# Amtrak should have an overnight LA-Bay Area train



## ParanoidAndroid

https://www.ridecabin.com/

There's now on overnight bus from LA to San Franfrisco at a moderate price. It's time for Amtrak to step it up and bring back the Spirit of California. Preferably from San Diego to Sacramento along the coastal route.


----------



## TinCan782

There has been discussion (including here) in the past regarding a "Coast Daylight".  Google will return some results although nothing recent.


----------



## AutoTrDvr

Would not the "Coast Starlight" cover most of this journey as is, anyway?  Unless you're talking about altering the route to come directly up to San Francisco (ie western side of the bay).

That said, to be honest, I would think this is more suited for a High Speed Rail line (LAX <---> SFO).


----------



## BCL

AutoTrDvr said:


> Would not the "Coast Starlight" cover most of this journey as is, anyway?  Unless you're talking about altering the route to come directly up to San Francisco (ie western side of the bay).
> 
> That said, to be honest, I would think this is more suited for a High Speed Rail line (LAX <---> SFO).


I believe the question is whether this could be an overnight trip - and possibly one that doesn't take 13 hours to get from Martinez to LAUS.


----------



## BCL

It wouldn't be along the coast, but there's been talk for years about extending the San Joaquin all the way to LA.  The sticking point is the Tehachapi Loop, which is in the process of being double tracked now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6t3rouIkbM

Not sure if it would be practical to make it overnight though, since the staffer stations along the way would then need to open in the middle of the night, or they wouldn't offer baggage service to a closed station.  It shouldn't be an issue with an unstaffed station.


----------



## Anthony V

BCL said:


> It wouldn't be along the coast, but there's been talk for years about extending the San Joaquin all the way to LA.  The sticking point is the Tehachapi Loop, which is in the process of being double tracked now.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6t3rouIkbM
> 
> Not sure if it would be practical to make it overnight though, since the staffer stations along the way would then need to open in the middle of the night, or they wouldn't offer baggage service to a closed station.  It shouldn't be an issue with an unstaffed station.


Heavy freight traffic over the Tehachapi Pass currently precludes any passenger traffic from using the route (other than the occasional Coast Starlight detour), which is why the San Joaquin terminates at Bakersfield, with bus connections to SoCal. In the unlikely event that a regular passenger train operating over Tehachapi Pass, it would likely be just one round trip a day. Most of the San Joaquins would still require a bus connection to get to SoCal. OTOH, if the California HSR line is built between BFD and LA, the San Joaquins could use that dedicated passenger route to get to Los Angeles.


----------



## BCL

Anthony V said:


> Heavy freight traffic over the Tehachapi Pass currently precludes any passenger traffic from using the route (other than the occasional Coast Starlight detour), which is why the San Joaquin terminates at Bakersfield, with bus connections to SoCal. In the unlikely event that a regular passenger train operating over Tehachapi Pass, it would likely be just one round trip a day. Most of the San Joaquins would still require a bus connection to get to SoCal. OTOH, if the California HSR line is built between BFD and LA, the San Joaquins could use that dedicated passenger route to get to Los Angeles.


The current issue is that it's slow single-tracking through the loop.  I understand that part of the double-tracking is already complete as are several sidings.  That would really increase the amount of traffic that could go through the loop.


----------



## cpotisch

Here's my question: Why was it called the Coast Daylight if it made the trip overnight?


----------



## BCL

cpotisch said:


> Here's my question: Why was it called the Coast Daylight if it made the trip overnight?


It didn't make an overnight trip.


----------



## cpotisch

BCL said:


> It didn't make an overnight trip.


Thanks. I was confused because the Daylight was brought up in the very first reply to this topic.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

AutoTrDvr said:


> Would not the "Coast Starlight" cover most of this journey as is, anyway?  Unless you're talking about altering the route to come directly up to San Francisco (ie western side of the bay).
> 
> That said, to be honest, I would think this is more suited for a High Speed Rail line (LAX <---> SFO).


I believe the latest on CASHR now has direct LA to San Fran service now at 2040! I would probably be seeking alternatives.


