Sunset Limited BULLETIN

[tp49]

Screw Florida and all the crying babies over there.

By this statement alone you have lost all credibility.

 

[Neil_M]

It's funny everyone is talking about revenue and nobody talks about expenses. The comparison of the Palmetto to the Sunset is ridiculous. Yes the Sunset with sleepers brings in more revenue per run. But you're adding on sleeper cars that cost $3 mill per. You're adding attendants to work those cars, you're adding dining service to serve those cars, etc., etc. The Palmetto has a couple of coach attendants and a lounge car. Let's get real here.

First, with respect, I did compare expenses. And indeed the Palmetto's are lower. But then the Palmetto shares overhead expenses with many other trains, reducing it's share of those expenses.

Second, if we take your argument, then we should be pulling the sleepers off of every LD train. Remember, if I take the Sunset Limited's old sleeper dollars pre-Katrina and adjust for 7 day a week service, it would be taking in more revenue than the Empire Builder and most other LD trains. How can their expenses be lower than what the Sunset's would be for running daily.

That doesn't really follow though does it? The assumption you make is if xx number of passengers travel 3 times a week, then if it goes daily then it is xx number of passengers 7 times a week, maybe it could go the other way?

Maybe the 3 times a week amount of passengers is all the route will generate and you just get more trains but the passengers divided amongst them.

 

[AlanB]

It's funny everyone is talking about revenue and nobody talks about expenses. The comparison of the Palmetto to the Sunset is ridiculous. Yes the Sunset with sleepers brings in more revenue per run. But you're adding on sleeper cars that cost $3 mill per. You're adding attendants to work those cars, you're adding dining service to serve those cars, etc., etc. The Palmetto has a couple of coach attendants and a lounge car. Let's get real here.

First, with respect, I did compare expenses. And indeed the Palmetto's are lower. But then the Palmetto shares overhead expenses with many other trains, reducing it's share of those expenses.

Second, if we take your argument, then we should be pulling the sleepers off of every LD train. Remember, if I take the Sunset Limited's old sleeper dollars pre-Katrina and adjust for 7 day a week service, it would be taking in more revenue than the Empire Builder and most other LD trains. How can their expenses be lower than what the Sunset's would be for running daily.

That doesn't really follow though does it? The assumption you make is if xx number of passengers travel 3 times a week, then if it goes daily then it is xx number of passengers 7 times a week, maybe it could go the other way?

Maybe the 3 times a week amount of passengers is all the route will generate and you just get more trains but the passengers divided amongst them.

Neil,

There certainly is that danger, however past experience for Amtrak has always been that ridership always went up substantially with any increased frequencies. It's been a while, and unfortunately the raw data isn't available to me (maybe it's out there and I haven't found it), but when the Eagle went from 3 day to 4 days per week, I seem to recall that it saw around a 30% to 40% increase in ridership. When it went daily, ridership I believe more than tripled.

Since we're discussing a train that once did better than several other LD's with only 3 days, I strongly suspect and history supports me, that it will only go up. Maybe it won't reach the levels that I calculated, but even a 25% increase in revenue would put the Sunset firmly in the middle of the pack of LD's for revenue.

 

[zoltan]

It always seemed a great waste to me running two trains coupled together between San Antonio and Los Angeles, as I understand takes place. An immediate step, before getting together the significant resources required for daily service, would seem to be separating those out to get an every 1-2 day service from Texas to California. The step after that, with more resources becoming available, could be to get an every 1-2 day service out to NOL.

At this point, with the daily service to San Antonio and more frequent service to NOL, I would then be tempted to go for getting at least half of that enhanced Sunset service to continue to Florida.

If the Sunset were to be daily, I'd raise questions regarding the Texas Eagle. It would seem to me that only a third of passengers would end up going on the direct train, with a connection existing every day, and it would make sense to do the following:

- Curtail every eagle at San Antonio, and rely on connections at a not all to comfortable hour of the morning.

- Hook up a few carriages every day, though this might be logistically difficult.

