# Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay area service



## BCL (Aug 15, 2022)

Where is the night train between LA and SF? And who's to blame?


‘The demand would be there’ — if the price is right.




www.sfgate.com





The author doesn't seem to have fully understood the bus connections don't start in San Jose, but also go through Oakland, Emeryville, and San Francisco before San Jose.


----------



## Amtrak709 (Aug 15, 2022)

BCL said:


> Where is the night train between LA and SF? And who's to blame?
> 
> 
> ‘The demand would be there’ — if the price is right.
> ...


Please challenge me if I am wrong. I lived in California (Orange County) from 1970-1976 and have very little knowledge of its development since.
But it would be my opinion that Amtrak will have an overnight sleeper SFO-LAX on the day the sun explodes.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Aug 15, 2022)

They did in the past. Never say never. It is one of the only States that would even consider it.


----------



## BCL (Aug 15, 2022)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> They did in the past. Never say never. It is one of the only States that would even consider it.



Amtrak never did, but I think Southern Pacific might have. The Coast Daylight apparently left San Francisco (or later Oakland) at about 8 in the morning.


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Aug 15, 2022)

Amtrak709 said:


> Please challenge me if I am wrong. I lived in California (Orange County) from 1970-1976 and have very little knowledge of its development since.
> But it would be my opinion that Amtrak will have an overnight sleeper SFO-LAX on the day the sun explodes.


Things change, it's the only thing that stays the same.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Aug 15, 2022)

BCL said:


> Amtrak never did, but I think Southern Pacific might have. The Coast Daylight apparently left San Francisco (or later Oakland) at about 8 in the morning.


They did with sleepers and food for 3 years here’s the schedule. It actually was a SAC OAK SJC LAX train. The Spirit of CA. 1980s



The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)


----------



## joelkfla (Aug 15, 2022)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> They did with sleepers and food for 3 years here’s the schedule. It actually was a SAC OAK SJC LAX train. The Spirit of CA. 1980s
> 
> 
> 
> The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)




Was that basically a cafe car, or a vend-o-mat?


----------



## Willbridge (Aug 16, 2022)

Art Lloyd told me that before the Capital Corridor and San Joaquin services developed, that Amtrak considered extending Trains 5/6 to Los Angeles overnight. That would have gotten them out of West Oakland as a servicing point.

It was an interesting reversal of the long-ago _Sunset _running to SF.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 16, 2022)

BCL said:


> Amtrak never did, but I think Southern Pacific might have. The Coast Daylight apparently left San Francisco (or later Oakland) at about 8 in the morning.


Amtrak certainly did have an overnight California train, the Los Angeles-Sacramento via Oakland "Spirit of California" (aka, the "MedFlyer") in the early 1980's. Governor Deukmajian killed it since it was dependent on California subsidy.

SP operated the Lark via the Coast Line until 1968, the coach Starlight until 1958, the Owl via the Valley until about 1965, and the Sacramento-LA West Coast, among many others.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 16, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> View attachment 29233
> 
> Was that basically a cafe car, or a vend-o-mat?


Amfleet cafe. I rode it.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 16, 2022)

Amtrak709 said:


> Please challenge me if I am wrong. I lived in California (Orange County) from 1970-1976 and have very little knowledge of its development since.
> But it would be my opinion that Amtrak will have an overnight sleeper SFO-LAX on the day the sun explodes.


I don't think the idea is that Amtrak should take the initiative, but that California should drum up the money, support and equipment, and underwrite any losses, and then ask Amtrak to run it, much as is already happening on many of the Amtrak routes in California today.


----------



## Bonser (Aug 16, 2022)

BCL said:


> Where is the night train between LA and SF? And who's to blame?
> 
> 
> ‘The demand would be there’ — if the price is right.
> ...


I think he does show an understanding of the bus connections, only he is not explicit about it. The SF-LA overnight can be done tomorrow if Caltrans allows it. One can travel by rail to Diridon (San Jose) about 12 times daily presently. Amtrak could easily have an 8 or 9 boarding time in San Francisco and proceed to San Jose and onto Los Angeles. While it would not service the Central Valley as the high speed version it definitely would service the two largest markets. All in all, a very interesting read.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 16, 2022)

Tom Booth said:


> I think he does show an understanding of the bus connections, only he is not explicit about it. The SF-LA overnight can be done tomorrow if Caltrans allows it. One can travel by rail to Diridon (San Jose) about 12 times daily presently. Amtrak could easily have an 8 or 9 boarding time in San Francisco and proceed to San Jose and onto Los Angeles. While it would not service the Central Valley as the high speed version it definitely would service the two largest markets. All in all, a very interesting read.


The author also says that whereas it may seem logical that the HSR could cannibalize and totally kill off any parallel connections (planned or existing), experience from elsewhere shows this need not be a foregone conclusion. This is a very valid point.

A point the author does not make is that the completion of HSR end to end is still very far away and as long as that does not happen, the present fragmented solution with train plus bus is not going to take a significant bite out of the airline market, even if the train part is speeded up somewhat. A thru night train via the coastal route thus remains a viable proposition for end to end travelers.


----------



## Bonser (Aug 16, 2022)

cirdan said:


> The author also says that whereas it may seem logical that the HSR could cannibalize and totally kill off any parallel connections (planned or existing), experience from elsewhere shows this need not be a foregone conclusion. This is a very valid point.
> 
> A point the author does not make is that the completion of HSR end to end is still very far away and as long as that does not happen, the present fragmented solution with train plus bus is not going to take a significant bite out of the airline market, even if the train part is speeded up somewhat. A thru night train via the coastal route thus remains a viable proposition for end to end travelers.


