C'mon 1,612 passengers boarding a year so far? Why is this even an Amtrak stop? Amtrak should establish minimum patronage requirements before they accept a new station stop. Now I am reading they are going to add yet another station closer to St. Louis..........Texas Eagle is slowly becomming a Milk run, in my opinion.
CMStPnP C'mon 1,612 passengers boarding a year so far? Why is this even an Amtrak stop? Amtrak should establish minimum patronage requirements before they accept a new station stop. Now I am reading they are going to add yet another station closer to St. Louis..........Texas Eagle is slowly becomming a Milk run, in my opinion.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Excerpt from Nevada County Depot and Museum
James Loughborough was born near Shelbyville, Kentucky, on November 2, 1833. His father served as the land-agent for Illinois and Missouri. Loughborough gained experience in land work by leaving college at the age of nineteen and becoming a clerk in his father's office. During the Civil War, he joined the Confederate forces and served as a colonel on the staff of General Sterling Price. He was also a prisoner of war for a time. After the war, he practiced law in St. Louis and superintended the land sales for both the Cairo and Fulton and the Iron Mountain railway. His work took him to Little Rock, so he moved his family there. He served in the Arkansas legislature from 1874 to 1875 where his work on the state debt helped improve the financial credit of the state. He died suddenly on July 31, 1876, at the age of forty-three. The city of Hope, Arkansas, was named for his young daughter.
Excerpt from Encyclopedia of the History of St. Louis (1899)
Col. James M. Loughborough returned here and became identified with the Iron Mountain Railroad, then owned by the late Thomas Allen, to whom he was a great acquisition in the management of the Land Department. He was accidentally killed at Little Rock by the explosion of his shot gun.
Excerpt from Historical Review of Arkansas (1911)
[Loughborough] who died in the very prime of his strong and useful manhood, in the year 1876, was born at Frankfort, the capital city of Kentucky, and he was reared and educated in that city whence he finally removed to Missouri. In 1872 he established his home in Little Rock, Arkansas where he became counselor for the old Cairo & Fulton Railroad, which was then in process of construction from the north into Arkansas. This line is now a portion of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad. Mr. Loughborough had charge of securing the right of way for the road and after its completion he was made its land commissioner. Later he became attorney for the Little Rock & Fort Smith Railroad and the Little Rock & Hot Springs Railroad, and while incumbent of these positions he was selected to the Arkansas senate during the session of 1876, the year which marked his death. In the senate he was the author of the bill which enabled Pulaski county to secure relief from a heavy burden of debt and he also negotiated on behalf of the state what were known as the Loughborough bonds the placing of which brought financial succor to the state whose fiscal affairs had been greatly disrupted during the war and the so called reconstruction period. James M. Loughborough was an able lawyer, a man of broad views and of distinctive executive ability. He did much to further the best interests of Arkansas and his memory is here held in lasting honor. His cherished and devoted wife survived him and was summoned to the life eternal in 1887 and they are survived by two sons and two daughters.
https://archive.org/stream/mycavelifeinvick00loug#page/n7/mode/2up
https://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/historyculture/mary-loughborough.htm
http://loc.gov/exhibits/civil-war-in-america/biographies/mary-ann-loughborough.html
If every town that had a history connected to someone in its naming were an Amtrak stop....
schlimm CMStPnP C'mon 1,612 passengers boarding a year so far? Why is this even an Amtrak stop? Amtrak should establish minimum patronage requirements before they accept a new station stop. Now I am reading they are going to add yet another station closer to St. Louis..........Texas Eagle is slowly becomming a Milk run, in my opinion. One of many such stops. In ARK, there are also: Arkadelphia 1305 and Malvern 1760. In NC, Gastonia gets 1508. On the 3-day per week route of the Cardinal, you get really low numbers: In WV, Montgomery 639, Alderson 432 and (not kidding folks) Thurmond produces 295. In New York state, the town of Port Kent produces 727. And in PA, N. Philadelphia had a paltry 832. On the WI CHI-MSP 2nd train thread, one low use station popped up, but with larger numbers. Perhaps those interested can track down others? Go the Amtrak State Fact Sheets. With these kind of numbers, is it any wonder that much of Amtrak is regarded as a joke?