- Change the timing of the Sunset to provide a comfortable daytime schedule for JAX to NOL (hence comfortable departures for the places along the way) if it were making that journey, and from Houston to San Antonio, and allow the Eagle to run separately. All subject, of course, to host railroads.

The latter option would become even more appealing if resources existed for a daily Eagle to LAX, providing two schedules daily from San Antonio to Los Angeles, which seems to be something of great benefit to the places along the route.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

If Amtrak needs 2 to 3 years to consider and implimnet the other plans/commisioned studies, then going from early 2009 to early 2010 for implimentation is rushing things, as that's barely a year.
Regarding all the work done at Amtrak in the various departments, I do appreciate that. And I don't belittle it either. But I want to see it for myself. This shouldn't be a secret, especially not to TEMPO. Besides, if you'll forgive me, frankly since David Gunn's departure, Amtrak's record has been to cut expenses without regard to whether that makes sense or not in terms of what's being cut. I've seen too many things done where they only looked at the expense side without factoring in revenue changes because of those changes, nor what it means for the passenger.

As for the better connections/arrival times, that's a function of reducing the 10-1/2 hours of padding that Amtrak added to the Sunset route 8 to 9 years ago, not a function of this plan. Amtrak doesn't need to change anything, except the current schedules to improve those connections/arrival times. I'm not suggesting that it's not good to be improving those times, just that one doesn't need the demise of the Sunset Limited to do that.

Amtrak gets all kinds of stupid mandates and requests for services that they will have to put money into and effort, which may be funded. But if it is funded, it won't be for long because they know the train makes no sense in the first place, and then they have to either eat the cost running it or eat the cost involved in discontinuing it. Like, say, a restored North Coast Hiawatha. So what do they do? They drag their heels. They do their best to not get involved in idiotic political requests when they can avoid it.

It is this policy that has kept Amtrak off security theatre for years.

But that does not mean that when Amtrak finds a good idea with enough internal information to back it up, they can not implement it quickly. You are confusing the speed of things with aversion tactics. They know the current Sunset set up is stupid and was stupid. If I recall, it was one of Claytors last acts- and by the end of his life, both personal and serving Amtrak, he was pretty senile.

With this train project, there is less prospect for delay, and the equipment is more efficiently utilized. We can restore service tri-weekly JAX to FLA. But this provides nothing more then was present before from a serious transit point of view.

You also are completely ignoring a cardinal point- pun intended. The Cardinal was extended from Washington to New York, and its ridership went up. Ok. Lets assume that all things being equal, a one seat ride will attract riders. I'd even agree with that. But this does not provide proof that expansion of all trains on that group of routes, and restoration of service to all cities previously served, will not improve ridership as much as reverting back to the previous set up.

In otherwords: all things being equal, a single seat ride would probably improve ridership. But this does not indicate that daily trains with a three seat ride would provide less of an improvement in ridership then a single seat ride theoretically would. We don't know that.

But we can guess. The Cardinal had improved ridership, and somewhat substantially, from its re-implementation of the single-seat ride. You also indicated that when the Texas Eagle went daily, its ridership exploded. Now tell me, Alan. Use your apparently impressive statistical resources. Percentagewise, which improved more from its operational change? The Texas Eagle or the Cardinal?

Second, if we take your argument, then we should be pulling the sleepers off of every LD train. Remember, if I take the Sunset Limited's old sleeper dollars pre-Katrina and adjust for 7 day a week service, it would be taking in more revenue than the Empire Builder and most other LD trains. How can their expenses be lower than what the Sunset's would be for running daily.

You know, I was gonna comment on this fallacious thinking (and a bunch of other things) but I thought I was poking enough holes in your theory for one night. If I run a factory, I can expand its capacity by 60%. I can also show sales figures that this is going to expand my sales 60%.

Go ask GM about how much more money they'd make if they doubled Chevy Impala or Cadillac DTS production.

 

[TVRM610]

Again... GML makes some great points.

