# Extending the CZ to LA



## ScouseAndy (Sep 7, 2016)

Has any discussion ever happened regarding the CZ down to LA rather than terminating at Emeryville?

If you allowed a 1 hour padding stop and leaving Oakland at around 6pm south bound this would give a 8am arrival in LA, Eastbound it would be leaving LA at around 8pm (assuming 15 hours as per the Coast starlight) which seems almost perfect overnight service between the bay area and LA.

Further more as the CZ is the only LD train serviced in Oakland this would decrease operating costs due to economies of scale in LA (I assume)The total duration would only be 66-67 hours so no longer than the Texas Eagle on LA days.

Other than lack of rolling stock and track rights is there any other obstacles?


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 7, 2016)

For CHI-LAX, the train would be worthless because you'd arrive in both endpoints virtually a full day later than the SWC. Then again, the same already applies to the TE/SL now. On the other hand, it would add service from DEN/SLC to LAX which has been gone since the Desert Wind was canceled. According to your schedule, the extended CZ would run overnight between LAX and the Bay Area both ways which I would take in a second if traveling between the two cities. It would also give direct service from Chicago to San Jose and Santa Barbara (although the train would arrive in Santa Barbara during the graveyard shift and it would probably be quicker to do Surfliner/SWC).

Sounds like a plan to me, sign me up!


----------



## chakk (Sep 7, 2016)

The westbound train would need to serve two more meals (dinner and breakfast). Eastbound train would have to serve at least breakfast. Might mean shifting the Oakland crew base to LA, and extended their standard trip by another night.

I rode the previous overnight Amtrak train once -- but only from San Jose to Oakland (16th Street Station) with kids to give them a quick train ride. With the flight time being just one hour between San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose and LA, I doubt that this overnight train would attract many business passengers.


----------



## KmH (Sep 7, 2016)

Yep, the CA as it is routed now is a 6 day trip for OBS.

With an additional night added to the trip I would check to see if the OBS Union rules would add more time off for them when home, which could necessitate adding an additional crew or 2 to the something like 13 or 14 CZ OBS crews they already have.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Sep 8, 2016)

Isn't California already planning a "coast daylight" as a second frequency on this leg?


----------



## railiner (Sep 8, 2016)

Geographically speaking, it wouldn't really make sense to go from the Midwest west to the Bay Area, and then sort of "backtrack" southeast to LA. It would be more logical to do it the other way around... like the original Sunset Limited did...New Orleans to Los Angeles and on to San Francisco. Or the San Francisco Chief used to, from Chicago via Bakersfield to the Bay Area...

IIRC, CZ passengers can make a same day connection to and from Southern California on the San Joaquin route...


----------



## jis (Sep 8, 2016)

Another stupid AU solution looking for a problem. Just IMHO of course. Why would anyone take the long CZ route via EMY to LAX. It certainly is no substitute for the Desert Wind.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Sep 8, 2016)

Actually the extension of the sunset limited sounds nice. But it seems like a solution in search of a problem


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 8, 2016)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Isn't California already planning a "coast daylight" as a second frequency on this leg?


Well it wouldn't be overnight between the cities for which Andy's proposal would be. Get on the train at night in LA and wake up the next morning in the Bay Area (or vice versa).



jis said:


> Another stupid AU solution looking for a problem. Just IMHO of course. Why would anyone take the long CZ route via EMY to LAX. It certainly is no substitute for the Desert Wind.


Please reread my post above.


----------



## jis (Sep 8, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Another stupid AU solution looking for a problem. Just IMHO of course. Why would anyone take the long CZ route via EMY to LAX. It certainly is no substitute for the Desert Wind.
> ...


My opinion was stated after reading your post. There simply is not enough ridership to be had to justify sending an entire cross country train for another effectively whole days hike with additional staff and all that. It is a pointless armchair exercise of connecting the dots.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 8, 2016)

Seaboard92 said:


> Actually the extension of the sunset limited sounds nice. But it seems like a solution in search of a problem


I was thinking extending the SWC north makes more sense because it would be a competitive trip time wise to the CZ between CHI and the Bay Area. But the schedule would be close to on top of the CS each way (a few hours) and wouldn't allow Amtrak to close the LD yard in Oakland.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Sep 8, 2016)

Well, I suppose if you wanted to get from Denver, SLC or Reno to LA... But once the high speed line is done, you'll just be able to transfer to that and be in LA in a couple hours.


