I got the inside scoop...and ofcourse I think it stinks.

[AAARGH!]

How is that less? ofcourse I expect you not to answer but to create a smoke screen.

GP35, must you be tactless and abrasive? When most others (not all) are trying to hold a civil conversation, you consistently revert to personal attacks. This is not appreciated by those of us who are reading this thread. I find it to be an very interesting discussion and your points are as vaild as any others. But they carry less weight when they come with personal attacks.

There, I have said my peace. Please reflect on this when posting in the future.

Thank you.

I say do AB, he says CD won't work. I say AB again, he say EF won't work. I say AB again, he say GH won't work.

Is that not a smoke screen? if not, what is it?

There is a difference between pointing out an irregularity in someones response versus personaly attacking them for not answering (or worse yet misunderstanding) your post. The difference is civility. You take offense when none is meant (or misunderstand sarcasm to be as such) and thus become defensive and abrasive. I am left scratching my head thinking how you could reasonably respond in the way you do. I am not trying to 'diss' you ar anything like it. I just want the personal attacks to stop and to get back on topic.

Thanks.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I think the term "stub train" is better than "snub train".

I would agree-- however that's what GP intends on using, so I'll use it as it suits him. I wouldn't even call them "stubs" they're pretty nice and decent routes...

I'll answer my own question - A) Neither SAS or JAX is a terminal/service facility. Equipment trade out would most likely take place in NOL which would be disruptive, or else taken deadhead from JAX to Sanford - which in that case, might as well run the train all the way to ORL. B) The marathon ride from LA to Orlando would no longer exist. It doesn't anyway right now, so bummer.

The "inside scoop" talks about a day train running from SAS to NOL, not to JAX... using Superliner equip.

This could be done by either (a) doing a SPK split like the EB and cutting a few cars off that are picked up in the morning and ready to go or (B) have the second train across the platform or in a siding down the line and bringing it out when pax from the TE/CONO are ready to transfer...

 

[NativeSon5859]

Solution: There is 7 superliner trainsets.(including the ones in NOL). Amtrak could run daily SL between NOL-LAXwith 6 trainsets and daily TE through coaches at SAS. No one loses service. NOL-Florida can be brought back with DAILY SERVICE using

a few(about 28) of the 93 single deck being repaired. They remainig single deck can be used to run the Cardinal daily.

This is the best plan. I should be running Amtrak. CASE CLOSE.

How do you plan on doing this without Viewliner cars for the Cardinal and NOL-Florida?

I think his contention is that you could do NOL-Florida as a... guess what... SNUB TRAIN using single-level consists.

So either way, guess what, you're gonna get a a SNUB!

Some of us think disagreeing with Amtrak is heresy. Is it?

Your solution results in lesser service than the one Amtrak provides and, guess what, uses the snub train that you so detest.

My solution offers daily LD service from NOL-LA and CHI-LA. How is that less? ofcourse I expect you not to answer but to create a smoke screen.

Because Amtrak already has daily service CHI-LA (SWC).

First off, the only service gap(s) are LA-SAS, and SAS-NOL. Amtrak's plan (again, pretending its the only one, and that it becomes official...) will fill a LA-NOL gap with DAILY service in both those areas. A daily TE and a snub from SAS to NOL. The majority of the current SSL/TE's riders come from West of SAS. By doing it this way you increase ridership on the TE and get daily service to NOL. The only loss is that you can't get a sleeper directly to NOL.

Secondly, as grand as LD trains are... the loose money! Last time I checked it was less expensive to run the Palmetto than it was the CL (the latter actually covers less milage than the snub which uses single levels) as for other snubs, take a look at the Penny (formerly Three Rivers, formerly Broadway Limited) her OTP is great and usually has a full train. The Carolinian, the Vermonter, ect. This would be, in fact, a GREAT snub train. Think of it as the PDX EB section without the sleeper... nice roomy Superliner seats a proper lounge and a full-service diner (albeit CCC) that is worlds away from a single-level café...

And, according to Amtrak, "Business class" service. Not sure what that entails on Superliners but I'd sure like to find out. I suspect the consist would be 1 Coach (maybe offering Business class seating), 1 Coach/Baggage, and 1 CCC.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Solution: There is 7 superliner trainsets.(including the ones in NOL). Amtrak could run daily SL between NOL-LAXwith 6 trainsets and daily TE through coaches at SAS. No one loses service. NOL-Florida can be brought back with DAILY SERVICE using

a few(about 28) of the 93 single deck being repaired. They remainig single deck can be used to run the Cardinal daily.