As to the idea of an enhanced Sunset Limited becoming the "Empire Builder of the South" I don't think your being realistic.... the clientele that ride the Sunset are totally different then the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight type... and before anyone calls me out I was born in Louisiana and love visiting New Orleans, but lets be honest the Sunset Limited has a lower class of riders... yea i said it, even though Alan probably has some statistics that will prove me wrong : )

I think the Chief, Zephyr, or Capitol could do much more with "enhanced" services. But that is all just my opinion.

Has anyone shown us current rider statistics for the SL east of San Antonio? And for that matter... current sleeper occupancy?

 

[GAT]

Wow! This is the fastest growing thread I've read! Every time I finish reading a page, another page has been added. I'v tried to absorb all the detail, but frankly, it's mind-boggling - especially to one who doesn't eat, sleep, and make love daily with Amtrak. :lol:

But I've started loving to ride Amtrak. Last summer I rediscovered the glories (yes!) of sleeper train travel, taking the Empire Builder, City of New Orleans, Sunset Limited, and Coast Starlight around the western two-thirds of this country. (And yes, I love describing the voyage by using the train names; it evokes a romantic, bygone era among my listeners.)

But reading this thread leaves me a little confused. I have one rather newbie question. This coming summer, I want to take a friend who will be visiting the USA for the first time, on another glorious trip - a gourmand's tour from San Francisco - Los Angeles - New Orleans - Atlanta - New York - Boston, with layovers in each of those cities. In view of what's being discussed here, are we going to be able to get a sleeper car all the way rhrough on the Sunset Limited? Or will there be a section west of New Orleans where we'll have to change cars? That would truly be a bummer for this long distance traveller.

 

[AlanB]

But reading this thread leaves me a little confused. I have one rather newbie question. This coming summer, I want to take a friend who will be visiting the USA for the first time, on another glorious trip - a gourmand's tour from San Francisco - Los Angeles - New Orleans - Atlanta - New York - Boston, with layovers in each of those cities. In view of what's being discussed here, are we going to be able to get a sleeper car all the way rhrough on the Sunset Limited? Or will there be a section west of New Orleans where we'll have to change cars? That would truly be a bummer for this long distance traveller.

George,

If indeed this plan is put into action and it happens with the April timetable as is being suggested, then you will indeed have to go New Orleans to San Antonio in coach and then change back to a sleeper in San Antonio.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Unless you want to go SAS-CHI-NOL ... but this defeats many points.

SL topic aside for a moment, George, if this goes as planned and you need sleepers all the way then a simple tweaking of your schedule may allow you to do this all in sleepers.

 

[AlanB]

If Amtrak needs 2 to 3 years to consider and implimnet the other plans/commisioned studies, then going from early 2009 to early 2010 for implimentation is rushing things, as that's barely a year.
Regarding all the work done at Amtrak in the various departments, I do appreciate that. And I don't belittle it either. But I want to see it for myself. This shouldn't be a secret, especially not to TEMPO. Besides, if you'll forgive me, frankly since David Gunn's departure, Amtrak's record has been to cut expenses without regard to whether that makes sense or not in terms of what's being cut. I've seen too many things done where they only looked at the expense side without factoring in revenue changes because of those changes, nor what it means for the passenger.

As for the better connections/arrival times, that's a function of reducing the 10-1/2 hours of padding that Amtrak added to the Sunset route 8 to 9 years ago, not a function of this plan. Amtrak doesn't need to change anything, except the current schedules to improve those connections/arrival times. I'm not suggesting that it's not good to be improving those times, just that one doesn't need the demise of the Sunset Limited to do that.

Amtrak gets all kinds of stupid mandates and requests for services that they will have to put money into and effort, which may be funded. But if it is funded, it won't be for long because they know the train makes no sense in the first place, and then they have to either eat the cost running it or eat the cost involved in discontinuing it. Like, say, a restored North Coast Hiawatha. So what do they do? They drag their heels. They do their best to not get involved in idiotic political requests when they can avoid it.

I think that you're confusing things here a bit. I'm not talking about Amtrak dragging it's feet at this point on the studies. Amtrak has put it in writing, that should interested parties wish to fund any of the projects studied, that once funding is secured it will take 2 to 3 years to impliment and hire crews.