----------



## railiner (Sep 8, 2016)

When the San Francisco Chief ran, it went from Barstow to Bakersfield and finally to Richmond. it did not directly serve Los Angeles...


----------



## fairviewroad (Sep 8, 2016)

Bay Area to LAX as a standalone overnight train has merit.

Renewed service from SLC to LAX via LAS has merit.

But I'm with the "solution in search of a problem" crowd on extending the CZ to LAX.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Sep 8, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Seaboard92 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the extension of the sunset limited sounds nice. But it seems like a solution in search of a problem
> ...


 I would still use the Sunset Limited just because of its early arrival in LAX and it could easily sit in LAX till 8 am to head north giving it some make up time.


----------



## afigg (Sep 8, 2016)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Well, I suppose if you wanted to get from Denver, SLC or Reno to LA... But once the high speed line is done, you'll just be able to transfer to that and be in LA in a couple hours.


Yea, when or if the HSR corridor from SF to LA is completed, it would kill any overnight train between the Bay area and LA very quickly. I figure once the LA to SF line is operating, however many years it takes to get there, the branch extension to Sacramento won't be far behind because it will be simpler to build than the LA to San Diego extension and because Sacramento is the state capitol where the politicians are. With a Sacramento to LA HSR corridor, then one can get off the CZ in Sacramento with a ~3 hour trip to LA Union Station.

A Coast Daylight (and the Coast Starlight), if it ever running before an LA to SF HSR corridor opens, can survive because it will provide daytime service to communities between the Bay area and LA that will be far away from the HSR route. An overnight train on that route doesn't serve those communities very well.

I agree with others that the proposal of extending the CZ over a long slow route of many additional miles to LA is a (poor) solution in search of a problem.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 8, 2016)

We don't need another CHI to LAX LD Train.

Making the Texas Eagle Daily from CHI-LAX is the way to go!

We'd already have it if an Ex-Amtrak Suit hadn't PO'D UP in the last round of Negotiations over this matter.


----------



## ScouseAndy (Sep 9, 2016)

jis said:


> Another stupid AU solution looking for a problem. Just IMHO of course. Why would anyone take the long CZ route via EMY to LAX. It certainly is no substitute for the Desert Wind.


Well sorry 

​Few people would want to make the full trip of course because as stated it would be a full day longer the the SWC, but the TE is already a full day longer.

If an overnight train is being considered between LA & the bay area then why don't have this as an extension, yes connections can be made to the CZ via Bakersfield but this is a Ambus, train, longish wait and then train and research has shown passengers are lazy and much prefer a one seat solution to their travel plans even if this is more expensive (just check out the price comparison on a transatlantic direct flight and one with changes airlines know they can charge customers more for less) and slightly longer times travel times.

​The move of LD servicing from Oakland to LA is possibly going to save Amtrak money as it would be one less crew and while I'm not sure if they have protect cars stabled in Oakland if they did then this would mean the reduction of protect car locations.

Sorry for starting an open discussion about Amtrak on a forum with the aim to allow discussions about Amtrak, it wont happen again.


----------



## railiner (Sep 9, 2016)

Don't be sorry...this is what this forum is for. But like any forum, you can expect sometimes harsh rebuttal to an idea that some "experts" will disagree with.

Just roll with it and don't be discouraged...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 9, 2016)

railiner said:


> Don't be sorry...this is what this forum is for. But like any forum, you can expect sometimes harsh rebuttal to an idea that some "experts" will disagree with.
> 
> Just roll with it and don't be discouraged...


Not everyone thinks your idea was stupid. If you give in to the experts, they win. There are people here who want to try to suggest new ideas to Amtrak (hence the sub forum) and others who just want to stick to the status quo.


----------



## TiBike (Sep 9, 2016)

afigg said:


> Yea, when or if the HSR corridor from SF to LA is completed, it would kill any overnight train between the Bay area and LA very quickly. I figure once the LA to SF line is operating, however many years it takes to get there, the branch extension to Sacramento won't be far behind because it will be simpler to build than the LA to San Diego extension and because Sacramento is the state capitol where the politicians are. With a Sacramento to LA HSR corridor, then one can get off the CZ in Sacramento with a ~3 hour trip to LA Union Station.
> 
> A Coast Daylight (and the Coast Starlight), if it ever running before an LA to SF HSR corridor opens, can survive because it will provide daytime service to communities between the Bay area and LA that will be far away from the HSR route. An overnight train on that route doesn't serve those communities very well.