Agree and it could be direct - 4th and King in San Francisco to Union Station in LA. With some marketing and commitment to reliability this overnight train could be a success. Everything old is new again!


----------



## Bonser (Aug 16, 2022)

But unless California finances the train and, more importantly, finds the rolling stock including sleepers, it's all just a pipe dream. Amtrak can't provide reliable LD service to its existing network.


----------



## BCL (Aug 16, 2022)

Tom Booth said:


> I think he does show an understanding of the bus connections, only he is not explicit about it. The SF-LA overnight can be done tomorrow if Caltrans allows it. One can travel by rail to Diridon (San Jose) about 12 times daily presently. Amtrak could easily have an 8 or 9 boarding time in San Francisco and proceed to San Jose and onto Los Angeles. While it would not service the Central Valley as the high speed version it definitely would service the two largest markets. All in all, a very interesting read.



I was referring to the 4770 bus. That's obviously the reference, but since I've been on it I know that it starts in Oakland before it makes its way to San Jose via Emeryville and San Francisco. Maybe he knows it, but in the article it makes it sound as if San Jose is the starting point of the bus.

Today? Well, Amtrak’s schedule shows an Amtrak Thruway bus scheduled to leave San Jose at 11:45 p.m. and deliver you to Santa Barbara at 6:30 a.m., where you can catch a regional train to LA at 6:53 a.m.​


----------



## west point (Aug 16, 2022)

California should buy all the equipment. As well do not allow Amtrak to even change a light bulb. Maybe California hire traveling mechanic(s) to keep things working properly.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 16, 2022)

cirdan said:


> I don't think the idea is that Amtrak should take the initiative, but that California should drum up the money, support and equipment, and underwrite any losses, and then ask Amtrak to run it, much as is already happening on many of the Amtrak routes in California today.


There isn't a choice, that is the way it has to be per Federal law. Per PRIIA all routes under 750 miles must be 100% funded from state and local sources and cannot partake of the Federal subsidy. Except the NEC, of course.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 16, 2022)

west point said:


> California should buy all the equipment. As well do not allow Amtrak to even change a light bulb. Maybe California hire traveling mechanic(s) o keep things working properly.


California already owns almost all equipment used on California trains other than the National Network trains (Starlight, Sunset and SW Chief). Even the Superliners used in Surfliner service are under long term lease to CalTrans, and are wreck rebuilds that California paid for, although Beech Grove did the work.

If the State of California wanted to put on an overnight train, they could. It is wholly their decision.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Aug 16, 2022)

I’m sure they could get some V2 sleepers under lease from Amtrak. Sad but true.


----------



## joelkfla (Aug 16, 2022)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> I’m sure they could get some V2 sleepers under lease from Amtrak. Sad but true.


Why?


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 16, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> Why?


Much of the Viewliner sleeper fleet remains mothballed. I am unsure of the mothball ratio of Is to IIs, but certainly when viewed as a single fleet there are many Viewliners not serviceable. 

California has already paid for stored unservicable Superliners to be repaired and leased them, so there is precedent for California doing such things. If they want to, they probably could come to an arrangement with Amtrak, since Amtrak appears to be unenthusiastic about putting the full Viewliner fleet into service themselves.


----------



## jis (Aug 16, 2022)

Only VIs are in mothballs. No V2s are in mothballs at present.


----------



## Willbridge (Aug 16, 2022)

The _Spirit of California _belonged to an era when rail service planning looked at California as a whole. I suspect that the lack of official interest comes partly from the division of administration into separate corridors.


----------



## cirdan (Aug 17, 2022)

Tom Booth said:


> But unless California finances the train and, more importantly, finds the rolling stock including sleepers, it's all just a pipe dream. Amtrak can't provide reliable LD service to its existing network.


Is there any reason California can't tack on an order of its own onto Amtrak's Viewliner order and then use that. I guess one or two sleepers per train would suffice, with the rest of the train being day coaches they have already? So with two consists in circulation plus a reserve car or two, that would be five or six cars maximum. But maybe they could even test the waters with one car per train which would mean ordering as little as two or three cars off the back of the Amtrak order?

If they really wanted this to happen that is. Politics is a different scenario entirely of course.


----------



## JWM (Aug 17, 2022)

The Southern Pacific had a posh train, the "Lark". that ran between Los Angeles and San Francisco with some cars that were cut off in San Jose for Oakland. In the early 1950's it was all Pullman and sixteen cars.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 17, 2022)

Willbridge said:


> The _Spirit of California _belonged to an era when rail service planning looked at California as a whole. I suspect that the lack of official interest comes partly from the division of administration into separate corridors.


Even if there was a state agency with clout that focused on statewide rail planning issues and was interested in joining the various corridors, I would think that a single overnight train between LA and SF would still be a pretty low priority. Such a train could only carry a few hundred passengers a day, at most, which means it wouldn't do very much to divert LA- Bay Area traffic from cars and planes. The real way to divert LA - Bay Area traffic to the rails is probably going to be the High Speed Rail, whenever it's built, and it may only start up as "Higher" speed rail. Once they have that, they'll be able to have multiple frequencies, one of which might be an overnight train.


