Anyone with suggestions on how to get the Las Vegas train back up and running. We did have some beautiful Talgo equipment here awhile back just for that. But next came the "turtles" and now it's politics. I know Gunn has to realize he is N-O-T investing on a major money making train here. I get asked at the station service desk all the time on where the heck is the train. And all I can say is P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S!!! It is a travesty that we cannot provide such a great service. We can even make the train into a kind of 20's or 30's inspired theme. Swing music and the like. I think it would be great. But what do I know...I just work here.
thanks gang!!!
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
If only there was a way to get Vegas on the Chief Route. It would require building a 120 mile branch from Kingman to Bullhead, a bridge to Laughlin, Laughlin to Vegas. The line would run along highway 95.
If the bill passes giving Amtrak 80/20 funding, Nevada might go for something like that.
Posted by D. David (Member # 4055) on :
Heck I'd take my intended trip all the way to L.A. and then into vegas with it. Let me know if a petition comes into existence.
Posted by JONATHON (Member # 2899) on :
quote:Originally posted by purrzz70: Here we go...
Anyone with suggestions on how to get the Las Vegas train back up and running. We did have some beautiful Talgo equipment here awhile back just for that. But next came the "turtles" and now it's politics. I know Gunn has to realize he is N-O-T investing on a major money making train here. I get asked at the station service desk all the time on where the heck is the train. And all I can say is P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S!!! It is a travesty that we cannot provide such a great service. We can even make the train into a kind of 20's or 30's inspired theme. Swing music and the like. I think it would be great. But what do I know...I just work here.
thanks gang!!!
No, They cant, that Talgo Equipment has to be able to be used where its needed, Amtrak has TONS of stops all over the U.S., There not going to Idelize just The Las Vegas Stop out of all the others, plus, Amtrak has other things to deal with, and with money Troubles, Spending Money on just one Train is un nessesary, so, sorry.
Posted by Chucky (Member # 2263) on :
Jonathon,
With all due respect, have you ever been to Las Vegas, Nevada?
If ever there was a town that could save Amtrak, it would be Las Vegas.
Cordially,
Chuck Reuben
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
If you could run double-decker trains like the Surfliner or Sounder back and forth from LAX-LAS 2 times a day I am sure there would be plenty of ridership, especially on weekends!
And if an LAX-LAS run did happen to come on-line, the number of station stops between the two would have to be very limited to make it worth taking. I am sure there are cheap non-stop flights from LAX that would give Amtrak a run for it money.
Quick, efficient, afforadable...the three keys to making it work.
Posted by JONATHON (Member # 2899) on :
They ran The Surfliner to and from Los Vegas, testing for Time Trials, but they just didnt have the Funds
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
I agree that Las Vegas service, if done right, would be a great thing to have. I suspect, as with many markets, there is a latent demand for it. It would have to be conveniently scheduled and reliable to keep 'em riding, though.
Don't forget there is the Reno Fun Train a few times a year, which suggests that the concept of rail service to Vegas is viable.
Posted by Southwest Chief (Member # 1227) on :
Desert Wind couldn't do it, how can it work now?
Too bad as my friends are always saying how it would be great to take a train to Vegas. So many road...or should I say rail trips by SoCal college students if the train ticket price was right.
The biggest shame is that the tracks are already there. Dang UP.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Anything that requires major new routing such as described to allow the Southwest Chief to detour through Las Vegas is strictly fantasy. As we say sometimes, whatever you're smoking, it sure ain't tobacco. This would probably be a billion dollar plus investment to add to the running time of the train. Neither logical nor feasible.
Fior operation of a Los Angeles to Las Vegas train, two words: Union Pacific
Owner and operator of the railroad through LV. This means reliability not possible. The line is heavily used, so regardless of operator or their real or imputed mindset, considerable investment in additinal sidings and partial or complete second main would be required for reliability, or even covering the route in a reasonable amount of time.
And then, would it really carry a reasonable ridership? Charter bus operators and cheap flights are strongly entrenched on this route.It woudlbe an absolute economic disaster plus a great talking point for the anti train people if the investments were made and the train did not carry enough people to make its operation worthwhile. Can't happen you say? Another two words: Atlantic City. That is exactly what happened to Amtrak operation into Atlantic City. People stayed away in droves and rode their bus charters instead. And this was in the northeast where train riding is much more the fabric of daily existence.