I would say any stop with less than 5,000 should be a flag stop. Or if it is a reservation required train, require advanced notice (even as little as 3-4 hours before departure) or the stop is skipped (assuming no one gets off at that station).
I am more concerned about the Cardinal which has many stations with tiny riderships and the train is a waste of money and equipment which can be better used for other trains not currently running. They canceled the Three Rivers back in 2005 when it had higher ridership and revenue than the Cardinal (I can attach an old NARP report if you don't believe it). You can say the Cardinal isn't daily but then why run the train 3 days/week when you can run a different train daily?
Philly Amtrak FanI would say any stop with less than 5,000 should be a flag stop. Or if it is a reservation required train, require advanced notice (even as little as 3-4 hours before departure) or the stop is skipped (assuming no one gets off at that station). I am more concerned about the Cardinal which has many stations with tiny riderships and the train is a waste of money and equipment which can be better used for other trains not currently running. They canceled the Three Rivers back in 2005 when it had higher ridership and revenue than the Cardinal (I can attach an old NARP report if you don't believe it). You can say the Cardinal isn't daily but then why run the train 3 days/week when you can run a different train daily?
What I would do is put in a on demand local van service to another Amtrak station from Hope and add a surcharge to the Amtrak tickets for it. Close out the Amtrak service to Hope entirely.
Agree on the minimum Passengers threshold. I don't want to sound like one of the "passenger train nostalgia" folks on here but time schedules do matter. Not only to me as a point to point passenger but I am fairly sure it is more disruptive of frieght operations to have an Amtrak train stopping every 30-40 miles.......not only once but twice because the folks in Hope were too cheap azz to put in a full length platform. I would think the frieght railroads would prefer Amtrak to just keep running as much as possible.
I would also cut the stops after midnight to around 5:00 a.m. unless it brings on a lot of people, that would speed up the train time across the route at least an hour or hour and a half. Would be nice for the Texas Eagle to arrive in Chicago at noon instead of 2:00 p.m.
Amtrak does need more flagstops on their schedules or at least use a thruway bus and eliminate some of the intermediate low volume train stops.
CMStPnP I would also cut the stops after midnight to around 5:00 a.m. unless it brings on a lot of people, that would speed up the train time across the route at least an hour or hour and a half. Would be nice for the Texas Eagle to arrive in Chicago at noon instead of 2:00 p.m.
Right, because that would mean that the Texas Eagle southbound would roll right through Little Rock without stopping, really making the train totally useless to the state of Arkansas. While I would prefer to arrive home from a trip from the north or leave on a trip southward at a more civilized time than 3:10am, I'll take it over no train at all.
Presumably you would allow us to keep the northbound Texas Eagle stop since it's at 11:39pm, but what's the use of a train that can only take you in one direction?
Any time I ride the Texas Eagle, there's a good-sized crowd getting on and off in Little Rock, so I'm apparenly not alone in taking the train around here.
As for when to arrive in Chicago, I'd prefer to arrive in the morning, having left Little Rock the previous evening. I'd love to see track speeds increased and schedules speeded up. In the end, I prefer to arrive at all though.
If I were to drive, it's 10 hours of constant on, plus time to stop at rest areas and for food every so often. And I don't arrive rested and get no work done during that time. Amtrak takes marginally longer, and I arrive rested and have had time to get work done on the train.
BTW, last time I took the Texas Eagle south from Little Rock, I don't really recall any stops during the night. Slept right through them, I guess. Woke up somewhere in east Texas.
CJtrainguyAny time I ride the Texas Eagle, there's a good-sized crowd getting on and off in Little Rock, so I'm apparenly not alone in taking the train around here.