This is the best plan. I should be running Amtrak. CASE CLOSE.

How do you plan on doing this without Viewliner cars for the Cardinal and NOL-Florida?

I think his contention is that you could do NOL-Florida as a... guess what... SNUB TRAIN using single-level consists.

So either way, guess what, you're gonna get a a SNUB!

Some of us think disagreeing with Amtrak is heresy. Is it?

Your solution results in lesser service than the one Amtrak provides and, guess what, uses the snub train that you so detest.

My solution offers daily LD service from NOL-LA and CHI-LA. How is that less? ofcourse I expect you not to answer but to create a smoke screen.

Because Amtrak already has daily service CHI-LA (SWC).

First off, the only service gap(s) are LA-SAS, and SAS-NOL. Amtrak's plan (again, pretending its the only one, and that it becomes official...) will fill a LA-NOL gap with DAILY service in both those areas. A daily TE and a snub from SAS to NOL. The majority of the current SSL/TE's riders come from West of SAS. By doing it this way you increase ridership on the TE and get daily service to NOL. The only loss is that you can't get a sleeper directly to NOL.

Secondly, as grand as LD trains are... the loose money! Last time I checked it was less expensive to run the Palmetto than it was the CL (the latter actually covers less milage than the snub which uses single levels) as for other snubs, take a look at the Penny (formerly Three Rivers, formerly Broadway Limited) her OTP is great and usually has a full train. The Carolinian, the Vermonter, ect. This would be, in fact, a GREAT snub train. Think of it as the PDX EB section without the sleeper... nice roomy Superliner seats a proper lounge and a full-service diner (albeit CCC) that is worlds away from a single-level café...

And, according to Amtrak, "Business class" service. Not sure what that entails on Superliners but I'd sure like to find out. I suspect the consist would be 1 Coach (maybe offering Business class seating), 1 Coach/Baggage, and 1 CCC.

The Surfliners are based on the Superliner design-- they have BC. It's just a matter of ripping out seats and putting in new ones. There is, in fact, so much room in Superliner seats they could probably still get the same number of seats per car... just plushy and with faux-leather.

 

[printman2000]

And, according to Amtrak, "Business class" service. Not sure what that entails on Superliners but I'd sure like to find out. I suspect the consist would be 1 Coach (maybe offering Business class seating), 1 Coach/Baggage, and 1 CCC.

The Heartland Flyer runs with 3-4 coaches. Wouldn't you think this train would need at least as many as that?

 

[AlanB]

1. Amtrak already leases coaches2. Amtrak President is on video foaming at the mouth when he talks about all the money Obama is giving Amtrak.

3. You're the one not making sense. If you think as I, that a snub train between SAS-NOL will not be any better than it is now, then

that SAS-NOL will be killed in the future.

1. Yes they do, but they are coaches that Amtrak first brought and then leased back. And IMHO that wasn't a good idea either. It provided Warrington with a bunch of cash to help on his glide path, and saddled Amtrak with considerable debt.

2. Much of that money is specifically earmarked for certain types of projects, leasing is not one of those projects. Amtrak can't use those monies to lease cars.

3. I don't think that a stub train will be worse or the same as the current 3-day per week service. I believe that the stub train will do better than the current service. I also believe however that a daily Sunset will do better than either the stub or the current service.

My plan provides daily SL/TE LD service to LA from both CHI and NOL with existing equipment. What part of this does not make sense to you?

NOL-Florida has 3 options

1. wait for the ordered viewliners

2. snub it until the viewliners are ready.

3. lease sleepers or trainsets until viewliners are ready.

What doesn't make sense about this? Amtrak has the money to do any of the 3.

The part where Amtrak starts leasing equipment. It's an expense that Amtrak doesn't need, and an expense that revenues will not be able to cover.

 

[wayman]

And, according to Amtrak, "Business class" service. Not sure what that entails on Superliners but I'd sure like to find out. I suspect the consist would be 1 Coach (maybe offering Business class seating), 1 Coach/Baggage, and 1 CCC.

The Heartland Flyer runs with 3-4 coaches. Wouldn't you think this train would need at least as many as that?