----------



## Mailliw (Aug 17, 2022)

cirdan said:


> Is there any reason California can't tack on an order of its own onto Amtrak's Viewliner order and then use that. I guess one or two sleepers per train would suffice, with the rest of the train being day coaches they have already? So with two consists in circulation plus a reserve car or two, that would be five or six cars maximum. But maybe they could even test the waters with one car per train which would mean ordering as little as two or three cars off the back of the Amtrak order?
> 
> If they really wanted this to happen that is. Politics is a different scenario entirely of course.


CAF is done making Viewliners and the order was a huge fiasco. Siemens on the other hand could adapt it's sleeping car designs for the Venture platform without too much difficulty. Especially if the intent is for a Nightjet style service instead of a traditional Amtrak long distance service. That being said any LA-Bay Area night train would just be a stopgap until CAHSR finally comes online.


----------



## jis (Aug 17, 2022)

cirdan said:


> Is there any reason California can't tack on an order of its own onto Amtrak's Viewliner order and then use that. I guess one or two sleepers per train would suffice, with the rest of the train being day coaches they have already? So with two consists in circulation plus a reserve car or two, that would be five or six cars maximum. But maybe they could even test the waters with one car per train which would mean ordering as little as two or three cars off the back of the Amtrak order?
> 
> If they really wanted this to happen that is. Politics is a different scenario entirely of course.


Amtrak does not have a Viewliner order any more to tack onto. I think CAF also has had enough of it after taking a bath and is happy to see the hind end of it in the distance.


----------



## JWM (Aug 17, 2022)

Mailliw said:


> CAF is done making Viewliners and the order was a huge fiasco. Siemens on the other hand could adapt it's sleeping car designs for the Venture platform without too much difficulty. Especially if the intent is for a Nightjet style service instead of a traditional Amtrak long distance service.


OBB's new "Nightjet" cars are coming "online" in 2023 according to the site. As others have stated, Siemens is making them and adapting them to U.S. standards should not be a problem. CAF was a "disaster" as a producer here. Siemens unveils first painted car body for ÖBB Nightjet fleet.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 17, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> Even if there was a state agency with clout that focused on statewide rail planning issues


There is such a state agency, CalTrans Rail Division, which has massive clout and is quite active and instrumental in Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, Capitol Corridor and Amtrak California Thruway bus services 

If they decided an overnight train between the Bay Area and SoCal would be beneficial, they'd get one on. But their focus is on corridor services with relatively high frequencies, properly so I think.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 17, 2022)

JWM said:


> The Southern Pacific had a posh train, the "Lark". that ran between Los Angeles and San Francisco with some cars that were cut off in San Jose for Oakland. In the early 1950's it was all Pullman and sixteen cars.


I rode this Train as a kid, it was a Gem!


----------



## toddinde (Aug 17, 2022)

Lots of great comments. The morning Santa Barbara train could just leave Sacramento/Oakland/or San Fran the night before. California could pay to put enough Viewliner Is back together, and you have the service. The return of the Lark!


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 17, 2022)

cirdan said:


> Is there any reason California can't tack on an order of its own onto Amtrak's Viewliner order and then use that. I guess one or two sleepers per train would suffice, with the rest of the train being day coaches they have already? So with two consists in circulation plus a reserve car or two, that would be five or six cars maximum. But maybe they could even test the waters with one car per train which would mean ordering as little as two or three cars off the back of the Amtrak order?
> 
> If they really wanted this to happen that is. Politics is a different scenario entirely of course.


The Amtrak Viewliner order is complete. I highly doubt if there will be any future Viewliners, given the crappy job done by CAF.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 17, 2022)

MikefromCrete said:


> The Amtrak Viewliner order is complete. I highly doubt if there will be any future Viewliners, given the crappy job done by CAF.


And lots of them are sitting in the Yards gathering Dust!


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 17, 2022)

Bob Dylan said:


> And lots of them are sitting in the Yards gathering Dust!


Well, they've got a bunch of Superliners keeping them company.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 16, 2022)

An extended Spirit of California should come back with1 RT if not 2. Combine that with a Coast Daylight from Oakland or SJ to SLO and higher frequency on the surlfiner and pre CAHSR we could have 8-9RT a day.
For equipment ordering venture sleepers would be a decent option but likely to be pretty expensive as even if they run 11 car sets with 7 sleepers 1 dinner and 3 coaches. they'll only need around 32 sleepers

I've got 2 example time tables. These both have some minor speedups which were studied including fixing curves between Gilroy and SLO.


----------



## Herb (Sep 17, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> An extended Spirit of California should come back with1 RT if not 2. Combine that with a Coast Daylight from Oakland or SJ to SLO and higher frequency on the surlfiner and pre CAHSR we could have 8-9RT a day.
> For equipment ordering venture sleepers would be a decent option but likely to be pretty expensive as even if they run 11 car sets with 7 sleepers 1 dinner and 3 coaches. they'll only need around 32 sleepers
> 
> I've got 2 example time tables. These both have some minor speedups which were studied including fixing curves between Gilroy and SLO.
> ...



This proposal for passenger service is what the California Rail Plan should be working on instead of the weak plan they have. This route, if it was state owned could be fixed up! The private owners are not interested in doing much. #1 elimination of at grade crossings #2 upgrading the road bed and rails so the slowest the train must go is 50 mph #3 All switches are controlled from the Control center .


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 17, 2022)

Herb said:


> This proposal for passenger service is what the California Rail Plan should be working on instead of the weak plan they have. This route, if it was state owned could be fixed up! The private owners are not interested in doing much. #1 elimination of at grade crossings #2 upgrading the road bed and rails so the slowest the train must go is 50 mph #3 All switches are controlled from the Control center .


