posted
When thinking about solutions to the problems outlined in the 'Chicago Problems' topic, it occurred to me that there might be another option for those unfortunate passengers from the northeast connecting in Chicago to trains for the LA area.
Would it be possible or helpful to move the Sunset Ltd back 12 hours to a 9:00 pm New Orleans departure? This would provide for a same evening connection from the Crescent. LA arrival would then be 5:35 pm second evening, third evening from New York -same as via Chicago. Yes, it would only be 3 days a week and miss a CS connection, but at least you would improve your chances of a timely LA arrival from the east.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One immediate thought is that you'd have to alter the eastbound (#2) as well, as it turns the same day from the wesbound two out of the three running days.
Also I'm not too sure how LA Union Station would cope with a rush-hour Sunset arrival. The 'burbs of LA shouldn't be too bad (looking right now, 5:49pm local time, there's just one train on the entire Alhambra sub - and that's probably just switching in Industry yard).
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Palmland, there is much historical precedence fou your proposal, as that was the traditional SP schedule. It only changed when the Golden State and Sunset were combined El Paso-LA, and which more or less remains in effect Today.
December 1963 #1 departed El Paso about 1130PM - 'been there done that'.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So true, GBN. The OGR for 1957 shows the Sunset leaving New Orleans at 10:45pm with LA arrival 4:15 pm second afternoon.It carried a full lounge car, diner, hamburger grill lounge (for coach passengers), 3 sleepers from New Orleans and 1 from Dallas on T&P's Texas Eagle. What's old is new again.
Perhaps a slightly later departure time than I proposed would take care of the potential LA area rush hour conflict Geoff mentions.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by palmland: So true, GBN. The OGR for 1957 shows the Sunset leaving New Orleans at 10:45pm with LA arrival 4:15 pm second afternoon.It carried a full lounge car, diner, hamburger grill lounge (for coach passengers), 3 sleepers from New Orleans and 1 from Dallas on T&P's Texas Eagle. What's old is new again.
But the Texas Eagle sleeper was picked up at El Paso after running west out of Ft. Worth on the T&P. The train went west through San Antonio about mid to late morning. It also had far less slack than the current schedule, and of course much higher priority on the track.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
George, I was standing at the rear of our sleeper with a qualifying Amtrak engineer who was observing our progress after being relieved for HOS. He said the T&P route was now the primary east/west route. The Sunset route is now a diverging switch at the connection near Sierra Blanca.
He also pointed out the new brightly lit fueling facility about 20" west of El Paso. It is right on the double track mainline (with a couple additional tracks on each side). Very weird. We slowed to 30mph as we passed thru. Total area is about 2 miles with east and west fueling stations at each end.
posted
Just for fun, a retimed Sunset - #1: 11pm New Orleans (Mo/We/Sa) 8:55am Houston (Tu/Th/Su) 4:45pm San Antonio (Tu/Th/Su) 3:47am El Paso (We/Fr/Mo) 10:35am Tuscon (We/Fr/Mo) 7:35pm Los Angeles (We/Fr/Mo)
#2: 10:00am Los Angeles (Th/Sa/Tu) 9:15pm Tuscon (Th/Sa/Tu) 3:35am El Paso (Fr/Su/We) 6:25pm San Antonio (Fr/Su/We) 12:10am Houston (Sa/Mo/Th) 9:30am New Orleans (Sa/Mo/Th)
This is slightly inefficient - as is the current Sunset schedule - in that one trainset waits around for a few days.
This, of course, also has a knock-on effect to the Texas Eagle, which itself has a knock-on effect to the City of New Orleans (as the latter two share train sets).
One day I might do a "what if" experiment in starting all over with the entire long distance schedule to optimise connections, train set usage, and daylight hours for big cities. It may well be a fruitless exercise in recursiveness!
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be a big fan of switching the Sunset's schedule by 12 hours. I think the LA-Tucson corridor could grow to support daily service if CA and AZ could get together to support the service. A 1000am departure from LA would allow connections from the Surfliners and MetroLink and if the departure from NO could be about 9pm, the Sunset would arrive back in LA in time for passengers to connect back to those Surfliners/MetroLink trains. I also wonder if Houston to San Antonio could grow with better timings and maybe daily service.