----------



## cpotisch

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I believe the latest on CASHR now has direct LA to San Fran service now at 2040! I would probably be seeking alternatives.


And that's assuming the people of California are still alive at that point and haven't died of drought or flooding.


----------



## Anthony V

BCL said:


> The current issue is that it's slow single-tracking through the loop.  I understand that part of the double-tracking is already complete as are several sidings.  That would really increase the amount of traffic that could go through the loop.


I hope you're right. It would be nice to have a regular passenger train going over the Tehachapi Loop, not only for scenery, but also for connections that are not bus-based.


----------



## BCL

Anthony V said:


> I hope you're right. It would be nice to have a regular passenger train going over the Tehachapi Loop, not only for scenery, but also for connections that are not bus-based.


There are articles on the double tracking.  I don't really have a great lay of the land, but it looks like the loop itself is now double-tracked, as are several of the segments around it.  I remember some talk about possibly extending some San Joaquin trains to LA if they could negotiate it through UP.  Having that extra capacity would be nice, but it might be something that UP and BNSF would rather give to more freight slots.

https://csengineermag.com/article/double-tracking-in-the-tehachapi-mountains/

https://www.theloopnewspaper.com/story/2017/06/10/local-news/moving-mountains-to-ease-train-traffic-jams/3631.html


----------



## CCC1007

BCL said:


> There are articles on the double tracking.  I don't really have a great lay of the land, but it looks like the loop itself is now double-tracked, as are several of the segments around it.  I remember some talk about possibly extending some San Joaquin trains to LA if they could negotiate it through UP.  Having that extra capacity would be nice, but it might be something that UP and BNSF would rather give to more freight slots.
> https://csengineermag.com/article/double-tracking-in-the-tehachapi-mountains/
> https://www.theloopnewspaper.com/story/2017/06/10/local-news/moving-mountains-to-ease-train-traffic-jams/3631.html


So from what I can see, the sidings of marcel and walong were connected, but walong hasn’t been connected to woodford with double track yet.


----------



## cpotisch

Is the Tehachapi detour particularly scenic or anything or is it just that it's a rare detour so people get hyped up about it?


----------



## ehbowen

cpotisch said:


> Is the Tehachapi detour particularly scenic or anything or is it just that it's a rare detour so people get hyped up about it?


Mostly the latter, but there's substantially more opportunity for intermediate local traffic through the Central Valley than there is along the Coast Line anywhere north of Santa Barbara.


----------



## Anthony V

ehbowen said:


> Mostly the latter, but there's substantially more opportunity for intermediate local traffic through the Central Valley than there is along the Coast Line anywhere north of Santa Barbara.


While I have yet to ride a Coast Starlight Tehachapi detour in person, I watched a video of a ride shot from the rear platform of a private observation car, and thought parts of it were scenic. There were some parts of the ride that included views reminiscent of those seen when riding the California Zephyr through the Rockies, minus the snow-capped mountains.


----------



## leemell

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I believe the latest on CASHR now has direct LA to San Fran service now at 2040! I would probably be seeking alternatives.


No, 2033 for the full Phase I.  2025 for Bakersfield to SF.


----------



## BCL

cpotisch said:


> Is the Tehachapi detour particularly scenic or anything or is it just that it's a rare detour so people get hyped up about it?


I think it's a chance at some serious rail fanning.  I don't believe there are any other spiral loops operating in the US other than heritage railroads.


----------



## BCL

ehbowen said:


> Mostly the latter, but there's substantially more opportunity for intermediate local traffic through the Central Valley than there is along the Coast Line anywhere north of Santa Barbara.


I think they could probably do it in 8 hours.  I wonder how many people don't think about using rail because they would need a bus transfer at Bakersfield.


----------



## railgeekteen

Yes, but seems like CA wants to focus on high speed rail.