Amtrak isn't going to enter into any agreements, unless forced by Congress, to start new services that they can't drop if the funding dries up. And remember, there is no funding for this change that we're currently talking about.

But that does not mean that when Amtrak finds a good idea with enough internal information to back it up, they can not implement it quickly. You are confusing the speed of things with aversion tactics. They know the current Sunset set up is stupid and was stupid. If I recall, it was one of Claytors last acts- and by the end of his life, both personal and serving Amtrak, he was pretty senile.

Claytor setup the run to Florida, not the Sunset itself. And I disagree that it was stupid. Amtrak's own numbers prove that the train lost far more money per passenger when it ran to Florida. It looses more now that it has been truncated.

With this train project, there is less prospect for delay, and the equipment is more efficiently utilized. We can restore service tri-weekly JAX to FLA. But this provides nothing more then was present before from a serious transit point of view.

Waiting for the wrecks to be done makes things no different than this current plan. One can still run the Sunset daily NOL-LAX, and send the City east of NOL. Drop the through cars off the Eagle and Amtrak might even be able to run the Sunset daily to Orlando without new cars.

You also are completely ignoring a cardinal point- pun intended. The Cardinal was extended from Washington to New York, and its ridership went up. Ok. Lets assume that all things being equal, a one seat ride will attract riders. I'd even agree with that. But this does not provide proof that expansion of all trains on that group of routes, and restoration of service to all cities previously served, will not improve ridership as much as reverting back to the previous set up.
In otherwords: all things being equal, a single seat ride would probably improve ridership. But this does not indicate that daily trains with a three seat ride would provide less of an improvement in ridership then a single seat ride theoretically would. We don't know that.

Yes we do. Just look at the airlines. People are willing to pay a premium for a one seat ride.

But we can guess. The Cardinal had improved ridership, and somewhat substantially, from its re-implementation of the single-seat ride. You also indicated that when the Texas Eagle went daily, its ridership exploded. Now tell me, Alan. Use your apparently impressive statistical resources. Percentagewise, which improved more from its operational change? The Texas Eagle or the Cardinal?

Since I don't have the stats from those years I can't tell you. However, there is no point anyhow, since neither changed the level of services being offered, other than perhaps the Cardinal's dropping a family room and a real diner eventually. But the Eagle changed nothing but frequency. We're not talking about that here, we're talking about both a frequency and a service change. So no comparisons can be drawn. as you have two variables in play in this case.

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

As most know Florida is not my home state. We have A northern route cross Country, A central route cross country. Several North South routes forming a grid (almost). There are only 2 states that have unique situations preventing a rail alternative transportation. So why are are the South East States provided Sub Standard Service.

Shame on us but How many years will it take to truly unite this country.

I will get off the soapbox now

Mahalo

Eric

 

[AlanB]

As to the idea of an enhanced Sunset Limited becoming the "Empire Builder of the South" I don't think your being realistic.... the clientele that ride the Sunset are totally different then the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight type... and before anyone calls me out I was born in Louisiana and love visiting New Orleans, but lets be honest the Sunset Limited has a lower class of riders... yea i said it, even though Alan probably has some statistics that will prove me wrong : )

Ok, maybe I'm pushing things a bit far with that, but then it's not like the Empire Builder's service is really all that "enhanced". Really it just never got downgraded like the rest of the LD's, other than getting all the newly refurbed Superliner I sleepers.

But still, even if we use SDS instead of the EB type dining service, why are we settling for maybe having a CCC that may or may not function only as a cafe? Why isn't serious consideration being given to taking more wrecks and putting them into a daily Sunset, which 5 years ago used to pull more sleeper revenue than several other LD trains?

Has anyone shown us current rider statistics for the SL east of San Antonio? And for that matter... current sleeper occupancy?