Little Rock should be retained, as it served 19,676 passengers last year. Some poster pointed out last year that the majority of LD train passengers in the West do not ride endpoint to endpoint (not verified). So perhaps if trains like the Sunset and Eagle were segmented (shorter corridors, such as StL-DFW or SA) better arrival times could be managed. And if the demand were there, daily frequency could also be increased.
schlimmLittle Rock should be retained, as it served 19,676 passengers last year. Some poster pointed out last year that the majority of LD train passengers in the West do not ride endpoint to endpoint (not verified). So perhaps if trains like the Sunset and Eagle were segmented (shorter corridors, such as StL-DFW or SA) better arrival times could be managed. And if the demand were there, daily frequency could also be increased.
I'd be all for making Saint Louis the terminus of the Texas Eagle. That should allow for better times between Dallas and St. Louis, in my opinion. With all the corridor trains between Saint Louis to Chicago. Not much of a hassle to switch trains in Saint Louis. Amtrak won't do it though because it wants the centralized hub to be Chicago for LD trains.
CMStPnP schlimm Little Rock should be retained, as it served 19,676 passengers last year. Some poster pointed out last year that the majority of LD train passengers in the West do not ride endpoint to endpoint (not verified). So perhaps if trains like the Sunset and Eagle were segmented (shorter corridors, such as StL-DFW or SA) better arrival times could be managed. And if the demand were there, daily frequency could also be increased. I'd be all for making Saint Louis the terminus of the Texas Eagle. That should allow for better times between Dallas and St. Louis, in my opinion. With all the corridor trains between Saint Louis to Chicago. Not much of a hassle to switch trains in Saint Louis. Amtrak won't do it though because it wants the centralized hub to be Chicago for LD trains.
schlimm Little Rock should be retained, as it served 19,676 passengers last year. Some poster pointed out last year that the majority of LD train passengers in the West do not ride endpoint to endpoint (not verified). So perhaps if trains like the Sunset and Eagle were segmented (shorter corridors, such as StL-DFW or SA) better arrival times could be managed. And if the demand were there, daily frequency could also be increased.
And they shouldn't. Transfers suck. I speak from experience. Passengers from Philly and most of PA have to transfer to get to Chicago. I missed my connection. If the Texas Eagle terminated in St. L, you couldn't go directly from Texas to Chicago and you'd have to transfer twice to get from Texas to the Northeast.
CMStPnP Amtrak won't do it though because it wants the centralized hub to be Chicago for LD trains.
Amtrak is stuck in the past. I hope someone can find the data source for the contention that most Western LD passengers do NOT ride endpoint to endpoint. If that is true, then a logical reconfiguration would make enough sense that even Amtrak could recognize the implications.
Doesn't mean there aren't a significant number that do.
https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2015.pdf
The Southwest Chief had a ridership of 362,999 in 2015. While most do not go end point to end point, 14.9% traveled over 2000 miles (approx. 54,000 passengers). The second most popular city pair is Chicago to LA (behind Chicago to Kansas City). Similarly, the California Zephyr had 371,089 with 11.8% over 2000 miles (over 40,000). And most of these endpoint to endpoint pairs bring in huge revenue.
Ideally you'd be able to travel from coast to coast without changing trains but one change of trains is still decent. I certainly would not want to go from Philly to LA having to change trains more than 2 times and possibly missing a connection and getting stranded.
I don't think the concept of long distance travel is a thing of the past. I think certain trains should be a thing of the past and other trains that were a thing of the past should be brought back to life.
schlimm CMStPnP Amtrak is stuck in the past. I hope someone can find the data source for the contention that most Western LD passengers do NOT ride endpoint to endpoint. If that is true, then a logical reconfiguration would make enough sense that even Amtrak could recognize the implications.
CMStPnP
I suspect if you delve into the ridership of most all Amtrak trains you will find most ridership is not end point to end point. End point to intermediate point, intermediate point to intermediate point or intermediate point to end point are the options. Transportation for individuals has to accomidate the many variations. The days of a majority of users going from end point to end point by train are long gone.