----------



## sttom

The Spirit of California from what I have dug up left LA late in the day and arrived in Sacramento in the morning. Amtrak should re open it and similar overnight trains with the stripped down accommodations. Like adapting lie flat business seats and bringing back open sections. I say this because Amtrak needs to find a way to bring more people onto trains. Having overnight trains with stripped down accommodation with a similar upgrade cost to business class, that would be an incentive to take a train on a longer trip. 2-4 hours is one thing, but anything longer than that needs to be high speed or an overnight train. Since Amtrak has no plans for the former, bringing a low cost version of the latter is a viable option. The problem is getting the money and not scrapping the Amfleet cars.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

sttom said:


> The Spirit of California from what I have dug up left LA late in the day and arrived in Sacramento in the morning. Amtrak should re open it and similar overnight trains with the stripped down accommodations. Like adapting lie flat business seats and bringing back open sections. I say this because Amtrak needs to find a way to bring more people onto trains. Having overnight trains with stripped down accommodation with a similar upgrade cost to business class, that would be an incentive to take a train on a longer trip. 2-4 hours is one thing, but anything longer than that needs to be high speed or an overnight train. Since Amtrak has no plans for the former, bringing a low cost version of the latter is a viable option. The problem is getting the money and not scrapping the Amfleet cars.


http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19830424&amp;item=0051


----------



## chakk

Anthony V said:


> I hope you're right. It would be nice to have a regular passenger train going over the Tehachapi Loop, not only for scenery, but also for connections that are not bus-based.


Passenger train routing with current track requires nearly twice as much time between LA and Bakersfield as the bus connection.


----------



## west point

best overnight train?  Leave LAX late get to San Jose split train and put SFO cars onto rear of Caltrain to SFO rest of train to Oakland.  This might not be possible if  all Caltrain become EMU.


----------



## sttom

Besides trying to save money and scrounge a few extra rider, I never understood why Amtrak (or any train operator really) decided to split trains. When I was on a train that split in Poland, it added at least 20 minutes. Some people will ***** about that at the outset. If Amtrak were to start an overnight express service, it should just pick one city pair and live with it. It could always try to add a train to Sacramento and connect Oakland that way if it really is/becomes a priority or the other way around for that matter. Also if this would be just overnight service, would it also lack food service? If it does, adding any delay like splitting a train could be seen as a negative to taking the train over some other form of transportation.


----------



## Asher

cpotisch said:


> Is the Tehachapi detour particularly scenic or anything or is it just that it's a rare detour so people get hyped up about it?


If you like windmills the hills are full of them.


----------



## jiml

anumberone said:


> If you like windmills the hills are full of them.


Ditto the Sunset route east of LA, but usually in the dark.


----------



## Anderson

I found it to be beautiful, but I think it helps that the scenery is also rare (and so "fresh" for frequent riders).


----------



## ScouseAndy

Is Tehachapi busy 24/7? Or could a over night amtrak train sneak through in the early hours either way?


----------



## sttom

ScouseAndy said:


> Is Tehachapi busy 24/7? Or could a over night amtrak train sneak through in the early hours either way?



Yes Tehachapi Pass is busy 24/7/365.
-UP, Whenever there is the prospect of a passenger train.


----------



## JustOnce

sttom said:


> Yes Tehachapi Pass is busy 24/7/365.
> -UP, Whenever there is the prospect of a passenger train.


 
It was hard for me to understand at first, but freights just don't quit for the night. Often a train will be run for 12 hours straight (unless it reaches a crew-change point on time), be recrewed possibly with several hours delay (depending on crew availability and how busy the crew vans are) and sent out again. Things are a little different if the train stops to "work" a yard: then the yard crew takes over, builds the train, and a road crew is called to take it out again. Along the way, it might have to wait for unfavorable signals at single track sections and diamond crossings.

In areas with higher passenger traffic, the freights often run during the overnight hours only.


----------



## sttom

JustOnce said:


> In areas with higher passenger traffic, the freights often run during the overnight hours only.



The railways have been dragging their collective feet over using Tehachapi Pass since the state started pushing to expand Amtrak California back in the 90s. And it's in an unpopulated comparatively speaking. Yeah their might be traffic, but rail traffic is declining thanks to us burning less coal. So it's not beyond reason to wonder if the railways aren't lying when they say literally every line in the country is at 150% of capacity and growing or whatever they are saying.