George
Posted by D. David (Member # 4055) on :
Acela Service - or something similar if it were another line - from L.A. to Vegas would be very hot IMHO. No desert pun intended. Carrying gamblers from point A to point B so fast would be a VERY attractive alternative to driving to LAX etc. Unless of course Vegas wants to discourage any day trip trends a la Atlantic City.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
I disagree George. 1. Laying the track would be very cheap. The route I describe is over hard solid desert.(easy construction area) The bridge at Laughing over the Colorado river would be cheap too. You would understand if you been to Laughlin, tough to explain. There would be about a 2000 ft climb from Laughlin to highway 95 corridor. But that is over 30 miles stretch.
2. Laughlin is like Las Vegas of the 70's. Laughlin has no commercial flights. Laughlin is the new alternative to the out of control growth to Law Vegas. Laughlin would be a huge stop on the line as well as Vegas.
3. Union Pacific. If the route was built, all Union Pacific has to do in extend the line from Kingman to it's line north of Phoenix that connects to the Sunset Route. This would save UP about 2 days travel time for trains out of Nevada mines going east.
The route has merits. I was arguing with this Houston man who was for the elimination of Amtrak. He pointed out how he would have to take the train to LA then bus to LV.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I agree with Mr. Harris that massive public funding would be required for any restoration of LA-Vegas passenger service. Further, even if the funding were there, the UP would still be looking for any legal loophole (Tuffy the Turtle et magna alia) to prevent the service; it is their railroad and they will operate it as they see fit - they clearly are not interested in hosting passenger trains. The "traditional' UP is passenger free and that is how it will stay.
Where I disagree with Mr. Harris is that LA-Vegas service with appriopriate frequency (not less than four and hopefully six a day) would be an overnight commercial success. Nothing 'exotic' like monorails or even Talgos are needed; just plain old trains,well stocked F&B cars, market rate fares, and a "drive time competitive" schedule would 'fill 'em up'.
Lastly, to our young friend from Eastern Texas, building some 150 miles of new rail line solely to support one rerouted passenger train is, well, 'off the charts'. Sometimes it is simply best to "Curb Your Enthusiasm" (sorry rightsholder of that TV show so named for using your title in internet discussion).
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
I said the UP would benefit if you read. Nevada would benefit. BNSF could benefit. It would not be a passenger only line.
Posted by CoastStarlight99 (Member # 2734) on :
I think this would be a great idea IF it was a short distance train, I doubt the Desert Wind will come back, so we need a nice L.A. to Las Vegas run. This would attract alot of the people who drive to Las Vegas. But Amtrak better keep the price low since an airline ticket to Las Vegas from LA is about $40 +fees etc. on LCC airlines such as jetBlue. Would the state of Nevada ever contribute funds to this kind of thing? Were they going to when they were doing the "time trials"?
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
The proposal to connect the BNSF Transcon line at Kingman with Las Vegas to serve more than a passenger train will not appeal to either UP or BNSF. Both the UP Los Angeles - Salt Lake and BNSF Transcon lines are currently operating at near capacity and if there was any significant freight business not now being addressed it would be insignificant. Both RR's are turning away loads that are not profitable so that trucks can handle the business. There will be very little freight that would be on such a new line.
Secondly, this line would cost a minimum of $5M per mile to construct to passenger standards and it would all come from the taxpayers. The terrain is not all flat unused desert, especially that portion from Kingman to the crest west from Laughlin, and then there is a bridge over the Colorado River. Then it must be maintained and operating costs covered. It will never get serious consideration.
High speed from LA to LV would also entail $$$$ to construct plus maintainance and operating costs. Riders could not and would not begin to pay for it with fares. And by the way LV is most attractive to those with lots of $ and they are not going to be riding trains.
Lets focus on the probable and possible.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Have you ever been to Laughlin? Have you seen the Bullhead/Laughlin bridge? A railroad bridge next to it would be simple and inexpensive. Let me look for a picture for you.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
I couldn't find a picture but read this, "In 1987, Don Laughlin funded and built the Laughlin Bridge at a cost of $3.5 million. He donated the bridge to the states of Nevada and Arizona. The bridge carries 2,000 vehicles daily." The railroad bridge would be equally as cheap and simple. I doubt my plan would ever happen, but I'm yet to hear 1 good reason why it wouldn't work.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
My good friend, whom I have not met, yes I have been to Laughlin. And I have been a participant in building RR'S.