No. And I cannot, as Amtrak does not provide that level of detail in their public stats. I've no doubt that Amtrak could tell us if they choose to, but I've not seen that data released. Only conclusions can be drawn about how much revenue is generated east of SAS, by looking at the numbers from when Katrina afffected service. The worst lost occured during the 6 months that the Sunset terminated in SAS, because all revenue was lost from there to Orlando.

Once New Orleans was restored as an end point, the numbers did come back up, but not to pre-Katrina levels. That to me indicates that half the sleeper income was generated by Orlando to San Antonio, and perhaps 1/2 to 2/3rds was generated by the Orlando to New Orleans leg, with the remainder going to New Orleans - San Antonio.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Amtrak's own numbers prove that the train lost far more money per passenger when it ran to Florida.

Exactly the point I'm making.

Waiting for the wrecks to be done makes things no different than this current plan. One can still run the Sunset daily NOL-LAX, and send the City east of NOL. Drop the through cars off the Eagle 1and Amtrak might even be able to run the Sunset daily to Orlando without new cars.

Numbers clearly indicate that the through sleeper on the Texas Eagle is one of the most profitable cars in the entire system. Lets get rid of this to restore service to a white elephant. Brilliant idea there, Alan.

You also are completely ignoring a cardinal point- pun intended. The Cardinal was extended from Washington to New York, and its ridership went up. Ok. Lets assume that all things being equal, a one seat ride will attract riders. I'd even agree with that. But this does not provide proof that expansion of all trains on that group of routes, and restoration of service to all cities previously served, will not improve ridership as much as reverting back to the previous set up.
In otherwords: all things being equal, a single seat ride would probably improve ridership. But this does not indicate that daily trains with a three seat ride would provide less of an improvement in ridership then a single seat ride theoretically would. We don't know that.

Yes we do. Just look at the airlines. People are willing to pay a premium for a one seat ride.

Are you even reading what I'm saying? We have no numbers to verify that maintaining a one seat ride provides more revenue then going daily. None whatsoever. This hasn't been done before.

Since I don't have the stats from those years I can't tell you. However, there is no point anyhow, since neither changed the level of services being offered, other than perhaps the Cardinal's dropping a family room and a real diner eventually. But the Eagle changed nothing but frequency. We're not talking about that here, we're talking about both a frequency and a service change. So no comparisons can be drawn. as you have two variables in play in this case.

You're avoiding the hard questions again. Enough of this, I'm seeing red from the puerile tomfoolery I am getting in response to my points.

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak's own numbers prove that the train lost far more money per passenger when it ran to Florida.

Exactly the point I'm making.

My apologies it was late.

Amtrak's own numbers prove that the train lost far less money per passenger when it ran to Florida.

Waiting for the wrecks to be done makes things no different than this current plan. One can still run the Sunset daily NOL-LAX, and send the City east of NOL. Drop the through cars off the Eagle 1and Amtrak might even be able to run the Sunset daily to Orlando without new cars.

Numbers clearly indicate that the through sleeper on the Texas Eagle is one of the most profitable cars in the entire system. Lets get rid of this to restore service to a white elephant. Brilliant idea there, Alan.

First, I've seen no such numbers.

Second, I wasn't saying that it was a good idea, just that it might make it possible to run the train daily all the way.

You also are completely ignoring a cardinal point- pun intended. The Cardinal was extended from Washington to New York, and its ridership went up. Ok. Lets assume that all things being equal, a one seat ride will attract riders. I'd even agree with that. But this does not provide proof that expansion of all trains on that group of routes, and restoration of service to all cities previously served, will not improve ridership as much as reverting back to the previous set up.
In otherwords: all things being equal, a single seat ride would probably improve ridership. But this does not indicate that daily trains with a three seat ride would provide less of an improvement in ridership then a single seat ride theoretically would. We don't know that.

Yes we do. Just look at the airlines. People are willing to pay a premium for a one seat ride.

Are you even reading what I'm saying? We have no numbers to verify that maintaining a one seat ride provides more revenue then going daily. None whatsoever. This hasn't been done before.

Are you even reading what I'm saying? If more people will ride because of a one seat ride and if more people will pay a premium because of a one seat ride, then it stands to reason that more revenue will be generated than just going daily. Especially when one is eliminating the very cars that produce the most revenue.