----------



## JustOnce

sttom said:


> The railways have been dragging their collective feet over using Tehachapi Pass since the state started pushing to expand Amtrak California back in the 90s. And it's in an unpopulated comparatively speaking. Yeah their might be traffic, but rail traffic is declining thanks to us burning less coal. So it's not beyond reason to wonder if the railways aren't lying when they say literally every line in the country is at 150% of capacity and growing or whatever they are saying.


It's still a single track bottleneck near Tunnel 9 up to the loop and I believe it's ~25 mph. It's shared with BNSF due to an earlier SP-era trackage rights agreement. It's still UP's (and BNSF's) main link between SF and the Pacific Northwest and the southern transcontinental routes. FRA crossing data suggests 30 trains a day. Knowing how CTC dispatchers "fleet" groups of trains running in the same direction before switching the running direction of the line, I imagine they could get 2 Amtraks a day through, but Amtrak wouldn't be happy with timekeeping performance. If Amtrak's the fifth westbound to arrive and the line's set for eastbounds, Amtrak will have to wait for all the eastbound to pass and then follow the 4 westbounds until a passing opportunity may open up. Also I've heard some rumblings that they don't run trains during the hottest parts of the day.

If you really want to know how active the line is, watch the live cam. It has 12 hour rewind so you only need to visit twice a day and skim the footage rather than watch all day.

I agree that some host railroads may want too much in the way of improvements for additional passenger trains but sometimes it's warranted. CSX wants full double tracking between Springfield and Worcester for any expansion beyond 448/449. I thought this was bunk until I actually looked at the symbol guide and realized there were a lot more daily trains than I thought. CSX also wants a third track on Long Bridge (DC-VA) before additional trains are added. I'll partially agree with that one although I do believe there are more train slots, just not during daylight hours.


----------



## sttom

That still doesn't mean we should just take the railroad's word for it when they have show to be intransigent. I wish California was a bit more logical and would just threaten the railways with eminent domain to get better deals on upgrading the line. I doubt UP and BNSF would be willing to let that happen vs allowing the state into a fairer deal for added passenger trains.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

sttom said:


> That still doesn't mean we should just take the railroad's word for it when they have show to be intransigent. I wish California was a bit more logical and would just threaten the railways with eminent domain to get better deals on upgrading the line. I doubt UP and BNSF would be willing to let that happen vs allowing the state into a fairer deal for added passenger trains.



Doesn't have to be Tehachapi, if Amtrak can run along the Coast Starlight/Pacific Coast route overnight, it works for me. It's ridiculous there's only one train between Los Angeles and the Bay Area (can't even say San Francisco because there are ZERO trains between Los Angeles and San Fran).


----------



## sttom

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Doesn't have to be Tehachapi, if Amtrak can run along the Coast Starlight/Pacific Coast route overnight, it works for me. It's ridiculous there's only one train between Los Angeles and the Bay Area (can't even say San Francisco because there are ZERO trains between Los Angeles and San Fran).



I've wondered about adding a second run of the Starlight. It does connect five different urban areas to each other and they don't really have that great of connections to being with. A coast line overnight train would also work. I'm suspect as to if running an over night train into SF would even be worth it considering it lacks a connection with any other part of Amtrak. I am also against splitting the train because that would take time while people are awake and the loss of the cafe car on one leg could be a reason to not take the train.


----------



## west point

This will never happen but ------- Run a overnight train up the coast Split off the rear potion and attach it to a Gilroy train to downtown San Francisco. Rest of train to Oakland / Emeryville or maybe even Sacramento. Gilroy train because San Jose Caltrain service will become probably all EMU . Might not be all EMU if traffic becomes greater than planned. Another problem is the short platforms on the Caltrain route but that problem could be mitigated ?

Reverse process and add SFC cars to south bound at SJC.

Equipment could be serviced every other day at LAX

Once service to Transbay terminal begins then probably need to be separate train ?