In my experience of riding trains I can only remember two occurences of riding a train end point to end point - The Panama Limted from Chicago to New Orleans and the Gulf Wind from New Orleans to Jacksonville. All other uses of rail passenger service in my lifetime has involved movement to, from or between intermediate points.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm So perhaps if trains like the Sunset and Eagle were segmented (shorter corridors, such as StL-DFW or SA) better arrival times could be managed. And if the demand were there, daily frequency could also be increased.
Segmenting sounds good on paper, maybe. When I ride the Texas Eagle, I don't however see the majority of passengers on the train get off at St Louis (in either direction). So if most passengers are actually going past St Louis, then why force a change of trains on them?
Earlier this year when I was going from Little Rock to Los Angeles, I had choices with Amtrak:
I could take the Texas Eagle to St Louis, River Runner to Kansas City and Southwest Chief to Los Angeles
or one-seat ride from Little Rock to Los Angeles on the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited
or Texas Eagle to San Antonio, there physically changing trains to Sunset Limited.
Guess what I chose? Right, the one-seat ride.
Philly Amtrak Fan Doesn't mean there aren't a significant number that do. https://www.narprail.org/site/assets/files/1038/trains_2015.pdf The Southwest Chief had a ridership of 362,999 in 2015. While most do not go end point to end point, 14.9% traveled over 2000 miles (approx. 54,000 passengers). The second most popular city pair is Chicago to LA (behind Chicago to Kansas City). Similarly, the California Zephyr had 371,089 with 11.8% over 2000 miles (over 40,000). And most of these endpoint to endpoint pairs bring in huge revenue. Ideally you'd be able to travel from coast to coast without changing trains but one change of trains is still decent. I certainly would not want to go from Philly to LA having to change trains more than 2 times and possibly missing a connection and getting stranded. I don't think the concept of long distance travel is a thing of the past. I think certain trains should be a thing of the past and other trains that were a thing of the past should be brought back to life.
Thanks for some data, even if it is from a group with an agenda. It does show (as BaltACD says) that on two trains the large majority of LD passengers in the West are not endpoint to endpoint.
Interesting to note that the Southwest Chief is the fastest train to the West Coast time and distancewise from Chicago as well. I wonder if that makes a difference as well on where end point to end point ranks in number of riders as a percentage. I'd take the SWC over the CZ because of the speed. Don't really care about scenery all that much if an alternate train is significantly faster. They could tighten the schedule of the SWC I feel and make it even faster if they had the money.
At that distance, I don't think that speed is going to make that much of a difference. If it was an issue, people would fly and save even more time.
The Texas Eagle has so much fat in its schedule that it probably can add several more stops and not have them impact its end-point on-time performance.
If Number 21 departs Dallas on-time it arrives in Fort Worth around 12:30 to 12:45 p.m. However, it is not scheduled out of Fort Worth until 2:10 p.m., which means it sits in Fort Worth for more than an hour. Moreover, if Number 21 departs Austin on-time, it usually goes into San Antonio an hour ahead of schedule.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
I am not sure how long it takes to get through the various interlockings in San Antonio, but I do not doubt that the padding allows for such. I was asleep by the time we came into San Antonio, (both times I went that way) so I have no real answer.
San Antonio is a through station for the Sunset Limited, but is more or less a stub station for the Texas Eagle.
Johnny
lcar4000Speaking of the Texas Eagle, I was planning a trip to San Antonio from Springfield IL. The schedule seems to indicate it takes the train almost three hours to traverse the 63 miles between San Marcos and San Antonio. Is this possible, or am I reading the schedule wrong? I thought perhaps the times represent padding on the part of Amtrak, as a way to decrease the number of late runs. To me, three hours to go 63 miles is unacceptable.
The schedule is bloated. If Number 21 leaves San Marcos on time, more often than not, it will go into San Antonio 1 to 1.5 hours early, which creates a problem for the passengers and anyone who may be meeting them.
Do those meeting a passenger show up early on the notion that the train will be early and possibly wait for an hour or more, or do the passengers arrive early and have to wait an hour or more for their ride?
