I'm posting pictures from my round trip on The City of New Orleans to try the new Cross Country Cafe with the finished Diner Lounge design. I'm also on a week long vacation in Oregon. Took the Empire Builder and Cascades out, and will reverse next week to get home. I don't have a trip report finished, but I do have pictures starting to post.
posted
Thanks for your pictures! The car looks really nice inside. Enjoy the rest of the trip. It will be interesting to hear how you compare the service on the City of New Orleans compared with the full service Empire Builder.
Posts: 14 | From: Dingwall, UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am really curious about how this car is laid out.....what is the seating capacity of the lounge side as opposed to the dining side?
The new Trains Magazine says something to the effect that the combined diner-lounge car is set to go into service on the Texas Eagle later this year. I'm wondering if this is still accurate? Frankly, I feel like the Texas Eagle's run is lengthy to the point of feeling somewhat cramped without the sightseer lounge. The City of New Orleans run is 8-10 hours shorter and, as such, is an ideal candidate for the combined diner/lounge car.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If ridership is the category for selecting trains to get the CCC, then The Sunset should be priority one.
As we here are quite aware, its ridership is off the charts - the wrong way.
For FY 07 (source Sep 07 MPR Page 3.5 - can't paste with the Adobe "giveaway', have to shell out the "heap big wampum' for an advanced app if you want to do that) The Sunset carried 63336 passengers, Texas Eagle 218321 (City BTW 180473). Even to 'Dailyize' the Sunset (63336 X 7/3) a more comparative number is 147784, or still the weakest East West train.
Now there is one point on these stats I'm not clear about. How is 421-422 accounted for? Does it get counted as part of Eagle's ridership, or Sunset, or BOTH. I fear it is the latter as I once learned a passenger traveling Sacramento to LA gets a ridership count of three i.e. bus, rail, bus, whereas a Starlight passenger is good only for a count of one i.e. train all the way.
I'll defer to others to editorialize on Sunset's weak ridership.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What impresses me about the Sunset Limited statistics is the 22% increase in ridership from 2006 to 2007, especially since the eastern portion has been temporarily discontinued. But I wonder what the ridership was before that happened, and how that compared with the other trains? Perhaps the Sunset had relatively many passengers.
In the future, should the Sunset be restored and expanded, there are three factors I see that would give it a strong ridership base.
1) The large population of the cities it serves, and the presumed correspondingly high travel volume between those cities. 2) If service is expanded to once-daily or twice-daily, the travel choices, and the arrival and departure times, would be more convenient and a lot more people would consider it 3) A lot of the current stations are run down and located in poor areas of towns. If effort is expended to improve those stations, more riders will come to them
So, I think the Sunset route has excellent potential -- plenty of would-be train riders, and lots of room for improvement in basic facilities and train frequency. When those improvements are made, I have little doubt that the Sunset could be one of the great Amtrak routes again. The question is when.
Posts: 144 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
4021, this month's RailPAC newsletter reports "By 2010 the 'Sunset Route' will be double tracked from West Colton, CA to El Paso, which SHOULD remove most of the argument against daily service for the Sunset Limited."
From my limited perspective here on the left coast, having never traveled E-W except on the Zephyr, it occurs to me that the successful Empire Builder and the struggling Sunset shouldn't be so far apart in their ridership because they both serve sparely populated areas with a similar route distance (post-Katrina, that is). The Builder has an edge scenery-wise to attract business, but overall I suspect that it is scheduling and on time performance that makes most of the difference between the success of one and failure of the other.
posted
Volks, lest we forget that Union Pacific is "uh, not exactly" committing $2B of investor's $$$ so that more Amtrak trains can be handled. Let us dispell any thoughts that come 2010 simply because there is double track, that UP has some "social obligation' to agree to a Daily Sunset Limited.
From reviewing material at their site (yes, I did look at their site prior to preparing this posting), it appears that RAILPAC is even more "militant" than NARP.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I can say to that Mr. Toy is "maybe", but it won't be without a fight.
Suffice to say, UP would be quite opposed to any increase in Sunset frequency, but I think it is a safe assumption that reliability of the existing frequencies will improve as the double tracking moves forth.