----------



## desertflyer

I do think an overnight train would be very popular. I, for one, would take it often. Especially if it served downtown SF to downtown LA. Unfortunately, the bus company mentioned in the OP (Cabin) has gone out of business.


----------



## railiner

desertflyer said:


> . Unfortunately, the bus company mentioned in the OP (Cabin) has gone out of business.



Sorry to hear of that...but not surprised. It sounded like a good idea, but the market has shown it not to be.


----------



## Watsonville

JustOnce said:


> It's still a single track bottleneck near Tunnel 9 up to the loop and I believe it's ~25 mph. It's shared with BNSF due to an earlier SP-era trackage rights agreement. It's still UP's (and BNSF's) main link between SF and the Pacific Northwest and the southern transcontinental routes. FRA crossing data suggests 30 trains a day. Knowing how CTC dispatchers "fleet" groups of trains running in the same direction before switching the running direction of the line, I imagine they could get 2 Amtraks a day through, but Amtrak wouldn't be happy with timekeeping performance. If Amtrak's the fifth westbound to arrive and the line's set for eastbounds, Amtrak will have to wait for all the eastbound to pass and then follow the 4 westbounds until a passing opportunity may open up. Also I've heard some rumblings that they don't run trains during the hottest parts of the day.
> 
> If you really want to know how active the line is, watch the live cam. It has 12 hour rewind so you only need to visit twice a day and skim the footage rather than watch all day.
> 
> I agree that some host railroads may want too much in the way of improvements for additional passenger trains but sometimes it's warranted. CSX wants full double tracking between Springfield and Worcester for any expansion beyond 448/449. I thought this was bunk until I actually looked at the symbol guide and realized there were a lot more daily trains than I thought. CSX also wants a third track on Long Bridge (DC-VA) before additional trains are added. I'll partially agree with that one although I do believe there are more train slots, just not during daylight hours.



I've read that they have started double tracking part of the Tehachapi over the last 7 years. Since the state pays for part of the upgrade, wouldn't it make sense to allow passenger trains on that route that could connect up with the future high speed rail in Bakersfield?


----------



## Eric S

Watsonville said:


> I've read that they have started double tracking part of the Tehachapi over the last 7 years. Since the state pays for part of the upgrade, wouldn't it make sense to allow passenger trains on that route that could connect up with the future high speed rail in Bakersfield?



Do you have a citation or link for that upgrade project? I was unaware that the state was funding any sort of capacity expansion in that area.


----------



## sttom

We would just need the equipment and the railroad not being squirrelly and we could have it. Or the state being smart enough to not expect a JPA to be formed to handle it.


----------



## Watsonville

Eric S said:


> Do you have a citation or link for that upgrade project? I was unaware that the state was funding any sort of capacity expansion in that area.


Here's the link to the article

https://www.theloopnewspaper.com/st...s-to-ease-train-traffic-jams/3631.html?m=true


----------



## TheTuck

The LA-BFD buses do a fine job since the train ride over the tehachapis would take twice as long (on a good day). For a daylight corridor service like we have now, trains don't make sense (not to mention UP would balk). An overnight service wouldn't be as bad.

A better idea would be if California bought the coastline between San Jose and Moorpark and built a modern conventional passenger railroad from Norcal to Socal. This could allow a number of combination surfliner/capitols or daylights/larks to run between north and south. Of course it wouldn't be cheap and would need lots of upgrades. But if Caltrans really wants a useful rail transportation system, this is where I'd start.


----------



## Palmetto

The title of this thread should read: Amtrak should re-instate _The Spirit of California_. I forget how long that train ran, but it was pretty short-lived.


----------



## Anderson

It was there for about two years (spread over three FYs). It went away because...well, bluntly, Jerry Brown was a dolt and decided to try to become Senator instead of staying as Governor.


----------



## seat38a

Palmetto said:


> The title of this thread should read: Amtrak should re-instate _The Spirit of California_. I forget how long that train ran, but it was pretty short-lived.





Anderson said:


> It was there for about two years (spread over three FYs). It went away because...well, bluntly, Jerry Brown was a dolt and decided to try to become Senator instead of staying as Governor.