UP offered to sell the entire Coast Line to California at a bargain price ($390 million seems to stick in my mind, but don't rely on that dim recollection) several years ago.

California passed on it.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 18, 2022)

zephyr17 said:


> UP offered to sell the entire Coast Line to California at a bargain price ($390 million seems to stick in my mind, but don't rely on that dim recollection) several years ago.
> 
> California passed on it.


that would be SP not UP, and that was the expected cost of upgrades. I recently reached out to SLOCG who mention the report to see if they've got a copy


Herb said:


> This proposal for passenger service is what the California Rail Plan should be working on instead of the weak plan they have. This route, if it was state owned could be fixed up! The private owners are not interested in doing much. #1 elimination of at grade crossings #2 upgrading the road bed and rails so the slowest the train must go is 50 mph #3 All switches are controlled from the Control center .


1.That matters in cities and with roads that have high traffic we can still get 110mph with grade crossings. 
2. Theres documents around upgrading the coast sub that involve fixing bad curves wherever possible from Salinas to Pismo beach but that wasn't going to upgrade the line past more 80mph sections. however 110mph would be an option if the state bought it and continued to upgrade it. There was plans to extend all sidings and add more double track especially around Cuesta grade as currently the sidings are quite short at around 5000ft. 
3. CTC is being rolled out south of SLO now and would be rolled out north of SLO if a coast daylight and or Night train happened.


----------



## Herb (Sep 19, 2022)

zephyr17 said:


> UP offered to sell the entire Coast Line to California at a bargain price ($390 million seems to stick in my mind, but don't rely on that dim recollection) several years ago.
> 
> California passed on it.


Have you read the California Rail Plan? Its pretty weak. I’m working on getting a response to them, even though the review period is over. Also I’ve been watching several webinars by DB ECO that describe different ways of doing rail transport. A lot of good practical ideas and data.


----------



## Herb (Sep 19, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> that would be SP not UP, and that was the expected cost of upgrades. I recently reached out to SLOCG who mention the report to see if they've got a copy
> 
> 1.That matters in cities and with roads that have high traffic we can still get 110mph with grade crossings.
> 2. Theres documents around upgrading the coast sub that involve fixing bad curves wherever possible from Salinas to Pismo beach but that wasn't going to upgrade the line past more 80mph sections. however 110mph would be an option if the state bought it and continued to upgrade it. There was plans to extend all sidings and add more double track especially around Cuesta grade as currently the sidings are quite short at around 5000ft.
> 3. CTC is being rolled out south of SLO now and would be rolled out north of SLO if a coast daylight and or Night train happened.


The CTC rollout, would it upgrade the siding switch issue that I saw a number of years ago (2013?). The issue was that the #14 CSL had to come to a stop, a conductor got off and manually pulled the switch so the train could move to the siding. Then he closed it after the train and walked forward to open the switch so the #14 could get back on the mainline, after the Southbound Surfliner past. It was so 19th century. $390 million seems like change compared to what the HSR project is costing. California could get more passenger service if our motto was “ Not As Fast as Possible but As Quick as Necessary”! ( Credit to SBB CFF FFS )


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Sep 19, 2022)

Is there concern that the tracks along the coast may become unusable at some point in the near future due to either sea level rise directly or erosion from seal level rise? I've seen pictures which makes it appear that the tracks are both low and close to the shoreline in places, both north and south of LA.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 19, 2022)

Herb said:


> Have you read the California Rail Plan? Its pretty weak. I’m working on getting a response to them, even though the review period is over. Also I’ve been watching several webinars by DB ECO that describe different ways of doing rail transport. A lot of good practical ideas and data.


The 2022 draft is about to come out. Its not weak, a little lacking in vision sure but the plan sets us up to be the best in the country. My far bigger concern is the state won't fund and implement it. At this point the state needs to stop expecting federal money and just pay for it out of our massive budget. Caltrans get 2B a year for road capital programs.


Herb said:


> The CTC rollout, would it upgrade the siding switch issue that I saw a number of years ago (2013?). The issue was that the #14 CSL had to come to a stop, a conductor got off and manually pulled the switch so the train could move to the siding. Then he closed it after the train and walked forward to open the switch so the #14 could get back on the mainline, after the Southbound Surfliner past. It was so 19th century. $390 million seems like change compared to what the HSR project is costing. California could get more passenger service if our motto was “ Not As Fast as Possible but As Quick as Necessary”! ( Credit to SBB CFF FFS )


CTC is already there from SLO to SD which is the surfliner route. Its not north at this point because UP doesn't want to pay and amtrak only runs 1RT a day down the line. with more service CTC will get rolled out from Gilroy to SLO
There needs to be a bill to form a JPA to run service from SJ to SLO for coast daylight. Then if they want a sleeper just make the 3 JPA come together and work on it



Metra Electric Rider said:


> Is there concern that the tracks along the coast may become unusable at some point in the near future due to either sea level rise directly or erosion from seal level rise? I've seen pictures which makes it appear that the tracks are both low and close to the shoreline in places, both north and south of LA.


yes thats an issue near SD and between Ventura and Vandenberg SFB. the SD section is planned to be replaced with a pair of ~5 mile long tunnels. double tracked designed for 110mph+
At this point theres no plan for the north section, theres a discussion about moving tracks inland where possible but theres no plan


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 19, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> that would be SP not UP, and that was the expected cost of upgrades.


I think it was after the 1997 merger, but am not sure about that.


----------



## joelkfla (Sep 19, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Is there concern that the tracks along the coast may become unusable at some point in the near future due to either sea level rise directly or erosion from seal level rise?