A high speed rail connection between LA and the Bay Area is at least 20 years in the future, and probably more. Do not overestimate California's ability to complete projects. The BART extension from Fremont to San Jose was approved in 2000, work on the first segment didn't begin until 2009 and it still isn't complete. It'll be another ten years, at least, before the connection to San Jose – Caltrain and Capitol Corridor – will be made. That's 25 years to go 25 miles. At that rate, you'd be better off sitting on the San Andreas Fault and letting it carry you to LA (or, rather, LA to you).

Another train making the coastal run between the Bay Area and LA would be welcome – what's not to like? – but a night train with limited stops wouldn't be a huge benefit to the Central Coast region. You're right about the Coast Daylight - it's an extension of local Surfliner service along the coast, and that would probably be well used. It would provide counter-commute service to SoCal, and would similarly complement the Capitol Corridor extension to Salinas. It would also make half-day (or so) trips along the coast practicable. As it is now, you pretty much have to give up an entire working day to take the Coast Starlight from San Jose or Saliinas to Paso Robles or SLO. And forget about Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Watsonville, Soledad and King City.

California has been pretty darn good at buying service using other people's stuff, but we suck when it comes to building things for ourselves.


----------



## jis (Sep 9, 2016)

I think reinstatement of something like the Spirit of California may actually work quite well. Though it should probably not be any more limited stop than the Coast Starlight.

It would have to operate somewhat similar to train 65/66/67 on the NEC sans Sleeper at least initially, if started in the immediate future. Acquiring more Sleeping Cars is a bit more involved than getting hold of a bunch of Coaches and a Food Service Car.either in the Surfliner or Horizon California Comet form. Then again, an outfit like IP may be able to scrounge up 4 Sleeping Cars plus a spare, thinking a bit out of the box.

The Spirit of California actually carried two Sleepers (10/6s) two Coaches and a Cafe/Lounge, and it ran between Sacramento and Los Angeles.


----------



## jis (Sep 9, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Don't be sorry...this is what this forum is for. But like any forum, you can expect sometimes harsh rebuttal to an idea that some "experts" will disagree with.
> ...


I cannot understand why anyone thinks I am an expert. I just have strong opinions sometimes supported by documented facts, and sometimes not, that's all. If that bothers anyone, I don't see why they are discussing anything at all. It is a false dichotomy to characterize anyone that says an idea is stupid due to various reasons as someone who prefers status quo. Every idea is not necessarily a bright idea. people need to learn to deal with that possibility. And yeah, I also come up with stupid ideas from time to time, and sometimes things that I think are stupid turn out to be not so bad and other times they are implemented anyway and fail miserably too. So all of those are possibilities. People just need to get over being upset if their idea is criticized. This is just a place to shoot the breeze anyway, and not much that is discussed here, specially the more outlandish things will ever happen anyway. A little levity would go a long way in general I suppose..


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Sep 10, 2016)

Your idea may not be stupid but it may have already been evaluated and found that you may need another set of equipment since you're adding twelve hours to the existing run. This also means you'd also need more crews, commissary, track rights and another thing that is left out: another calendar day/1500 mile inspection. Now, that means you need another set of mechanical forces to meet the train somewhere. It seems like EMY would be an ideal place since there are already mechanical forces there. However, that doesn't decrease much in terms of your previously mentioned economies of scale since at some point, you'd need mechanical to meet the train anyway.

These are tall orders and would the overnight travel be enough to make it worthwhile? People that often whine about the status quo often conveniently overlook what it actually takes to move a train. They don't just fall from the sky. Passenger trains are expensive to operate which is why there are very few private operators left.


----------



## fairviewroad (Sep 12, 2016)

"Status quo" being the operate term here. If the CZ already ran down to LA from the Bay area, I suspect people wouldn't be clamoring for it to be truncated to Oakland. In this case, the obstacles for extending it to LA are high. Much easier to stick with the status quo.