The biggest drawbacks to the 12-hour switch would be the loss of same day connections from the Texas Eagle and making the NO-Houston segment an overnight run which wouldn't make same day connections to the eastbound Crescent in NO.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using the current Sunset running times between stations and adapting the schedule to not make connections with the Eagle, a 12 hour shift might produce a timetable like this:
TRAIN 1 Lv NOL 900pm Ar HOS 618am+1 Dp HOS 655am Ar SAS 1205pm (no cnx from Eagle, so a 60 minute layover should be plenty) Dp SAS 105pm Ar ELP 1142pm Dp ELP 1217am+2 Ar TUC 617am (brake test location?) Dp TUC 710am Ar MRC 827am (Maricopa) Dp MRC 837am Dp PSP 1237pm (Palm Springs) Ar LAX 400pm (in time for connections to Surfliners and MetroLink)
TRAIN 2 Lv LAX 1000am Dp PSP 1236pm Ar MRC 630pm Dp MRC 640pm Ar TUC 829pm Dp TUC 915pm Ar ELP 310am+1 Dp ELP 335am Ar SAS 450pm Dp SAS 550pm Ar HOS 1035pm Dp HOS 1135pm Ar NOL 905am+2
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting Vincent and this schedule would be a good test to see which is more important - the thru passengers off the Eagle or local passengers who might be more inclined to ride with the a daylight schedule this would provide between Houston and San Antonio and Tucson/Maricopa and LA. On my Texas Eagle sleeper there were 4 passengers, including ourselves who were in the Bedrooms prior to San Antonio and 8 in roomettes. We picked up more in San Antonio and Ft. Worth and counted 8 getting on in Austin.
I wonder if the Eastbound Crescent departure could be moved back a couple hours to keep that connection. I suspect even more time could be taken out of the San Antonio and Houston stopsif it just required a crew change. In SP days the stop was 20 min.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's make the New Orleans to San Antonio corridor a daily train (hey, we live in an alternate universe where trains run on free electrons, equipment always works and host railroads are infinitely cooperative). The train departs NOL daily at 900pm and arrives in San Antonio at 1205pm. On the days that it doesn't continue to Los Angeles, it could turn and head back to NOL. If the departure from San Antonio is scheduled at 250pm, that train would arrive in NOL at 605am--in time for the Crescent connection.
So, 3 days a week, the Sunset would leave San Antonio at 550pm (arrive HOS 1035pm, NOL 905am). Four days a week, an alternate train would leave SAS at 250pm with arrival in Houston at 735pm and NOL at 605am.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you need to back up the eastbound a couple of hours so that it makes a connection with the Crescent. A 9:00am plus arrival does not.
Again, if we are running on free electrons and have a cooperative UPRR, make it daily for the whole route.
There has been talk about an Austin - San Antonio interurban style service, which is way past needed. Let that function as a conection for traffic west and split the through out of Chicago version with one part terminating at San Antonio and the Los Angeles part going west out of Ft. Worth and joining up with the Sunset at El Paso.
The upgrades necessary for a reasonably fast Austin - San Antonio service plus a few other improvements to the north should also get the San Antonio part a little faster than the "watching paint dry" schedule it seems to have now. (The interurban service should come into the T&NO/SP station in San Antonio instead of the MoPac/IGN station.)
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hard to believe it's been almost 5 years since daily service and a New Orleans connection first surfaced here. Of course this was pushed by Brian Rosenwald, one of the few innovators at Amtrak. And he was recently pushed into retirement. But it is surprising that he felt a daily train would save enough to pay for the additional service.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman at immediately linked topic: A safe assumption is that Mr. Rosenwald, in his capacity as an Amtrak spokesman, said exactly what his handlers programmed him say. Lest we forget, he has what it takes to survive within Amtrak management as he has been there practically since A-Day - and I've had the occasion to meet him 'along the way'.
Finally, a further safe assumption is that such pronouncement hit Douglas Street like a lead balloon.
usual disclaimer; hold position in UNP.
It is amazing that guy was able to hang on at Amtrak as long as he did. Innovation and otherwise thinking out of the box are two traits often admired in industry, but not in a bureaucracy.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love this discussion and the viability of Palmland's suggestion.
Traditionally, just two routes served TX on the way from CHI to LAX, and those were RI's/SP's combo route (Golden State), which served just El Paso, and ATSF's southern trans-con (San Francisco Chief), which transited the largely unpopulated TX Panhandle.
Other trains served CHI and/or STL - Texas alone, with much business.
What I am getting to here is that we may not need a CHI - LAX through train via Dallas & Fort Worth. Would need to know boardings to be sure.