I can't imagine it running with anything short of four cars--2.5 coaches, .5 baggage, and a CCC. (2.5 = 2 Superliner coaches with upstairs and downstairs seating, and 1 Superliner coach with the baggage instead of seating downstairs; possibly having BC seats upstairs.) Maybe one additional coach beyond this, even. It's, as others have said, a very comfortable day train just like many others Amtrak operates.

I'd like to seem them run the CHI-SAS-LAX train as P42s, baggage, sleepers, diner, sightseer, coaches; and run the NOL-SAS train as P42, coaches, CCC, BCcoach/baggage. Then join them at SAS, and you get something set up almost exactly like the EB and LSL (except we have a BC car instead of a PDX or BOS sleeper). But I don't know if they can do that, equipment-wise, right now. They might have to do a cross-platform transfer at SAS, like the LSL did up until recently.

Ridership will increase due to daily frequency and better scheduling, and demand will grow for a "NOL sleeper". By 2015, a Superliner equipment order will be placed, and by 2019 the NOL train will split at SAS and include both through coaches and a through sleeper.

 

[AlanB]

First off, the only service gap(s) are LA-SAS, and SAS-NOL. Amtrak's plan (again, pretending its the only one, and that it becomes official...) will fill a LA-NOL gap with DAILY service in both those areas. A daily TE and a snub from SAS to NOL. The majority of the current SSL/TE's riders come from West of SAS. By doing it this way you increase ridership on the TE and get daily service to NOL. The only loss is that you can't get a sleeper directly to NOL.

We don't know that the majority of the current riders come from West of SAS. And frankly I can't believe that. Between NOL and SAS you have several more major population centers that the train passes through, than west of SAS. So I find it hard to believe that a majority of the riders board west of SAS.

In fact my rather crude and rudimentary calculations, which I will admit I had to make some assumptions with, shows that more people board the Sunset between NOL & SAS, than between LA & SAS. I had to make some assumptions, like saying that 40% of all the people boarding/detraining in NOL go to the Sunset, while the remainder goes to the City. At Houston, I had to do something similar, since I believe that the passenger counts include the Thruway bus. And of course at SAS itself, I guessed that 30% of pax went west, 20% east, and 50% went north on the Eagle.

With those assumptions in place, ridership west of SAS comes in at 66,301 for 2008. Ridership east of SAS comes in at 91,774. Now there was no way for me to even begin to guess what the ridership out of LA was, since there are simply too many trains, but one can speculate that perhaps as many as 20,000 to 30,000 ride the Sunset to/from LA. At 20,000 ridership west of SAS would remain lower, at 30,000 it would be just slightly higher than east.

Either way, I don't believe that ridership west of SAS is so much higher as to justify making the Eagle the daily train at the possible expense of much higher ridership that could be found east of SAS with a daily through train. Again, as I mentioned in my post to GP35, a daily stub I believe would still increase ridership east of SAS over the current situation, but I firmly believe that a daily Sunset would do even better.

Secondly, as grand as LD trains are... the loose money! Last time I checked it was less expensive to run the Palmetto than it was the CL (the latter actually covers less milage than the snub which uses single levels) as for other snubs, take a look at the Penny (formerly Three Rivers, formerly Broadway Limited) her OTP is great and usually has a full train. The Carolinian, the Vermonter, ect. This would be, in fact, a GREAT snub train. Think of it as the PDX EB section without the sleeper... nice roomy Superliner seats a proper lounge and a full-service diner (albeit CCC) that is worlds away from a single-level café...

First, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train by Amtrak. Second, it's the second best performing train behind the Auto Train, which does run with sleepers and actually does make a profit over it's direct expenses. Once Amtrak adds in overhead expenses, even the AT looses money. The Palmetto on the other hand still does loose money against its direct expenses. Not much, only $600,000, but it still lost money.

 

[NativeSon5859]

And, according to Amtrak, "Business class" service. Not sure what that entails on Superliners but I'd sure like to find out. I suspect the consist would be 1 Coach (maybe offering Business class seating), 1 Coach/Baggage, and 1 CCC.

The Heartland Flyer runs with 3-4 coaches. Wouldn't you think this train would need at least as many as that?

I can't imagine it running with anything short of four cars--2.5 coaches, .5 baggage, and a CCC. (2.5 = 2 Superliner coaches with upstairs and downstairs seating, and 1 Superliner coach with the baggage instead of seating downstairs; possibly having BC seats upstairs.) Maybe one additional coach beyond this, even. It's, as others have said, a very comfortable day train just like many others Amtrak operates.