Yes, an increasing level of elephant seals kicking up sand with their flippers could speed erosion.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 19, 2022)

zephyr17 said:


> I think it was after the 1997 merger, but am not sure about that.


1992








Transit Panel Studies Plan to Buy 424-Mile Coastal Rail Line


Opening the prospect of high-speed rail service between Northern and Southern California, Los Angeles County transit leaders have taken a no-cost, no-commitment one-year option to buy the Southern Pacific Railroad's entire 424-mile Coast Line from Burbank to San Jose.




www.latimes.com






joelkfla said:


> Yes, an increasing level of elephant seals kicking up sand with their flippers could speed erosion.


some places are a rough winter storm away from the tracks being compromised. that already happened recenly near del mar and they rushed to add rocks and rebuild the road bed.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 19, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Is there concern that the tracks along the coast may become unusable at some point in the near future due to either sea level rise directly or erosion from seal level rise? I've seen pictures which makes it appear that the tracks are both low and close to the shoreline in places, both north and south of LA.


The danger is more likely bluff erosion from storms. While the tracks are low in some places, like at San Clemente, north of LA the former SP Coast Line is mostly up on the bluffs, not down by the beach.


----------



## BCL (Sep 19, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> Even if there was a state agency with clout that focused on statewide rail planning issues and was interested in joining the various corridors, I would think that a single overnight train between LA and SF would still be a pretty low priority. Such a train could only carry a few hundred passengers a day, at most, which means it wouldn't do very much to divert LA- Bay Area traffic from cars and planes. The real way to divert LA - Bay Area traffic to the rails is probably going to be the High Speed Rail, whenever it's built, and it may only start up as "Higher" speed rail. Once they have that, they'll be able to have multiple frequencies, one of which might be an overnight train.



Passenger car traffic between Northern and Southern California really isn't that much of an issue anyways. It's really just a drop in the bucket compared to any commute traffic.

I've traveled on I-5 many times and unless there's a wildfire, accident, or icy road, it's almost always easy to travel, other than the trucks since it's only two lanes in each direction and sometimes one is going slow and another truck is in the #1 lane to get around the slow ones.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 19, 2022)

BCL said:


> Passenger car traffic between Northern and Southern California really isn't that much of an issue anyways. It's really just a drop in the bucket compared to any commute traffic.
> 
> I've traveled on I-5 many times and unless there's a wildfire, accident, or icy road, it's almost always easy to travel, other than the trucks since it's only two lanes in each direction and sometimes one is going slow and another truck is in the #1 lane to get around the slow ones.


Its not? as someone who has often done it day to day its okay but weekends or any holidy it becomes a parking lot. I take 101 if possible.

the sleeper train should come back as part of spending money to upgrade the coast sub for more surfliner, metrolink and a new coast daylight. Its not liner cost to add 1-2 extra RT slots a day and its far better to lock it in now than to wait and see what insane things UP wants in 5-10 years


----------



## joelkfla (Sep 19, 2022)

BCL said:


> I've traveled on I-5 many times and unless there's a wildfire, accident, or icy road, it's almost always easy to travel, other than the trucks since it's only two lanes in each direction and sometimes one is going slow and another truck is in the #1 lane to get around the slow ones.


And the fog! You left out the horrible tule fog, where visibility can drop from reasonably good to near zero in the snap of a finger.


----------



## west point (Sep 20, 2022)

Yes fog can get so bad that no airplanes operate at any airports Even airplanes equipped for minimum CAT 2 approaches.


----------



## BCL (Sep 20, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> And the fog! You left out the horrible tule fog, where visibility can drop from reasonably good to near zero in the snap of a finger.



Had that happen a few times. Once it was on I-580 going through Altamont Pass where it was maybe 20 ft visibility. I probably should have gotten off and waited it out until the fog cleared. I even thought of parking on the side of the freeway, but it occurred to me that even that could be dangerous with the poor visibility. Even in good conditions, it was at night and I've heard of CHP officers killed as a result of someone driving into the shoulder.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Sep 20, 2022)

Seems to me that a day train would be the place to start to get people used to the concept and eventually end up with a sleeper.


----------



## Bonser (Sep 20, 2022)

Sorry if this was addressed but why doesn't the plan or plans have the train continuing to San Francisco from Didiron (SJ), instead of heading to the East Bay? The market for an overnight train to LA would be greatest in SF I would think. Or split the train at San Jose?


----------



## Willbridge (Sep 20, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Seems to me that a day train would be the place to start to get people used to the concept and eventually end up with a sleeper.


That could be true on other routes, but the various rail-bus LAX<>Bay combinations are easier to deal with on daylight trips and so part of the market is already familiar with Amtrak. In marketing transit service, the most willing to try a new service are those who are already customers. The overnight train would replace the current bus/rail transfers at marginal hours and be more comfortable in coach than the current offering. The overnight train also backs up the corridor services for missed connections, early meetings, etc. just like the NEC overnight BOS<>WAS service.



Already familiar.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 20, 2022)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Seems to me that a day train would be the place to start to get people used to the concept and eventually end up with a sleeper.


There is already a push for a day train, Coast daylight. While there was some look at a full Oakland to LA run its easier to do a oakland to SLO run and then turn around trains there. There is a brand new yard being built in SLO that can hold and lightly maintain 5+ sets with expansion plans for more


Tom Booth said:


> Sorry if this was addressed but why doesn't the plan or plans have the train continuing to San Francisco from Didiron (SJ), instead of heading to the East Bay? The market for an overnight train to LA would be greatest in SF I would think. Or split the train at San Jose?