Imagine for a moment if the Empire Builder simply ran from Chicago to Seattle and did not have a Portland leg. And imagine if someone posted that it would be a great idea to split the train in Spokane and send half of it down to Portland. You can see how the response would go:

_"What? You want to split/combine the train in the middle of the night in Spokane? Do you even know how much extra crew/equipment that would require? And would you need a second diner, or a second lounge car? How are the sleeping car passengers on the Portland leg going to get their meals? And don't you realize that people can just connect in SEA to a Cascades train to get down to Portland? Obviously this is a solution looking for a problem!"_

But none of us here raise those objections since it already exists in the real word, and for the most part, works well. If the CZ ran to LA already, it would probably work well. But it doesn't, so we object. I'm among those who don't think it's a good idea, but I don't think it's "stupid" to imagine such things.


----------



## jis (Sep 12, 2016)

OK time for a bit of history lesson 

I actually lived through and participated actively in the real conversation that happened before the introduction of the Portland section of the Builder. Generally it was thought as very feasible. There was not a huge worry about servicing and turning the train since Portland did have some mechanical staff. It was not extending the running time of the equipment significantly from what it would do any way if it went to Seattle.

There was also not a huge worry about Diner as long as there was food service equivalent to what was on the Pioneer. Remember Pioneer mostly never had a Diner in its original Amtrak incarnation. No one had any doubt how the Sleeping Car passengers would get their food - they would do so exactly as the Sleeping Car passengers on the Pioneer got their food.

Back then there were no Cascades trains really. It was the Coast Starlight, the Pioneer and Mt. Raineer (Portland - Seattle). The Pacific International ran from Seattle to Vancouver BC and was inconsequential for the purposes of travel between Portland and Seattle.

The way that the Portland Section came about was the result of three events - 1. The cancellation of the North Coast Hiawatha, 2. moving of the Empire Builder off the Stampede Pass route to the Stevens pass route (which lost the North Coast Hiawatha., and 3 - BN's desire to downgrade Stampede Pass (thus making it impossible to keep the Spokane to Seattle service via Stampede Pass going with a section off of the Builder). This potentially ended service to Pasco (and actually ended service to Yakima and Ellensburg.. There was much hue and cry, and when discussing how to retain service to Pasco it occurred to a bunch of people that we could get a win - win by keeping service to Pasco by splitting the Builder at Seattle and sending one section down SP&S to Portland.

The route tradeoff was that BN got to downgrade Stampede Pass in exchange for letting the Portland section run on the SP&S. So they had an incentive to allow this to get themselves out of the business of keeping Stampede Pass fully maintained.

That is how the discussion went down. Nothing at all like your contrived example.  There is no loss of service compulsion with the extension to LA thing. it is pure random what if. Granted it is not at all stupid to imagine anything. It would be at least inappropriate and expensive with cost recovery extremely unlikely, if not stupid, to act on said imagination for reasons articulated by Thirdrail.


----------



## ScouseAndy (Sep 12, 2016)

fairviewroad said:


> "Status quo" being the operate term here. If the CZ already ran down to LA from the Bay area, I suspect people wouldn't be clamoring for it to be truncated to Oakland. In this case, the obstacles for extending it to LA are high. Much easier to stick with the status quo.
> 
> Imagine for a moment if the Empire Builder simply ran from Chicago to Seattle and did not have a Portland leg. And imagine if someone posted that it would be a great idea to split the train in Spokane and send half of it down to Portland. You can see how the response would go:
> 
> ...


Ok how many people are calling to truncate the Cardinal at Washington, the TE at San Antonia and the Silver Starvation at Savanah, after all even if we cut the services at these stations there would be additional services for passengers to transfer to to get to any destination beyond these points and would save Amtrak millions over the course of the year? It amazes me that there is serious support for an overnight LA to the bay area service but people fail to see the point that by combining the two services would increase patronage on this service with passengers who wish to travel between LA and Denver/Salt Lake City etc (and reverse)


----------



## fairviewroad (Sep 12, 2016)

jis said:


> OK time for a bit of history lesson


Thanks, that was interesting. Side note: You must be OLD. 

I still think that if, in 2016, the EB did not split in Spokane, that people on this discussion board would raise the objections I posited in my hypothetical scenario. I'm just saying that it's easy to find reasons NOT to change something, even in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary. I agree that the change advocated for in the OP is perhaps not the best use of resources, but generally I find it fun to think about ways to improve/extend Amtrak's route system.


----------