Maybe you should ask the tax payers of California first.  You know it's us who's going to end up having to pay 100% of the cost under current rules. Frankly, our tax money are better spent on other in State rail projects than some overnight sleeper train.


----------



## sttom

Honestly, CalTrans and my legislature should put up or shut up when it comes to Amtrak California. California should have 200+ Intercity train trips per day including a handful of overnight trains. I'm ok with paying a little extra in taxes if it means we have an intercity rail network to rival countries like Poland. And that's something that most people would be fine with if someone made the case for it.


----------



## Anderson

sttom said:


> Honestly, CalTrans and my legislature should put up or shut up when it comes to Amtrak California. California should have 200+ Intercity train trips per day including a handful of overnight trains. I'm ok with paying a little extra in taxes if it means we have an intercity rail network to rival countries like Poland. And that's something that most people would be fine with if someone made the case for it.


Depending on how you define it, 200+ might be overkill, but I think that "clock" service on most of the major routes and significant north-south connectivity without forcing a mode shift (namely plugging the hole with buses). The main problem, at present, is that you have two ways to do that and both involve major time-killers (Tehachapi Pass is beautiful but slow, and so is the Coast Line).

A pair of north-south overnight trains (one on each line) would be nice. But it's got practical issues in both cases. I guess the question is what the economics of a "baseline" overnight train with a significant complement of sleepers (the _Spirit of California_ was notably mis-equipped...it had two sleepers that apparently had a tendency to sell out and a batch of coaches that went empty for much of the route; anecdotally, the train seems to have needed another few sleepers since there are only so many pax who are going to willingly go overnight in an Amfleet I) and a cafe.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

If I was a Californian, I'd trade a few San Joaquins for an overnight LA-Bay Area train along the CS route.


----------



## jis

The problem in the US is a shortage of Sleeping Car inventory.

Another problem is the inevitable desire to dress up a Sleeper service like a Christmas Tree, with progressively more features that are really quite unnecessary for just an overnight trip, thus unnecessarily increasing the cost of the service.

Once we can start addressing both of these problems it might get easier to deploy more single night overnight service where trackage access problems can be resolved cost effectively. That problem hangs over all service whether overnight or day time.


----------



## Investroll

I agree that an overnight train from SF to LA (as well as DC to Boston) would be great. In terms of the sleeping cars, Amtrak should put in a bunch of airline business-class style lie-flat seats in first class without the separate bunks or showers. They could comfortably fit many more of these into a coach than roomettes, and they could retrofit an existing coach quickly at reasonable cost. It would make overnight trips desirable for business and other travelers. Having an 8 to 10 hour trip would allow enough time for a good night sleep.


----------



## seat38a

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If I was a Californian, I'd trade a few San Joaquins for an overnight LA-Bay Area train along the CS route.


 But your not, and I'm pretty sure a super majority of voters in California, including myself would not agree to get rid of couple of San Joaquins which benefit the San Joaquin Valley, and also a service that I also use, plus agree to more taxes so we can have random visitors have a joyride on our dime.



jis said:


> The problem in the US is a shortage of Sleeping Car inventory.
> 
> Another problem is the inevitable desire to dress up a Sleeper service like a Christmas Tree, with progressively more features that are really quite unnecessary for just an overnight trip, thus unnecessarily increasing the cost of the service.
> 
> Once we can start addressing both of these problems it might get easier to deploy more single night overnight service where trackage access problems can be resolved cost effectively. That problem hangs over all service whether overnight or day time.


Oh but you know everyone is going to want a dining car with fresh cooked eggs delivered to their beds, somewhere near Burbank. Plus also be allowed to stay in bed after arriving at LAUS until they are ready to leave on their time.



Investroll said:


> I agree that an overnight train from SF to LA (as well as DC to Boston) would be great. In terms of the sleeping cars, Amtrak should put in a bunch of airline business-class style lie-flat seats in first class without the separate bunks or showers. They could comfortably fit many more of these into a coach than roomettes, and they could retrofit an existing coach quickly at reasonable cost. It would make overnight trips desirable for business and other travelers. Having an 8 to 10 hour trip would allow enough time for a good night sleep.