Since I don't have the stats from those years I can't tell you. However, there is no point anyhow, since neither changed the level of services being offered, other than perhaps the Cardinal's dropping a family room and a real diner eventually. But the Eagle changed nothing but frequency. We're not talking about that here, we're talking about both a frequency and a service change. So no comparisons can be drawn. as you have two variables in play in this case.

You're avoiding the hard questions again. Enough of this, I'm seeing red from the puerile tomfoolery I am getting in response to my points.

I'm not avoiding any questions, hard or otherwise. I'm not going to sit here and tell you which train saw a greater improvement when I don't know. The Eagles change occured before Amtrak started releasing stats, and IIRC, the Cardinal's change happened just as Amtrak started releasing stats. Would you prefer that I make something up and lie to you? Talk about tomfoolery!

Additionally the Eagle made the change in two steps, going from 3 to 4 days, then to 7.

And again, both of those trains change only one thing each. The plan that we're discussing will change two things, one of which has no comparison to either the Eagle's going daily or the Cardinal lengthening it's run to include a bigger market in a one seat ride package.

 

[NativeSon5859]

Continuing my thought process here....

It's a shame that some people have made this such a divisive issue. Florida vs. Texas, from what it seems. IMO, the people in FLA have a right to be P.O'd, as they've had their only train serving the panhandle region taken away from them. And the charade over the past four years had probably not left a very good taste in the mouths of the communities along the former NOL-JAX route. So really, you can't blame them. I'm not from FLA yet I'm still in disbelief as to the fast one that Amtrak pulled on those communities. If the same thing was to happen to Texas, I'm sure some of the folks there would be a little agitated, and rightfully so. Sad part is, and I agree with Alan here, once the stub train gets going, it sure seems like it'd be a lot easier for that train to get the axe...and that would leave Houston, one hell of a large city, with no rail service. Of course it's not guaranteed that scenario would happen, but anything's possible with Amtrak.

The Sunset Limited has operated NOL-LAX since 1894. That's a one-seat ride since 1894. Pretty impressive when you think about it. The Florida extension was started with much fanfare in '93...and it was something that Amtrak was very proud of at the time. My how times have changed. It troubles me to some extent that no better option has been found than to chop up the route yet again. I noticed on a previous thread that many Amtrak managers don't have much in the way of secondary education...well, it sure shows, in this case. I'm just being honest, if the stub train is the best they can do, it doesn't say much for the people making the route planning decisions.

I suppose I better take one last ride on the REAL Sunset Limited before it becomes a shell of its former self.

 

[AlanB]

It's a shame that some people have made this such a divisive issue. Florida vs. Texas, from what it seems.

Even more interesting is that I'm not from Florida and I'm not trying to make this about Florida. Yes, I won't deny that it would be nice to see service restored to Florida. But my main point here is that I still believe that Amtrak can do better than this current plan, much better.

It may mean waiting another 6 or even 9 months, but I for one will continue to believe until someone can show me the numbers, that Texas doesn't have to settle for sloppy seconds. I think that the equipment would be there to run a daily Sunset Limited from New Orleans through to LAX without downgrading the service to coach only. And I firmly believe that Amtrak will produce far more revenue by running a daily, full service Sunset Limited instead of this shell.

Why anyone would want to settle for that is beyond me.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Equip. issues aside for the moment:

What about a daily Superliner from JAX/ORL/MIA to SAS? Wouldn't that fill both gaps?

 

[AlanB]

Yes it would, but Amtrak doesn't have the equipment for that I'm pretty sure. That would require Superliner 3's in order to pull off.

