posted
Am pleased to mention that Amtrak president Moorman approved my suggestion to initiate a Phoenix - Maricopa Thruway connection for travelers on the Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle.
His team was able to start service yesterday May 1st.
This connection now shows on Amtrak.com. Prior to this searches did not show Sunset and Texas Eagle as options to Phoenix, just the Southwest Chief, a big hit to the financial viability of the first two trains.
The Thruway bus serves a variety of stops, including Tempe (Arizona State University) and Sky Harbor Airport.
posted
I don't even think NARP has come up with this one yet, but how would four trains a day between Houston and LA sound?
The trains would roundly be scheduled six hours apart and would enable travel between any two points on the route with both arrival and departure at "people hours'. The departure time to ride the Phoenix bus for #2 is simply absurd.
The schedule would be 36hr - as prevalent during 1959. Superliner Sleeper, Diner, and Lounge service would be offered on each identical train. Offer some Tex-Mex (well, of the Chili's varietal) in the Diners.
Naturally the ROW West of Phoenix would be restored and an attractive "Adobe' styled station would be built there, as would a new station in Houston reflecting the region's culture. Amtrak would move back to the historical station at San Antonio and kiss the Freight House goodbye.
This service initiative would be justified in that if the LD is going to make a stand anywhere, it will be where there is a fast growing population base and that there are 'LD Corridor markets Phoenix-LA, Houston-San Antonio, et al with passenger potential.
Not enough equipment on hand? Well, let's discontinue the Auto Train (gotta gore my personal Ox) and reduce consists of others so that these "Sunset" trains will have adequate capactiy - including Sleepers with enough available capacity to ensure "last minute' travelers can be accommodated (Central and Pennsy wanted Century and Broadway to be "nearly", but not "completely', sold out).
All told, if this service doesn’t make it, then perhaps it's time to recognize that the LD passenger train simply no longer has a meaningful role in meeting transportation needs.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don, glad to hear it, but still think I'd prefer a rental car from Tucson (with an overnight stay in the interesting Congress hotel) because of the hours of the Sunset in Maricopa.
GBN, perhaps too much wine?
But if you're dreaming, how about restoring the Denver Zephyr and the Chief. All long distance routes would be more viable from a ridership standpoint if there were at least 2 a day. And I suspect the loss per passenger would be significantly less as the overhead costs could be spread over multiple trains on the route. This of course assumes congress agrees that LD trains are there for the benefit of the public and normal commercial justifications don't apply.
Recently we listened to a podcast of a professor in Milan, Italy who is an American. He has written several books and the latest one talks of Italy's investment in high speed routes regardless of that country's shaky financial status. He said the decision is strictly political. Economics has absolutely nothing to do with it. The railroad provides employment for thousands who would otherwise be unemployed. It also facilitates one of the key foundations of Italian life - a connection with your home. Unlike in the U.S., Italians try very hard to keep the extended family unit together in their home town. Cheap, frequent HSR service lets families commute long distances by the the thousands, usually over a weekend, to their homebase. A room or apartment in Rome or Milan allows them to sustain the family. Interesting hypothesis.
It also allows tourists like us to see the country at a fraction of the cost of Amtrak at about three times the speed.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by palmland: It also allows tourists like us to see the country at a fraction of the cost of Amtrak at about three times the speed.
Mr.Palmland, first it was two glasses of an excellent New Zealand Sauvingnon Blanc. I know you and Miss Mary are going over this July, but absent having a pass and planing to live aboard trains to make it pay, I do not find European rail travel any kind of bargain.
Now I certainly think that round trips US$48.15 Munich Airport-Salzburg 71 miles is reasonable. But that is 2nd Class on Meridian EMU's and bought well in advance. However otherwise, the day trips I've taken from Salzburg to both Vienna and St. Anton/Arlberg, 186 and 176 miles respectively, to be US$210.64 and $228.40 respectfully. This was First Class on the premium "higher speed" RailJets.
All tickets bought from DB and OBB; the latter were "walk ups" (I woke up, no concerts that evening, and the weather looked fine). Travel agent? You'll have to ask my Sister what's that.