I'd like to seem them run the CHI-SAS-LAX train as P42s, baggage, sleepers, diner, sightseer, coaches; and run the NOL-SAS train as P42, coaches, CCC, BCcoach/baggage. Then join them at SAS, and you get something set up almost exactly like the EB and LSL (except we have a BC car instead of a PDX or BOS sleeper). But I don't know if they can do that, equipment-wise, right now. They might have to do a cross-platform transfer at SAS, like the LSL did up until recently.

Ridership will increase due to daily frequency and better scheduling, and demand will grow for a "NOL sleeper". By 2015, a Superliner equipment order will be placed, and by 2019 the NOL train will split at SAS and include both through coaches and a through sleeper.

Now that I think about it, that's probably right. I was basing my idea of 2 coaches and 1 CCC off of the current SL consist, which is usually 2 NOL coaches; but, if this is a daily service, I'm sure they could use one more coach.

I'd like to see them find a way to at least have a through coach from day one, but, I suppose it's not the end of the world.

 

[VentureForth]

I think that a daily Sunset would only REALLY work if it could shrink its schedule, reliably. The pad in SAS is killer. OTP for the whole route of the Sunset has been horrible.

I just think that one new train to Jax from SAS would work the best and take the TE to LA every day.

 

[jis]

Either way, I don't believe that ridership west of SAS is so much higher as to justify making the Eagle the daily train at the possible expense of much higher ridership that could be found east of SAS with a daily through train. Again, as I mentioned in my post to GP35, a daily stub I believe would still increase ridership east of SAS over the current situation, but I firmly believe that a daily Sunset would do even better.

All else being equal I completely agree with you. I find the proposed situation acceptable only as an interim measure until the additional Super Sleepers and Coaches can be corralled from wreck repairs to enable Sunset to become daily all the way again using through LAX - NOL cars. I believe the only reason they are using TE as the base train for the 7 day service is that it is already a 7 day service for a significant part of the journey, and hence the number of cars needed works out just right for current availability. It is purely a pragmatic logistical solution to a problem sticking to the constraints that they are operating under.

Believe me, I would like nothing better than to see us find the 5 or so additional Sleepers and Coaches needed to make a transfer of at least one Sleeper and one Coach transferable to the SAS - NOL train from the get-go, thus providing daily service LAX - NOL.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

First, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train by Amtrak. Second, it's the second best performing train behind the Auto Train, which does run with sleepers and actually does make a profit over it's direct expenses. Once Amtrak adds in overhead expenses, even the AT looses money. The Palmetto on the other hand still does loose money against its direct expenses. Not much, only $600,000, but it still lost money.

I'm not quite sure what your point is Alan.. I said that day/stub trains generally make more money against their expenses than overnight trains. This is partially because a lot of them go through the NEC and are used as NEC trains when they are between NYP and WAS-- but still another part of this is the cost of running a full diner, sleeping cars-- additional crew.

Day trains make more sense sometimes.

As for ridership figures, I was looking over the FY 2007 reports which, on the whole (and I will admit it is far from an exact science) demonstrate greater ridership West of SAS.

I'll grant you that point however, as you are more experienced-- but the ridership figures would tend to disagree. (And yes, I am not factoring in NOL and LAX because they are served by multiple trains and its impossible to tell how many pax each train handled from those stations)

And I would agree with jis. This sounds like a good solution and I support it... until Amtrak has an excess of cars. With a shortage of cars present, this seems like the best solution especially as it also gives some sleepers to the other LD trains which could probably use them to shorten their loss gaps.

 

[Greg]

It seems to me that if the SSL went from tri-weekly to daily (in essence, more than doubling its frequency) that the total number of riders would not necessarily double, therefore each train would not need the same number cars that it has now thereby requiring fewer cars than some of the conversations here seem to indicate. example....tri-weekly service requires 2-3 sleepers per train...daily service would require 1-2 sleepers per train...Or am I missing something in this line of thinking?

 

[jis]

First, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train by Amtrak. Second, it's the second best performing train behind the Auto Train, which does run with sleepers and actually does make a profit over it's direct expenses. Once Amtrak adds in overhead expenses, even the AT looses money. The Palmetto on the other hand still does loose money against its direct expenses. Not much, only $600,000, but it still lost money.