 

[Guest]

Continuing my thought process here....
It's a shame that some people have made this such a divisive issue. Florida vs. Texas, from what it seems. IMO, the people in FLA have a right to be P.O'd, as they've had their only train serving the panhandle region taken away from them. And the charade over the past four years had probably not left a very good taste in the mouths of the communities along the former NOL-JAX route. So really, you can't blame them. I'm not from FLA yet I'm still in disbelief as to the fast one that Amtrak pulled on those communities. If the same thing was to happen to Texas, I'm sure some of the folks there would be a little agitated, and rightfully so. Sad part is, and I agree with Alan here, once the stub train gets going, it sure seems like it'd be a lot easier for that train to get the axe...and that would leave Houston, one hell of a large city, with no rail service. Of course it's not guaranteed that scenario would happen, but anything's possible with Amtrak.

The Sunset Limited has operated NOL-LAX since 1894. That's a one-seat ride since 1894. Pretty impressive when you think about it. The Florida extension was started with much fanfare in '93...and it was something that Amtrak was very proud of at the time. My how times have changed. It troubles me to some extent that no better option has been found than to chop up the route yet again. I noticed on a previous thread that many Amtrak managers don't have much in the way of secondary education...well, it sure shows, in this case. I'm just being honest, if the stub train is the best they can do, it doesn't say much for the people making the route planning decisions.

I suppose I better take one last ride on the REAL Sunset Limited before it becomes a shell of its former self.

The 4th largest state Florida lose's a LD train and second largest state Texas will drop from two LD trains to one. Yet many

here see that as progress.

And I also agree that the SA-NOL stub will get the axe after 3-4 years or a major wreck requiring superliner replacements.

 

[TVRM610]

As to the idea of an enhanced Sunset Limited becoming the "Empire Builder of the South" I don't think your being realistic.... the clientele that ride the Sunset are totally different then the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight type... and before anyone calls me out I was born in Louisiana and love visiting New Orleans, but lets be honest the Sunset Limited has a lower class of riders... yea i said it, even though Alan probably has some statistics that will prove me wrong : )

Ok, maybe I'm pushing things a bit far with that, but then it's not like the Empire Builder's service is really all that "enhanced". Really it just never got downgraded like the rest of the LD's, other than getting all the newly refurbed Superliner I sleepers.

But still, even if we use SDS instead of the EB type dining service, why are we settling for maybe having a CCC that may or may not function only as a cafe? Why isn't serious consideration being given to taking more wrecks and putting them into a daily Sunset, which 5 years ago used to pull more sleeper revenue than several other LD trains?

Ok I agree with you on that, the Empire Builder is not exactly a luxury liner. Still there are many other day trains that operate even longer distances that don't have diner or sleeper service. While alot of talk has been about the Cardinal a more comparable example is the PENNSYLVANIAN which used to operate all the way to Chicago but now passengers have to change trains at a very non-convenient hour to the Capitol in Pittsburgh. I honestly don't know if the Pennsylvanian ever ran with sleepers or a diner.. but they certainly only have a cafe car now. At 10 hours, it is very comparable to this San Antonio Stub Train.

To be fair... I'm not sure if this is the BEST way to solve issues, but I think that a train going daily is a very good thing. While the Sunset portion East of San Antonio is losing a diner and sleepers, the Texas Eagle is GAINING a full Diner. I realize in a perfect world both trains could operate more independant of each other and both have full diners etc. but AMTRAK we all know is far from perfect.

NATIVE SON... that was a bit of a low blow to amtrak management, I don't think that College Education had anything to do with this decision.

 

[AlanB]

While alot of talk has been about the Cardinal a more comparable example is the PENNSYLVANIAN which used to operate all the way to Chicago but now passengers have to change trains at a very non-convenient hour to the Capitol in Pittsburgh. I honestly don't know if the Pennsylvanian ever ran with sleepers or a diner.. but they certainly only have a cafe car now. At 10 hours, it is very comparable to this San Antonio Stub Train.

No, the Pennsy never had sleepers and a diner. The Three Rivers did, but not the Pennsy. And actually it's run was more like 18 hours IIRC. It left NY around 6:00 AM or so and was scheduled into Chicago at like 11:30 PM. But then this train was never intended to actually be used by passengers going that distance. Amtrak extended the Pennsy to haul freight, and hoped that in the process maybe a few people might ride it between mid-point stations. And actually quite a few people did do just that.