Spliting the train is generally something we should try and avoid. Running into SF leaves the train in a weird position, there are no yard faclities or storage there for a train that long so it would need to dead head to at least SJ if not okaland. Sac should also get severed so then the only smart way to do it is San Jose onto okaland.


Willbridge said:


> That could be true on other routes, but the various rail-bus LAX<>Bay combinations are easier to deal with on daylight trips and so part of the market is already familiar with Amtrak. In marketing transit service, the most willing to try a new service are those who are already customers. The overnight train would replace the current bus/rail transfers at marginal hours and be more comfortable in coach than the current offering. The overnight train also backs up the corridor services for missed connections, early meetings, etc. just like the NEC overnight BOS<>WAS service.


The plans around starting a new service connecting LA to the bay via the coast sub do have speedups. 10 hours from LA union to okaland doesn't require much work and with a little more we could get that closer to 9.5 or 9. That would make it slightly slower than the bus+San Joaquin which take ~9.5hours but should be more reliably than the San Joaquin which often get held up.
As a 6ft4 dude the overnight bus from Santa Barbra to Oakland was rough. just not enough space and mine even on a random sunday night a few months back was full.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 20, 2022)

Tom Booth said:


> Sorry if this was addressed but why doesn't the plan or plans have the train continuing to San Francisco from Didiron (SJ), instead of heading to the East Bay? The market for an overnight train to LA would be greatest in SF I would think. Or split the train at San Jose?


Well, one thing that is pretty clear in this thread is that there really are no official plans for an overnight Northern California-Southern California overnight train. There is just speculation here about what such a service might look like.

The key issue in my mind on San Francisco versus East Bay is whether such a service would extend to Sacramento or even further or not. The "Spirit of California" was an LA-Sacramento train, and so had to go via the East Bay. There was a fairly serious proposal a number of years ago to extend the California Zephyr to Los Angeles via the Coast Line overnight with a third night, which also would have had to go via the East Bay.

As opposed to the speculation here, there have been on and off proposals at CalTrans to extend the morning/evening Surfliner to SLO to San Francisco (_not _Oakland/Emeryville) as a "Coast Daylight". At one point some historian at CalTrans or Amtrak had those morning north/evening south trains to SLO numbered 798/799 in anticipation of extending it. They've since been renumbered. I don't know the status of that proposal currently, I think it is back in the freezer.

My opinion is if the destination is the Bay Area, it ought to serve San Francisco. If Sacramento, or points north or east, the East Bay. I will say the single time I rode the Spirit of California, probably 80% of the passengers onboard at Oakland detrained there. Personally, I think with the frequency of the Capitol Corridor, there is no need to extend an overnight train to Sacramento. I think a good connections to the Capitol Corridor at San Jose for such a train would work fine.

I'll also take this opportunity to shill for one of my fonder fantasies, a second LA-Seattle train roughly 12 hours off from the Starlight.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 20, 2022)

zephyr17 said:


> As opposed to the speculation here, there have been on and off proposals at CalTrans to extend the morning/evening Surfliner to SLO to San Francisco (_not _Oakland/Emeryville) as a "Coast Daylight". At one point some historian at CalTrans or Amtrak had those morning north/evening south trains to SLO numbered 798/799 in anticipation of extending it. They've since been renumbered. I don't know the status of that proposal currently, I think it is back in the freezer.


Just finished up a study Coast Rail Corridor Study | slocog
theres also a draft EIR+ Amtrak planning dating to end of 2015. 
at this point we need a JPA and some funding+ rolling stock to get the service started.


zephyr17 said:


> I'll also take this opportunity to shill for one of my fonder fantasies, a second LA-Seattle train roughly 12 hours off from the Starlight.


2nd RT a day on the most popular LD routes would be nice. space 12 hours apart is the best way to do it so towns don't only get served in the middle of the night.


----------



## joelkfla (Sep 20, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> Spliting the train is generally something we should try and avoid. Running into SF leaves the train in a weird position, there are no yard faclities or storage there for a train that long so it would need to dead head to at least SJ if not okaland. Sac should also get severed so then the only smart way to do it is San Jose onto okaland.


Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it couldn't be built.

This vacant land south of Bayshore station looks like it may have been a train yard in the past. If it is owned by CalDOT, it could be rebuilt.



Also, CHSR says they intend to build a yard and light maintenance facility just south of SF city limits. Perhaps that could be accelerated.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 20, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it couldn't be built.
> 
> This vacant land south of Bayshore station looks like it may have been a train yard in the past. If it is owned by CalDOT, it could be rebuilt.
> View attachment 29693
> ...


That was a major, major yard, SP's Bayshore Yard. SP sold it (and not to CalTrans/PJPB) and it is being developed (after much hazardous waste remediation). I don't think it'll really be available as a rail facility any more.

Honestly, there are storage tracks at San Francisco, as well as platform tracks. CalTrain might have to make room, but it likely isn't insurmountable. The maintenance base of the train would have to be LA's 8th St Yard. All that would need to be done in San Francisco is a commissary top off, and the occasional very light repair.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 20, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it couldn't be built.


you aren't going to build a whole yard for 1-2RT a day


joelkfla said:


> Also, CHSR says they intend to build a yard and light maintenance facility just south of SF city limits. Perhaps that could be accelerated.


its not really a good location for a yard. theres a far better spot just south of Diridon which could support CAHSR, Caltrain, Capital Corridor and other services but CAHSR doesn't seem interested in which is a shame as Caltrain needs to move their shop.



zephyr17 said:


> Honestly, there are storage tracks at San Francisco, as well as platform tracks. CalTrain might have to make room, but it likely isn't insurmountable. The maintenance base of the train would have to be LA's 8th St Yard. All that would need to be done in San Francisco is a commissary top off, and the occasional very light repair.