I'm not quite sure what your point is Alan.. I said that day/stub trains generally make more money against their expenses than overnight trains. This is partially because a lot of them go through the NEC and are used as NEC trains when they are between NYP and WAS-- but still another part of this is the cost of running a full diner, sleeping cars-- additional crew.

One point of correction. The Palmetto does not operate as a corridor train on the NEC. It operates as LD trains, i.e. receive only heading south and drop only heading north between WAS and NYP, i.e. no local traffic between NYP and WAS. The Carolinian does operate as a corridor service southbound but for receive only at NWK and Northbound it operates like an LD train i.e. drop only WAS to NYP.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

First, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train by Amtrak. Second, it's the second best performing train behind the Auto Train, which does run with sleepers and actually does make a profit over it's direct expenses. Once Amtrak adds in overhead expenses, even the AT looses money. The Palmetto on the other hand still does loose money against its direct expenses. Not much, only $600,000, but it still lost money.

I'm not quite sure what your point is Alan.. I said that day/stub trains generally make more money against their expenses than overnight trains. This is partially because a lot of them go through the NEC and are used as NEC trains when they are between NYP and WAS-- but still another part of this is the cost of running a full diner, sleeping cars-- additional crew.

One point of correction. The Palmetto does not operate as a corridor train on the NEC. It operates as LD trains, i.e. receive only heading south and drop only heading north between WAS and NYP, i.e. no local traffic between NYP and WAS. The Carolinian does operate as a corridor service southbound but for receive only at NWK and Northbound it operates like an LD train i.e. drop only WAS to NYP.

I didn't say that either!

I said "a lot of them"... I'm very careful with my words guys, I use modifiers where appropriate.

Still dig ya though jis!

But if you look at the Vermonter, or the Penny (albeit limited stops) and others... a lot of them are indeed corridor trains and serve corridor traffic.

 

[wayman]

But if you look at the Vermonter, or the Penny (albeit limited stops) and others... a lot of them are indeed corridor trains and serve corridor traffic.

Er, I don't think there are any others....

The Crescent, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Palmetto and Cardinal are D-only WAS-NYP and R-only NYP-WAS; the Carolinian is half-restricted (D-only WAS-NYP and R-only SB at NWK); and ... as you say, the Pennsylvanian stops at PHL, TRE, NWK, and NYP only (just 4 of the 10 stops from PHL to NYP), which doesn't put a lot of corridor-only traffic on it, I would think. The Vermonter, you're absolutely right, makes most NEC stops (10 out of 17) and is never restricted (except for New Carrolton). So there are sort of one and a half "non-corridor corridor trains", and even those trains only make about half the stops.

 

[TVRM610]

Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.

 

[jis]

Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.

That is roughly what the current apparently leading proposals, such as they are, are.

 

[TVRM610]

Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.

That is roughly what the current apparently leading proposals, such as they are, are.

Haha! Nice. Yea... that's what I was wondering... that seems to be a great solution to me. NOL is not near the destination that SAS is... IMHO (and for the record I have been to both within the past 12 months). I mean look at it as SAS becoming a new "hub" of sorts... TE from the North... SL from the West... WL ("whatever Limited ) from the East. Makes sense to me.. yea I know thats wayy down the rails but I like the idea IF thats what amtrak has in mind from this "Inside Scoop" idea.

 

[NativeSon5859]

Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.

That is roughly what the current apparently leading proposals, such as they are, are.

Haha! Nice. Yea... that's what I was wondering... that seems to be a great solution to me. NOL is not near the destination that SAS is... IMHO (and for the record I have been to both within the past 12 months). I mean look at it as SAS becoming a new "hub" of sorts... TE from the North... SL from the West... WL ("whatever Limited ) from the East. Makes sense to me.. yea I know thats wayy down the rails but I like the idea IF thats what amtrak has in mind from this "Inside Scoop" idea.

How is NOL not near the destination that SAS is? Based on what? NOL actually has more to offer the casual visitor...more interesting neighborhoods to explore, better live music scene, better restaurants, etc.

 

[TVRM610]

Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.

That is roughly what the current apparently leading proposals, such as they are, are.

Haha! Nice. Yea... that's what I was wondering... that seems to be a great solution to me. NOL is not near the destination that SAS is... IMHO (and for the record I have been to both within the past 12 months). I mean look at it as SAS becoming a new "hub" of sorts... TE from the North... SL from the West... WL ("whatever Limited ) from the East. Makes sense to me.. yea I know thats wayy down the rails but I like the idea IF thats what amtrak has in mind from this "Inside Scoop" idea.