Moreover, the extra traffic diverted to the Southwest Chief might be what saves it. The Chief has always been hurt by the lack of population density between Kansas City & San Bernardino.
posted
I'm not down in TX very often, so I don't have much on-the-ground knowledge of Texas train ridership; but if there isn't a pressing need for the Eagle/Sunset combo, maybe Amtrak could terminate the Eagle in Ft. Worth and attach the Ft. Worth to San Antonio corridor to the Heartland Flyer. The operating cost of the HF must be much lower than the Texas Eagle. There also has been talk of extending the Heartland Flyer to Kansas City at some point, so maybe we'll someday see a daily San Antonio to Kansas City train.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth department: The original Texas Eagle from Ft. Worth direct to El Paso took 13 hours. Today's Amtrak TE takes 23 to go via San Antonio. On the direct route, Midland/Odessa and Abilene have a population near 350k. On the Sunset route Del Rio is around 35k.
Would Texas be better served if the TE took that original route. And the Sunset became the route of the Louisiana Eagle direct from New Orleans via Shreveport to Dallas/Ft.Worth. This would also enable a thruway bus bridge from Shreveport to Jackson, ms (3hrs) and Meridian (4.5hrs).
The Heartland Flyer was then extended to San Antonio for the reasons Vincent suggests. UP might go for it as the mileage FTW to El Paso is almost identical as San Antonio to El Paso (but the route from NOL/DFW is longer).
DFW becomes the hub rather than San Antonio. Sorry about that Houston - it would wait until the privately financed HSR to Dallas was built, or you took the existing bus connection from the TE at Longview.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Palmland, how would it land at Douglass Street, if Amtrak were to propose to get rid of Sunset NOL-SAS if you will accept a reroute over T&P FTW-ELP?
Your immediate proposal is asking UP to host additional passenger train miles; again how would that land on Douglass Street?
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One can only guess at UP's reaction - but this would actually be a small reduction of 15 or so miles-not an increase as I mistakenly said above:
New Orleans-Ft. Worth, 547 (T&P), rather than New Orleans-San Antonio, 573; Ft. Worth to El Paso (T&P) mileage is 613 rather than 605 from San Antonio to El Paso. Ft. Worth to San Antonio stays the same as an extended Heartland Flyer. Mileage would increase only if one of the new segments went daily.
A rough schedule might be (based on T&P times on new segments): No change in TE Chicago to Dallas/FtWorth. EB California Eagle Lv NOL 10PM (connects from Crescent) Ar Dallas 11am, FTW 12:30/2:00, El Paso 3am, Tucson 8:30am, Maricopa 10:45am, LA 6:30pm.
WB Lv LA 9am, Tucson 8am, ELP 2am, Ar Ft. Worth 3pm (connects to Chgo 1 hr later than present), Dallas 5pm, NOL 6am (connects to Crescent).
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considered at one time was a split of the Crescent at Meridian with one section going to New Orleans and the other going to Texas (ala the Crescent Star). This train was to be called the Crescent Star and end up I believe in Fort Worth (where there's servicing facilities). It was believed this would make the Crescent a more efficient train south of Atlanta. The Crescent Star (running east-west) would actually interchange with the (north-south) City of New Orleans, Texas Eagle, and Heartland Flyer. Passengers could be forwarded to LA via the Crescent Star on the Texas Eagle on days it connects (through cars remember) with the Sunset Limited. You'd still limit your "change of trains" to one time at Fort Worth. It's a little out there, but it was on the drawing boards at one time!
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The proposal Mr. JP notes, was part of the Network Growth Strategy set forth by the Warrington Gang during 2K - all of which turned out, beyond making 21-22, Texas Eagle, a Daily train, was nothing but 'smoke and mirrors'.
For those here who were not following Amtrak affairs during that era, the NGS plan was simply 'wild'. Included within were plans to operate an NY-LA train that would not include Chicago as a station stop, Chicago-Des Moines, Boston-Miami skipping NY, as well as restoration of both Carter and Clinton/Mercer cuts. All of this would be possible with Boxcars (whoops Express) hanging on the rear of trains.
The funny thing of course was there was hardly available equipment to operate all of such, and so far as agreement with the Class I roads for same....this little guy tells it all Sometimes, one must wonder what was being smoked at 60 Mass to dream this stuff up.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Linking Atlanta to Texas and LA sure could grow ridership. I still think extending the CONO across the old Sunset East route would have been a great idea. Both these would greatly increase city pairs, without new (if abandoned is not new) mileage. But then, without equipment these trains just run through our dream world.
I really think customers would be willing to have a 4-5 hour layover to reduce missed connections, and New Orleans could be an interesting town for a layover. Even an overnight at a hotel partnering with Amtrak might be attractive.
But then, I am beginning to become convinced that Amtrak would just as soon have the LD's wither on the vine.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