Theres nothing that can fit a 10+ car train. which is likely to be the length of a sleeper train nor is there space to turn a train around.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 20, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> you aren't going to build a whole yard for 1-2RT a day
> 
> its not really a good location for a yard. theres a far better spot just south of Diridon which could support CAHSR, Caltrain, Capital Corridor and other services but CAHSR doesn't seem interested in which is a shame as Caltrain needs to move their shop.
> 
> ...


Where did you get a 10 car train length from?


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 20, 2022)

zephyr17 said:


> Where did you get a 10 car train length from?


I don't see them going for anything shorter especially if ends up being single level cars. They need 3-4 coaches, cafe/diner and 5+ sleepers plus 1 if not 2 locos


----------



## jis (Sep 21, 2022)

May not be for overnight service but still California seems to be striking out on its own, separate from any Amtrak strategy as far equipment goes...









Stadler unveils first hydrogen train for U.S., announces order for up to 29 more - Trains


BERLIN — The first hydrogen-powered trainset for use in the U.S. has been presented to its owners at the InnoTrans trade fair by manufacturer Stadler — which also announced an order for more of the equipment for use in Amtrak California intercity service. The two-car trainset was ordered by the...




www.trains.com


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 21, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> I don't see them going for anything shorter especially if ends up being single level cars. They need 3-4 coaches, cafe/diner and 5+ sleepers plus 1 if not 2 locos


That is more sleepers than any current Amtrak single level LD, except the combined Silver Meteor/Silver Star "Super Star".
The Spirit of California was 5 cars, baggage, one 10-6, a cafe, 2 coaches.

We are talking an Amtrak train, not recreating The Lark. I don't think Standard Oil of California is going to be reserving blocks of rooms on it.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 21, 2022)

zephyr17 said:


> That is more sleepers than any current Amtrak single level LD, except the combined Silver Meteor/Silver Star "Super Star".
> The Spirit of California was 5 cars, baggage, one 10-6, a cafe, 2 coaches.
> 
> We are talking an Amtrak train, not recreating The Lark. I don't think Standard Oil of California is going to be reserving blocks of rooms on it.


Right now theres quite a few daily buses and assuming its cheap enough you should be taken those riders. And if we are ordering new equipment thats not part of a larger order its far better to order a batch of 30 sleepers than 1 of 15-20. They'll be nearly the same cost


----------



## Herb (Sep 21, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> Just finished up a study Coast Rail Corridor Study | slocog
> theres also a draft EIR+ Amtrak planning dating to end of 2015.
> at this point we need a JPA and some funding+ rolling stock to get the service started.
> 
> 2nd RT a day on the most popular LD routes would be nice. space 12 hours apart is the best way to do it so towns don't only get served in the middle of the night.


I just read the Appendix F. I am amazed that the authors immediately threw out Conventional Electrification. I quote “ It is ASSUMED that overhead catenary along the UPRR Coast Corrodor would not be feasible durvto cost and required institutional agreements and May not be preferred due to visual impacts of construction”.
Where is the analytical analysis? 
Cost of construction would reduce operational expense, eliminate diesel pollution from combustion and spills, noise pollution from the engines and electrical centenary's are less visible than most power lines. 
This entire document has a tone of status quo.


----------



## Bonser (Sep 21, 2022)

zephyr17 said:


> Where did you get a 10 car train length from?





GDRRiley said:


> you aren't going to build a whole yard for 1-2RT a day
> 
> its not really a good location for a yard. theres a far better spot just south of Diridon which could support CAHSR, Caltrain, Capital Corridor and other services but CAHSR doesn't seem interested in which is a shame as Caltrain needs to move their shop.
> 
> ...


I agree with Zephyr17 - not so sure it would be a 10 car train - and I'm also not sure that that even if it was that long SF couldn't accommodate it. The distance between 4th and 5th St would seem to be long enough and that's what they have. But they couldn't turn it around.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 21, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> Right now theres quite a few daily buses and assuming its cheap enough you should be taken those riders. And if we are ordering new equipment thats not part of a larger order its far better to order a batch of 30 sleepers than 1 of 15-20. They'll be nearly the same cost


First, in terms of economics of scale, any sleepers should be piggybacked onto an Amtrak LD sleeper order, if at all possible, like many states did with Amtrak's corridor order. 

Second, there is there is only one overnight bus. The buses currently running would in some cases be replaced by a new "Coast Daylight" train rather than an overnight train.

Finally, I don't think you can really use daytime bus passengers as a basis for sleeping car occupancy. They are likely different demographics.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 21, 2022)

Herb said:


> I just read the Appendix F. I am amazed that the authors immediately threw out Conventional Electrification. I quote “ It is ASSUMED that overhead catenary along the UPRR Coast Corrodor would not be feasible durvto cost and required institutional agreements and May not be preferred due to visual impacts of construction”.
> Where is the analytical analysis?


UP hates the idea of wires, Really the state just needs to spend the ~2 to buy the coast sub. Then we can upgrade and electrify it for all our services without them having a say. From a sleeper to the coast daylight, to surfliner along with the regional services like caltrain and metrolink
Its a bit hard to jusfity Salinas to Santa barabra because we expect at best the section will have a train every 2 hours. But it should just be done to making rolling stock simpler


Herb said:


> Cost of construction would reduce operational expense, eliminate diesel pollution from combustion and spills, noise pollution from the engines and electrical centenary's are less visible than most power lines.