What did you pay for a home, a car or gasoline in 1987? I appreciate your desire to see what you invision, but it is not feasible.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
I cannot comment on cost feasibility but RRChina, just wanted you to know that Las Vegas does get a lot of visitors who are not particularly wealthy--many like to gamble, the same sort of crowd you see at race tracks. Many others, including British and other European tourists, take the inexpensive package deals that airlines and hotels offer in Las Vegas and use it as a base for seeing other parts of the Southwest, such as the Grand Canyon. When I was traveling home from my SW Chief trip this spring I met several travelers of the first sort I describe in the observation car of the train. They were mainly from cities in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York but had traveled coach out to Las Vegas via Chicago and were quite enjoying the train trip back home. The one I spoke with most had only one complaint: The time he had arrived in Kingman, AZ. He did not mind the bus, only the very late hour he had to transfer to it.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
I do not desire what will not be done. The reason Amtrak is in the current mess is because of lack of vision and nay-sayers. The route is feasible and would NOT be expensive to build. And I also agree with sojourner, as a former resident of Las Vegas many of the visitors are elderly and a lot of them drive for the scenary. To have Vegas and Laughlin on the Chief route would force Gunn to build 23 coach Chief to meet demand. End of story.
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
END OF STORY!!! Lets hope so.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
gp35: RRCHINA and I are not being nay-sayers. We are trying to be realistic. If real money to do work to improve passenger train operations within the US were to become available, this would NOT be the place to spend it. Like RRCHINA, I have been involved in building railroads, in several places as a matter of fact, and it ain't as easy or cheap as you seem to think.
In A. M. Wellington's late 19th century classic on railroad location he has two pictures of uninhabited countryside, one titled "Easier Country than it Appears", the other titled "More Difficult Country than it Appears". The "difficult" picture was of an open semi desert type country. Hint: When looking at the open Northwest Arizona country you may be fooled by appearances. No shame in that, it happens to professionals in the business and a lot of these 19th century location engineers were absolutely brilliant.
A single track railroad bridge will cost at least 50% more than a two lane road bridge if all other things are equal. Aside from inflation since 1987 and the need for a much stronger structure, we are also looking at the need to keep both curvature and grades low. The design load for a single track railroad is about the equivalent of 4 lanes of highway.
Not trying to rain on your parade, but lets be realistic.
George
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
And I should bow to you because your the expert on being realistic. If you disagree, you disagree. But you experts can shove that uppity expert stuff. This is what I think of you so call experts:
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." --Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science,1949 "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943 "I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." --The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957 "But what ... is it good for?" --Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip. "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." --Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977 "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876. "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" --David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s. "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." --A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927. "I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper." --Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind." "A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." --Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies. "We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." --Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895. "Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote." --Grover Cleveland, U.S. President, 1905. "If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this." --Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads. "So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we' ll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'" -- Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer. "Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." -- 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work. "You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of your muscles? It can't be done. It's just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training." --Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the "unsolvable" problem by inventing Nautilus. "Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." --Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859. "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." --Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929. "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." --Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre. "Everything that can be invented has been invented." --Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899. "Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction". --Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872. "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon". --Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873. "640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981
Posted by jgart56 (Member # 3968) on :
GP35,
The real key to all of this is of course: money, money, money! Precious little of which Amtrak has.
Where is the equipment going to come from? I think most of it is stretched thin already. There is a deadline in the Chicago yards, that often has coaches and sleepers waiting to go to Beech Grove. How does Amtrak keep everything running AND add new service without money and equipment?
I would rather see money spent on refurbishing equipment and buying new Superliners and single level rolling stock. Lately, I've been reading horror stories of failing equipment out on the road and people left without ac, toilets, etc. (See this month's Railfan & Railroad)
Even the Genesis units seem to be failing out on the road more frequently. Improve and hold on to the service we already have.
I agree with George Harris: "Can anyone say Atlantic City?"
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
Well gp, if you are attempting to associate yourself with those quoted then you have high aspirations. But if you feel that confident, go for it. I hope to learn of you getting a Nobel honor, or perhaps becoming wealthy. Far be it from myself to stand in your way, but you asked for some analysis and you got it. Just go on and do your thing and not be so bitter.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Jgart56, like I said earlier, a project like this would depend on the bill that puts Amtrak in the same spending class as highways, 80/20. If that bill passes you will see railroads springing up everywhere. The bill also put station responsibility in states hands. Amtrak will be free from a lot duties they do now, to focus on running trains only. If this project could only happen if the state of NV and AZ push it, not Amtrak
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
quote:Originally posted by RRCHINA: Well gp, if you are attempting to associate yourself with those quoted then you have high aspirations. But if you feel that confident, go for it. I hope to learn of you getting a Nobel honor, or perhaps becoming wealthy. Far be it from myself to stand in your way, but you asked for some analysis and you got it. Just go on and do your thing and not be so bitter.