As I've often noted, I believe that the Class I industry simply considers Amtrak operations at existing service levels over their ROW's as a "nuisance", or "just live with it; we have other battles to fight, such as rereg".
But somehow if any railroad, law of the land notwithstanding, was confronted with a situation of "we went out and committed our investor's capital for more capacity and now they (Amtrak) are going to walk on to our property and dictate to us that we will run more of their trains......" could elevate the "nuisance' into a "threat". The consequence would be that the industry would seek repeal of right of access.
Industry v. Advocates, care to place your bets on that one?
Such be the case, then it's time to break out the Adios drumheads.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: But somehow if any railroad, law of the land notwithstanding, was confronted with a situation of "we went out and committed our investor's capital for more capacity and now they (Amtrak) are going to walk on to our property and dictate to us that we will run more of their trains......" could elevate the "nuisance' into a "threat". The consequence would be that the industry would seek repeal of right of access.
Mr. Norman, Given the attitude of the general public toward the railroads as primarily a nuisance producing noise and delays at road crossings, I would think this would be one of the most dangerous things they could possibly do to themselves. I can see as a counter, that if you refuse the public benefit, you no longer can justify having right of way at any road crossing anywhere. This would resolve two nuisances at one stroke: No more horn blowing needed and no trains running into cars. Just pause a few minutes and think what that could mean.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
The railroads were there long before there was a need for grade x-ings.
With Globalization, railroads are an integral part of providing the Asian manufactured goods that Americans deem "so essential" (actually or not notwithstanding) to their daily lives.
If railroads are forced by fiat, i.e. that "right of access" pursuant to RPSA '70, their "mission" to our populace comprised of 99% who have no intention of considering a passenger train for any of their personal transportation needs, will be compromised from efficient delivery of those goods to Wally World so that "junior" is not wailing away why he/she doesn't have the "must have" toy next Xmas.
Finally Mr. Harris, you have impressed me as a mighty mature fellow around this forum; I think you know as well as do I that "John Q" could care less about passenger trains. The folk that do care about passenger trains are in the NorthEast - and those ROW's are largely grade X-ing free.
Posts: 9979 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman, I agree with your logic. Unfortunately, a lot of what happens in the political areana is a "logic free zone" Claims of 'we were here first' will frequently get you no where. Witness all the screams and cries for relocation of railroads in various places by various people that chose to move into the proximity of railroad lines that have been in place for 100 to 150 years plus. I did not say what I suggested was logical. Far from it. I just said, the corporate management might find that despite what they see as a sound reasonable and legal basis that they are "kicking against the pricks" when they fight the government saying, sorry we have no room for any passenger trains. We have seen less logical things come out of the government.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fear the discussion is slipping into absolutism. In the real world the growing tendency of public policy (outside of Washington DC, anyway) is to work with others for mutual benefit, rather than impose one will over another. Not always, of course (witness the current administration), but when the needs of the other are respected more progress is achieved by working together than either can achieve separately. The Capitol Corridor public/private partnership in infrastructure development (with UP no less) is a perfect example.
I don't expect UP to give up something for nothing. But neither should UP expect to enjoy virtual monopoly control over the Sunset route, or any other, without making some concession to public benefit.
There is ample precedent for such agreements. For example, there are several plots of private land along the Monterey city shoreline with a variety of business interests occupying them. Many of these are required to provide free public shoreline access as part of their business use permits. Without these agreements much of Monterey's famous shoreline would be inaccessible. The public's right of shoreline access does not significantly inhibit the business activities, so everyone wins.
No corporation or individual exists in isolation, so cooperation is in everyone's interest. Self-interest to the exclusion of all else is really becoming unfashionable. I think this election cycle demonstrates that people are coming to realize that we're all in this together, and that cooperation achieves so much more than confrontation. And it is important to remember that in business and politics everything is negotiable.
It may not be easy, but I see no reason why mature adults should not be able to work out agreements that everyone can live with.
posted
Exactly my point, Mr. Toy. This is what UP appears to be doing, and they will probably, almost certainly find that in the end it is a counterproductive viewpoint.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