OCS pays for itself with frequent service quite quickly. Theres FRA reports from the 80s that say even with the increasing cost at the time the whole thing would start making money in 15 years even if we put 40,000 miles of mainline track under wires and bought brand new locos.


Herb said:


> This entire document has a tone of status quo.


thats how most caltrans documents are, as seen with the hydrogen train order they aren't willing to (nor do I think theres the polical push to force them) to go head to head with RR and using the power of CARB to force a move to OCS on Railroads in California 



Tom Booth said:


> I agree with Zephyr17 - not so sure it would be a 10 car train - and I'm also not sure that that even if it was that long SF couldn't accommodate it. The distance between 4th and 5th St would seem to be long enough and that's what they have. But they couldn't turn it around.


You'd need to rebuild of 4th and king to fit something that long. CAHSR may to fit coupled sets which would be 1400ft. You could then run cab cars or top and tail it to avoid turning.
The states been burned before by not ordering enough equipment and planning for longer trains, I don't see why they wouldn't have learned and ordered more than they need for the first few years but can certainly grow into.

using viewliners numbers (because venture versions would likely be similar)
7 sleeper, diner 3 coaches: 77 roometts, 14 bedrooms with 46 dinning seats and 200 coach passengers.


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 21, 2022)

zephyr17 said:


> First, in terms of economics of scale, any sleepers should be piggybacked onto an Amtrak LD sleeper order, if at all possible, like many states did with Amtrak's corridor order.


That may not be possible we don't know when amtrak is ordering and what. Theres talk of a order soon which the state would be ordering cars apart of but that could all fall apart.


zephyr17 said:


> Second, there is there is only one overnight bus. The buses currently running would in some cases be replaced by a new "Coast Daylight" train rather than an overnight train.


there is more than one, I'm also counting non amtrak buses, there was quite a few overnight buses offered by others which were often popular.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 21, 2022)

GDRRiley said:


> That may not be possible we don't know when amtrak is ordering and what. Theres talk of a order soon which the state would be ordering cars apart of but that could all fall apart.
> 
> there is more than one, I'm also counting non amtrak buses, there was quite a few overnight buses offered by others which were often popular.


Well, in any case there is near zero chance of any overnight California service in the foreseeable future, so the discussion is pretty much moot. There's a somewhat larger chance of a actual Amtrak LD order, IMHO.

My argument is really rooted in putting the fewest prerequisites in the way. The more prerequisites, the less chance of it ever happening. It would be better to start a service with minimum consists and build a constituency for an existing service, then expand it, than to hold out for a dream service with many obstacles in the way.

A five car train with one sleeper that runs push/pull and uses existing facilites is far better than a 10 or 12 car train that never gets off the drawing board (or an internet railfan site).


----------



## GDRRiley (Sep 21, 2022)

zephyr17 said:


> Well, in any case there is near zero chance of any overnight California service in the foreseeable future, so the discussion is pretty much moot. There's a somewhat larger chance of a actual Amtrak LD order, IMHO.


If/when a coast daylight JPA forms there would be all the organizational structure needed to create one. Then its down to rolling stock.


zephyr17 said:


> My argument is really rooted in putting the fewest prerequisites in the way. The more prerequisites, the less chance of it ever happening. It would be better to start a service with minimum consists and build a constituency for an existing service, then expand it, than to hold out for a dream service with many obstacles in the way.
> 
> A five car train with one sleeper that runs push/pull and uses existing facilites is far better than a 10 or 12 car train that never gets off the drawing board (or an internet railfan site).


Most of these barriers are because people think it needs to run into SF, which I disagree on.


----------



## Bonser (Oct 3, 2022)

This is from today's SF Chronicle. It seems there's a lot to be considered at the 4th and King site.








A big S.F. rail yard project has goals of transforming transit. Could it also bring more housing?


Development of 20 acres of Caltrain rail yards in San Francisco will begin after years of...




www.sfchronicle.com


----------



## GDRRiley (Oct 3, 2022)

Bonser said:


> This is from today's SF Chronicle. It seems there's a lot to be considered at the 4th and King site.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yep the redevelopment and preparations for transbay terminal are going to be large changes to the site. 
I assume they'll work to get 420m platforms on some of them for CAHSR


----------



## joelkfla (Oct 3, 2022)

Bonser said:


> This is from today's SF Chronicle. It seems there's a lot to be considered at the 4th and King site.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's paywalled. Are you a subscriber? Do you have the ability to "gift" a link?

And it doesn't show up in the Newsbank version of today's paper. Could it be a preview of tomorrow's paper?


----------



## Bonser (Oct 4, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> It's paywalled. Are you a subscriber? Do you have the ability to "gift" a link?
> 
> And it doesn't show up in the Newsbank version of today's paper. Could it be a preview of tomorrow's paper.



Sorry, my cut and paste as well as command v are not working. 5 yr old MacBook giving me problems.


----------



## BCL (Oct 5, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> It's paywalled. Are you a subscriber? Do you have the ability to "gift" a link?
> 
> And it doesn't show up in the Newsbank version of today's paper. Could it be a preview of tomorrow's paper?



You'll need to click on "Continue Reading" to expand to the full article.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...-could-it-also-bring-more-housing/ar-AA12xeKW


----------