I didn't ask for your analysis. I didn't ask for you or anyone here to talk down to me. If you disagree, say why then leave at that. I don't care about where you worked. I don't need you telling me what I should accept as realistic. It's a good thing you weren't giving analysis when they were building the transcontinental railroad. It would be call the great 5 mile long railroad.
Posted by jgart56 (Member # 3968) on :
GP35,
I'm curious as to when you think such 80/20 spending would pass the legislature? It is our Congress which refuses to think big or plan for the US transportation future. I don't see such spending happening in our lifetime. Especially now that billions will be used to repair Louisiana and the Gulf Coast.
In fact, I have a sickening feeling that the zero funding for Amtrak will come to pass, simply because there is not enough Federal money to go around.
I'll actually go on record here to say that I'm willing to pay more taxes if it will "really" help down south and support other "worthwhile" civic projects (Amtrak included).
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
I don't know if this bill will pass. However it's a bill that the Bush administration would accept. So it has a good sporting chance.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Here is the unrevised outline of the bill. I few changes has since been made.
With the Iraq War and the money needed to support the rebuilding of the gulf coast...I wonder what priority this bill now has?
I did enjoy the article however!
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
quote:Originally posted by jgart56: I still wonder if this will pass at all???
With the Iraq War and the money needed to support the rebuilding of the gulf coast...I wonder what priority this bill now has?
I did enjoy the article however!
For Amtrak sake, it better pass.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
gp35...I enjoyed all of your 'historical' quotes. Quite fascinating! THANKS for sharing.
...and the government could quit pumping BILLIONS into the red-tape tangled airlines. There's a source of additional revenue right there.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
...oh, and what is Amtrak doing with the Superliner equipment that was in Orlando that belonged to the Sunset Limited now that it wont be needed for a while?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by gp35: I didn't ask for your analysis. I didn't ask for you or anyone here to talk down to me. If you disagree, say why then leave at that. I don't care about where you worked. I don't need you telling me what I should accept as realistic. It's a good thing you weren't giving analysis when they were building the transcontinental railroad. It would be call the great 5 mile long railroad.
Well, gp35: Until this and you previous rather infantile outburst I don't think either RRCHINA nor I were talking down to you. We were simply trying to point out some things that we could see from our perspective that was different from yours. However, if your response to hearing things that disagree with your preconceived, and frankly erroneous, notions is to "shoot the messenger" I see no reason to bother. I have to deal with enough "know it all's" that make Dilbert's "pointy haired boss" look intelligent that I see no need add another one voluntarily.
George
Posted by jgart56 (Member # 3968) on :
Even if this bill passes, new equipment will be needed and it always seems to take about 2-3 years to bid, order, and have new rolling stock built. So even if the rails could be put in place fast, there won't be enough equipment to handle the service.
What is Amtrak doing with the Superliners in Orlando that won't be needed? I'm hoping that they'll take the opportunity to send some of the older phase I's in for some service at Beech Grove!
Amen also to getting out of the current edition of "Let's bail out the airlines!"
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
quote:Originally posted by jgart56: Even if this bill passes, new equipment will be needed and it always seems to take about 2-3 years to bid, order, and have new rolling stock built. So even if the rails could be put in place fast, there won't be enough equipment to handle the service.
What is Amtrak doing with the Superliners in Orlando that won't be needed? I'm hoping that they'll take the opportunity to send some of the older phase I's in for some service at Beech Grove!
Amen also to getting out of the current edition of "Let's bail out the airlines!"
Amtrak has over 100 coaches sitting in a yard in need of repair. This bill would be enough to repair those coaches. I understand a few dozen engines are need of repair too.
Posted by jgart56 (Member # 3968) on :
Are you sure of the 100 number?
Again it would take some time to repair and refurbish this rolling stock as some of it was severely damaged in derailments. Beech Grove has a small staff and it would take awhile to get the parts and repair these.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
It is alot. 100 wouldn't be far from the actual number. I can't say how long it would take, but at least it will get done, hopefully. These repairs has been put off for years.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)