One only has to hang around the San Antonio Amtrak station at night one time to realize that it is not a fun place. I have taken the Eagle to San Antonio several times for meetings the next day before flying back to west Texas.
The schedule appears to have been put together by an Amtrak bureaucrat who sits in a windowless cubicle, eats peanut butter and banana sandwiches for lunch, and has never ridden the Texas Eagle or been to San Antonio.
That was my point in writing this thread. At some point time matters in selecting the train, just as it does the bus. Competitively the Texas Eagle is roughly only 2-4 hours faster than Greyhound if you compare schedules between Dallas and Chicago. If most of the padding was removed and Amtrak got a decent agreement with UP RR on run times, Amtrak would be more competitive as a travel option among a portfolio of travel options including the car and the bus.
Car trip to Wisconsin 16-17 hours from my Driveway, Texas Eagle from Dallas 22 hours. So if I am deciding between the car and train. Amtrak loses big time with the schedule padding. The truth is that Amtrak on this route just train moving time is probably closer to 17 hours than 22 hours and probably even less than 17 hours......rough guess. I would bet the Texas Eagle beats the auto travel time from Dallas to Chicago.
And I have to disagree that on LD trains end point to end point travel times do not matter. Typically "how long does a train take?" is the first question that pops into someones head and if the car is comparable or roughly comparable it will be the chosen mode in a lot of cases.
CMStPnP ... Car trip to Wisconsin 16-17 hours from my Driveway, Texas Eagle from Dallas 22 hours. So if I am deciding between the car and train. Amtrak loses big time with the schedule padding. The truth is that Amtrak on this route just train moving time is probably closer to 17 hours than 22 hours and probably even less than 17 hours......rough guess. I would bet the Texas Eagle beats the auto travel time from Dallas to Chicago. ....
...
....
But, if you are going alone, aren't you comparing 16-17 hours of intensity behind the wheel (at least until true self-driving cars become a reality!), to 22 hours wherin you can read, sleep, whatever. And you don't say whether the 16-17 hours include meal stops. And few people I know would drive straight through for that long, without a sleep stop.
By my reckoning, padding or no, Amtrak wouldn't lose on scheduling.
On the other hand, I agree that travel times do matter, at any length of time or distance.
JPS1The distance on Amtrak is 991 miles. Travel time is 22 hours and 12 minutes. The lowest coach fare is $102. Does not include meals. The lowest first class fare is $372. Includes meals. Does not include cost of getting to and from the railroad stations, parking, etc. Typical flying time from Dallas to Chicago is 2 hours and 5 minutes. The lowest fare on Southwest Airlines, which has six morning flights from Dallas to Chicago, ranges from $55 to $110. Does not include meals, cost of getting to and from the airports, parking, etc.
Even if your business in Chicago is downtown, flying would save a lot of time. If it is in Chicago sububs, it would save more time. Factoring cost and being able to get a better sleep at home, it seems like a no-brainer for any business person, other than the rare railfan with time to waste. Or someone with aviophobia.
schlimmEven if your business in Chicago is downtown, flying would save a lot of time. If it is in Chicago sububs, it would save more time. Factoring cost and being able to get a better sleep at home, it seems like a no-brainer for any business person, other than the rare railfan with time to waste. Or someone with aviophobia.
The airfare quoted above for a business traveler would be unrealistic. For one, departing from Dallas Love Field isolates you a lot from the airport network in this country and arriving at Midway in Chicago isolates you more as business traveler. Unless you own your own business your not ever going to get that travel segment by a large company unless all they do is fly Dallas to Chicago.
So the $55-$110 ticket is highly unrealistic for business travel and largely out of reach, lowest your going to get Dallas to Chicago is $400 RT advance purchase and higher for under two weeks purchase.....and routing will be DFW to O'Hare. Southwest has to offer the lower fares because Dallas Love Field is pretty isolated from the airport network in this country and once at Love Field you don't have a lot of choices for getting out of there like you do at DFW.