 

[NativeSon5859]

As to the idea of an enhanced Sunset Limited becoming the "Empire Builder of the South" I don't think your being realistic.... the clientele that ride the Sunset are totally different then the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight type... and before anyone calls me out I was born in Louisiana and love visiting New Orleans, but lets be honest the Sunset Limited has a lower class of riders... yea i said it, even though Alan probably has some statistics that will prove me wrong : )

Ok, maybe I'm pushing things a bit far with that, but then it's not like the Empire Builder's service is really all that "enhanced". Really it just never got downgraded like the rest of the LD's, other than getting all the newly refurbed Superliner I sleepers.

But still, even if we use SDS instead of the EB type dining service, why are we settling for maybe having a CCC that may or may not function only as a cafe? Why isn't serious consideration being given to taking more wrecks and putting them into a daily Sunset, which 5 years ago used to pull more sleeper revenue than several other LD trains?

Ok I agree with you on that, the Empire Builder is not exactly a luxury liner. Still there are many other day trains that operate even longer distances that don't have diner or sleeper service. While alot of talk has been about the Cardinal a more comparable example is the PENNSYLVANIAN which used to operate all the way to Chicago but now passengers have to change trains at a very non-convenient hour to the Capitol in Pittsburgh. I honestly don't know if the Pennsylvanian ever ran with sleepers or a diner.. but they certainly only have a cafe car now. At 10 hours, it is very comparable to this San Antonio Stub Train.

To be fair... I'm not sure if this is the BEST way to solve issues, but I think that a train going daily is a very good thing. While the Sunset portion East of San Antonio is losing a diner and sleepers, the Texas Eagle is GAINING a full Diner. I realize in a perfect world both trains could operate more independant of each other and both have full diners etc. but AMTRAK we all know is far from perfect.

NATIVE SON... that was a bit of a low blow to amtrak management, I don't think that College Education had anything to do with this decision.

I realize what I was saying and I stand by it. I just don't give them a whole lot of credit for coming up with something that's in my opinion, too shortsighted.

 

[TVRM610]

While alot of talk has been about the Cardinal a more comparable example is the PENNSYLVANIAN which used to operate all the way to Chicago but now passengers have to change trains at a very non-convenient hour to the Capitol in Pittsburgh. I honestly don't know if the Pennsylvanian ever ran with sleepers or a diner.. but they certainly only have a cafe car now. At 10 hours, it is very comparable to this San Antonio Stub Train.

No, the Pennsy never had sleepers and a diner. The Three Rivers did, but not the Pennsy. And actually it's run was more like 18 hours IIRC. It left NY around 6:00 AM or so and was scheduled into Chicago at like 11:30 PM. But then this train was never intended to actually be used by passengers going that distance. Amtrak extended the Pennsy to haul freight, and hoped that in the process maybe a few people might ride it between mid-point stations. And actually quite a few people did do just that.

I meant the current run is around 10 hours.... or maybe closer to 9. NYP-Pittsburgh.

 

[TVRM610]

NATIVE SON... that was a bit of a low blow to amtrak management, I don't think that College Education had anything to do with this decision.

I realize what I was saying and I stand by it. I just don't give them a whole lot of credit for coming up with something that's in my opinion, too shortsighted.

Well that's the thing, we don't KNOW that is so shortsighted... it may be the beginning of a long ambitious plan that will eventually include through sleepers from LAX-MIA! We really don't know yet. I agree like Alan says maybe there should be a little bit more info about this out, but perhaps they are waiting until the January Equipment Announcement to make any more info known.

Now I agree that this decision COULD be shortsighted, but that is something we just don't know yet.

 

[Heading North]

I don't recall the Three Rivers ever having a diner, although it did run with sleepers on occasion (some refurbished Heritage sleepers for a brief period, and maybe a Viewliner?)... when I rode it in coach in 2004, there was just half a cafe car available, and an announcement made that there were a handful of dinner seats for sleeper passengers "left over" that we could purchase for $16.

It was a no-frills train, but it still got me to Chicago...