How is NOL not near the destination that SAS is? Based on what? NOL actually has more to offer the casual visitor...more interesting neighborhoods to explore, better live music scene, better restaurants, etc.

Well I said IMHO... so based solely on my opinion as a traveler.

San Antonio has the Riverwalk, the Alamo, two major theme parks (Six Flags, and Sea World), a great collection of restaurants, the Sky Deck, etc.

New Orleans has an Aquarium, French Quarter, Streetcars (yea!), zoo, great restaurants, jazz music, Cafe du Monde' (yea!), Riverboat, Casion, etc.

I didn't say I didn't like New Orleans... just in my opinion San Antonio is a nicer place to visit for vacation. It's cleaner, more tourist oriented.

 

[AlanB]

First, the Palmetto is considered a long distance train by Amtrak. Second, it's the second best performing train behind the Auto Train, which does run with sleepers and actually does make a profit over it's direct expenses. Once Amtrak adds in overhead expenses, even the AT looses money. The Palmetto on the other hand still does loose money against its direct expenses. Not much, only $600,000, but it still lost money.

I'm not quite sure what your point is Alan.. I said that day/stub trains generally make more money against their expenses than overnight trains. This is partially because a lot of them go through the NEC and are used as NEC trains when they are between NYP and WAS-- but still another part of this is the cost of running a full diner, sleeping cars-- additional crew.

My point was that you lumped the Palmetto in with other Regional/State sponsored trains. It's not, it's a long distance train. Furthermore, it is not the best performing Long Distance train, the Auto Train is. That's my point.

 

[AlanB]

Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.

That is roughly what the current apparently leading proposals, such as they are, are.

Haha! Nice. Yea... that's what I was wondering... that seems to be a great solution to me. NOL is not near the destination that SAS is... IMHO (and for the record I have been to both within the past 12 months). I mean look at it as SAS becoming a new "hub" of sorts... TE from the North... SL from the West... WL ("whatever Limited ) from the East. Makes sense to me.. yea I know thats wayy down the rails but I like the idea IF thats what amtrak has in mind from this "Inside Scoop" idea.

How is NOL not near the destination that SAS is? Based on what? NOL actually has more to offer the casual visitor...more interesting neighborhoods to explore, better live music scene, better restaurants, etc.

Well I said IMHO... so based solely on my opinion as a traveler.

San Antonio has the Riverwalk, the Alamo, two major theme parks (Six Flags, and Sea World), a great collection of restaurants, the Sky Deck, etc.

New Orleans has an Aquarium, French Quarter, Streetcars (yea!), zoo, great restaurants, jazz music, Cafe du Monde' (yea!), Riverboat, Casion, etc.

I didn't say I didn't like New Orleans... just in my opinion San Antonio is a nicer place to visit for vacation. It's cleaner, more tourist oriented.

At least so far as Amtrak is concerned, NOL is a much better destination than SAS. Ridership in 2008 was 154,532 departing/arriving in NOL, only 48,151 for SAS.

 

[henryj]

It seems to me that if the SSL went from tri-weekly to daily (in essence, more than doubling its frequency) that the total number of riders would not necessarily double, therefore each train would not need the same number cars that it has now thereby requiring fewer cars than some of the conversations here seem to indicate. example....tri-weekly service requires 2-3 sleepers per train...daily service would require 1-2 sleepers per train...Or am I missing something in this line of thinking?

What you are missing is that the Sunset is only a 6 car train now. One sleeper, one dorm sleeper, two coaches and a diner and lounge. How much smaller can you make it? There is only one sleeper and one coach transferred from the Eagle at San Antonio for a total of eight cars on into LAX. Most of the time all the sleeper space is sold out so a daily train with the same consists would more than double capacity. There is NO EQUIPMENT DIVIDEND to be extracted from making this train daily no matter which route it takes. It will actually need more equipment.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Would an ideal solution not be to have one LD train that operated SAS-LAX and another LD train operating from ORL-SAS? I realize that equipment may not be available right now but could this be something that amtrak is thinking about? I think that would be a good thing. I have no idea if that would work logistically though.

That is roughly what the current apparently leading proposals, such as they are, are.

It seems to me that when Amtrak presents all of this to Congress, they really ought to be including a description of what service they would run if they were given the funding to purchase perhaps 100-200 new Superliner III cars.