Also, I disagree on aviophobia. I would switch to LD trains if it is more convienient because i get sick of flying period (even when it is First Class). Some of the LD train segments are more convinent that flying. The Buffalo departure on Amtrak for Chicago is an example late evening boarding time and I wake up, time for breakfest and I get off the train in Chicago at a fairly decent time in the morning still. You can sleep on a sleeper on a train a lot better than in an airport or on a plane. So I subtract sleep time when making the train to plane comparison and include total travel time to terminals , wait time to board, etc. I could never make Buffalo to Chicago work unless I was visiting Wisconsin because of the LD connections out of Chicago were so bad and required an almost half day layover at CUS.
Also might surprise you to know that Amtrak is indeed on Business Travel options now but restricted to just the Northeast Corridor. So I can book Airline to Amtrak transfers when flying to and doing business in the Northeast. Yes, it's not an interline ticket and not a guaranteed connection but still can get it booked. So hence again why I argue, airlines should offer the same service their travel agencies do. It would make our transportation system more efficient.
Also have to keep in mind that most consultants travel with the unwritten rule they have until noon or 1 p.m. on Monday to arrive at a client and usually can depart a clients site around noon on a Friday to account for travel. Now some consulting companies want you to depart Sunday night for clients site and depart clients site around COB on a Friday.........I never work for those consulting companies as they usually have crappy benefits and treat employees like crap in other areas. If I fly out on a Sunday night, I better be headed back by Friday early morning to compensate. Some sales people are the same way with their travel flexibility though I have seen them abused as well. Depends on the company.
All the Dallas to Chicago fares are one way. They are for travel on October 5th, and they are the lowest Internet fares.
According to Travelocity, American and United are quoting DFW to ORD fares ranging from $54.10 to $101.10 for October 5th.
Planning ahead usually results in a better fare than the walk-up fare. Not every business person can plan several weeks in advance, but many can and do. Each situation is different.
People who work for organizations with pay for performance systems, where the cost of travel is charged back to their department, have an incentive to keep costs low. One way to do that is through better planning, especially for discretionary travel.
Rather than give up Hope, I would add a regular scheduled van service to and from Tyler, which is a much larger community without rail service. I think such a service would double the riddership at Hope.
A similar situation exists with the Cardinal at Prince for Frostberg.
daveklepper Rather than give up Hope, I would add a regular scheduled van service to and from Tyler, which is a much larger community without rail service. I think such a service would double the riddership at Hope. A similar situation exists with the Cardinal at Prince for Frostberg.
The closest Amtrak station to Tyler, TX is Mineola, TX, which is 25.7 miles away. Longview is 37.8 miles from Tyler; it is more than 150 miles to Hope.
So there is no hope for Hope for Tyler people who want to catch the Eagle, unless they are hopelessly enamored of the idea of catching a train from Hope, which must be a last hope.
CMStPnPThe airfare quoted above for a business traveler would be unrealistic. For one, departing from Dallas Love Field isolates you a lot from the airport network in this country and arriving at Midway in Chicago isolates you more as business traveler. Unless you own your own business your not ever going to get that travel segment by a large company unless all they do is fly Dallas to Chicago.
Heck, if I were a business traveler from DFW to ORD this Tuesday, I could be put on a flight at 6:10 am -> 8:35 am; go to the scheduled meetings and fly back 8:50 pm -> 11:13 pm, all for $123 RT inc. taxes, etc. on coach. Sounds a lot better than 22 hours on a train, leaving Monday afternoon, getting to Chicago at 1:52 pm Tuesday. Maybe you could manage some business still on Tuesday, but likely you'd have to overnight in a hotel, conclude business Tuesday morning, catch the train at 1:45 pm, returning to Dallas on Wednesday at 11:30 in the morning. Three days vs. one; a lot more expense and two nights on a train. Even in a bedroom, my bed at home is far more comfortable. I doubt if many businesses would approve of such a transport for their employees and very few would ever choose it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.