Fast, frequent, comfortable, you bet. But price, best think Corridor.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman - no wonder Germany is the most prosperous of EU countries. Switzerland , and I guess Austria, have similar rates although the Swiss Rail Pass is affordable for 2nd class short day trips. About $400 for 3 days good on any train, lake steamers, and most private cog railroads. We did an affordable 1 class upgrade for the Bernina Express.
Now Italy and France are another matter.: Amtrak Acela NYP-WAS about $500 for 1st class for about 220 miles (fortunately not on our itinerary!)
Italy high speed train Rome-Florence about $104 for two of us 1st class for the 180 miles. Venice-Milan $83 for about same miles. And Basel-Paris is $63 for the two of us on Thayls HSR for about 290 miles. All reservations made the week they went on sale direct with the carrier involved.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trains 19 and 20, the Chief, were restored for a 90 day summer run in 1972.
I rode them.
Either 2 or 3 HL coaches, lounge, diner, slumbercoach, sleeper.
Oh... in 1973 Amtrak tried a shot at transcontinental cars: A sleeper ran from DC to KC on the National Limited (and something else), thence to LA on 3/4. Too bad the assignment people used a 110v A/C car, when the Santa Fe used Steam Ejector. The damn thing went hot out of KC after being hooked up to the train. We got moved the middle of the next day.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But if you're dreaming, how about restoring the Denver Zephyr and the Chief. All long distance routes would be more viable from a ridership standpoint if there were at least 2 a day . . .."
Last I heard Amtrak was evaluating new service as stand alone. That means that the synergies of dual service, such as stations and their staffs already there anyway, are sadly not considered.
It's so logical to believe that giving potential passengers the option of doing day return trips, such as Gallop to Albuquerque and back, all along long-distance routes would help improve financial viability immensely. Apparently not considered, though.
posted
I consider 2 a day on many routes almost a "no-brainer" Particularly New York to Chicago. Multiple trains should pick up enough traffic that the passengers per train could well be higher than on this current once a day train. A second New York to Atlanta should be viable, as would a second Chicago to Minneapolis. The second New York to Atlanta should see daylight about Charlotte, with the northbound arriving New York somewhere before 9:00. I would say the current southbound Crescent should be getting to Atlanta about 8:00 am. For a third, throw in a day train.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, George. I would also like to see a 2nd daily train on the Empire Builder and the Calif. Zephyr routes. If the 2nd train departure times could be significantly staggered from the "parent" train, it might allow reasonable arrival times for cities such as Spokane and Salt Lake City.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I guess it is fun to dream about additional frequencies over existing routes, the only second frequency on an East-West route during the Amtrak era is as noted by Mr. Pullman - The Chief during Summer 1972; and we all know how much of an encore that inspired.
True, there would be economics favoring areas such as Station Services, but as we know, additional routes and frequencies were proposed under PRIIA 08. The conclusion was simply the necessary plant expansions to support thsee additional services would make them prohibitively costly, and as a result, none have moved forth.
Impose upon the Class I industry to move 'em over existing plant? Well, all here know my thoughts on that.
addendum disclaimer: author holds Long position within a traditional brokerage account UNP
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What especially irritates me in discussions of Amtrak finances is the argument that the Northeast Corridor trumps the rest of the system in financial viability.
During FY 2015, Amtrak received a total of some 1.4 billion in subsidies from both federal and state sources for the ENTIRE system.
Per the Northeast Corridor Commission in 2017, deferred maintenance on the Corridor alone totals 38 billion. That may be optimistic. No such burden on Amtrak exists when it uses freight railways.
Note to Mr. Norman: I don't disagree with your argument that Amtrak should pay an appropriate amount for its use of freight railroads.
posted
If the VIA Toronto to Vancouver would increase their runs to 7 days/week, I think it would be interesting to see what the revenue and ridership figures would look like. I found it difficult, the last time on the "Canadian" (Vancouver to Jasper), to coordinate their schedule with my itinerary.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
