywhere which had, at various times, three points of splitting/combining. The eastern endpoint was Chicago, the western endpoints were Seattle, Oakland/Emeryville, and Los Angeles. Originally, one train operated westward to Ogden, where it was split; when the Rio Grande gave up on the Rio Grande Zephyr Salt Lake City became the split/combine point; the final arrangement had the Pioneer running between Denver and Seattle through Wyoming (with a bus connection between Salt Lake City and Ogden), and the Desert Wind and California Zephyr continuing together between Denver and Salt Lake City. The Seattle and Los Angeles sections were abolished in 1997, and there has been no serious effort to reinstate them since.

I do not know how many local passengers there were between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, or how many there were between Salt Lake City and Portland/Seattle.

Johnny

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Saturday, December 27, 2014 8:56 PM

Milwaukee Road's idea is good for efficiency between end points, bad for its abandonment of so many intermediate cities that contribute most of the passengers.

So -- no train consolidation for you, Milwaukee!

  • Member since
    December 2012
  • 279 posts
Posted by A McIntosh on Saturday, December 27, 2014 8:40 PM

This reminds me of the Union Pacific's City of everywhere.

  • Member since
    November 2011
  • 509 posts
Posted by V.Payne on Saturday, December 27, 2014 7:48 PM

The largest advantage that intercity rail has is reduced access costs to the user at intermediate stations.

So the poster seems to be admitting that there is economy in a longer train consist as there are significant fixed costs that only vary by trainmile (about $20/trainmile), hence the combination proposal one would assume. The US already has an exceptionally sparse route network.

So why not just spend the "capital" money proposed to purchase enough equipment to expand the consists, and keep the reduced access costs at all the current intermediate stations?

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Saturday, December 27, 2014 6:31 PM

Too much Jack Daniels?

Johnny

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, December 27, 2014 6:14 PM

Too much Christmas Sherry?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 1,199 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Saturday, December 27, 2014 6:07 PM

Why?

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,952 posts
Proposed Amtrak Consolidation of Western Long Distance Routes
Posted by CMStPnP on Saturday, December 27, 2014 5:49 PM

I think the solution of the Southwest Chief is pretty easy one.   Feds buy the track via Raton and pay to upgrade it.   Purchase rights or time on the track from Raton into Denver Union Station.     Then consolidate the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, Southwest Chief into a single train Chicago to Denver, run a seperate day train Chicago to Denver over the same route, so basically two trains each day over the route.    Lease the remaining capacity for freight carriers to use for expansion or detour use.    Abandon the Sunset Limited completely.

Split the Empire Builder at Salt Lake City to run via Pocatello, ID to Portland and Seattle.

Split the Chief at Denver to run back South to Raton and onto LA.   Also send the California Zephyr on it's regular route West of Denver.

Heck you could even run three trains between Chicago, Kansas City and Denver if one was not enough to keep the train length short enough.

Seems to me this partial consolidation of 4 trains into one between Chicago, Kansas City and Denver would largely save the subsidy of 4 seperate trains and pay for the trackwork and up keep on the Raton Pass line without additional taxpayer funds.

I would also cancel the Cardinal and add a second daily frequency to the Capitol Limited.

Consolidate all the Western Commissaries to Denver and close the rest, West of Chicago.

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