I'd be happy with Delta One or Polaris style seats, with maybe curtains like the open sections used to have.


----------



## cirdan

sttom said:


> Yes Tehachapi Pass is busy 24/7/365.
> -UP, Whenever there is the prospect of a passenger train.



so a train that runs only in leap years then


----------



## sttom

Anderson said:


> Depending on how you define it, 200+ might be overkill, but I think that "clock" service on most of the major routes and significant north-south connectivity without forcing a mode shift (namely plugging the hole with buses). The main problem, at present, is that you have two ways to do that and both involve major time-killers (Tehachapi Pass is beautiful but slow, and so is the Coast Line).
> 
> A pair of north-south overnight trains (one on each line) would be nice. But it's got practical issues in both cases. I guess the question is what the economics of a "baseline" overnight train with a significant complement of sleepers (the _Spirit of California_ was notably mis-equipped...it had two sleepers that apparently had a tendency to sell out and a batch of coaches that went empty for much of the route; anecdotally, the train seems to have needed another few sleepers since there are only so many pax who are going to willingly go overnight in an Amfleet I) and a cafe.


My definition of trip would be round trip, sorry I didn't put that. But the legislature needs to put money where it's mouth is. 

To have hourly service along the busier parts of the existing lines would lead to about 20 round trips per day on the Capitol and Surfliner along with 40 along the San Joaquins if there are 20 trips to each end of the line. That's 80 trips right there. 

Add in 12 for service to Redding, 12 down the Coast, including a couple overnighters, 12 down Tehachapi, 5 Reno trains, 5 Salinas trains, 10 Del Montes, 3 over the Shasta routew add 59 more (total 139) This doesn't include a Redwood route which could become a reality of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge gets rebuilt with a rail link. That could easily become another hourly corridor over some segment of it. 

Adding another 60 wouldn't be hard if we through in express service, limited stop trains and locals like what are planned on the NEC to lines like the Surfliner or Capitol. 

I get that this can't happen overnight (pun intended) but this state needs a bold push for rail. It's already faster to take the Capitol from where I live to Sacramento than it is to drive. As time goes on this problem will only get worse. The state needs to get off it's collective backside and live up to its its talk.


----------



## coventry801

I really wish there is an overnight [ San Francisco - San Jose - Los Angeles - San Diego ] through train


----------



## Bonser

coventry801 said:


> I really wish there is an overnight [ San Francisco - San Jose - Los Angeles - San Diego ] through train


 
Particularly if the train left from San Francisco instead of the East Bay. Like it used to.


----------



## IndyLions

What would a reverse Coast Starlight SEA-LA schedule look like.


----------



## railiner

IndyLions said:


> What would a reverse Coast Starlight SEA-LA schedule look like.


Would be very nice if they could run both...


----------



## jimdex

Amtrak operated a California-funded overnight train between Sacramento, the Bay Area and Los Angeles between 1981 and 1983 called the Spirit of California. Here's what Wikipedia says about it: "The new train departed Los Angeles at 8:25 PM, arriving in Sacramento at 9:30 AM the next morning. The southbound train departed at 7:55 PM and arrived at 9:00 AM the next day. "


----------



## west point

Once enough equipment becomes available what would be idea for a Lax departure at 1900. Arrive at a leisurely pace at San Jose at 0600. At San Jose split the train and front part continue to Sacramento arriving at 0930. Back a Caltrain to rear portion and arrive San Fran at 0800. If not Caltrain back one of the Amtrak AEM-7s to the rear portion. If traffic warrants run two sections one each to san Fran and one to Sacramento.

Reverse SFO section dropped at SJC and Sacramento section backs onto that section. Could even run separate sections at high travel times and combine at low season.


----------



## Anderson

What's your proposed SB timing? I ask because the desirable arrival slots are a bit narrower than desirable departure slots...you probably have a 4-5 hour range for after-work departures [1700 or 1800 to 2200 or 2300] whereas arrivals are a somewhat tighter fit [0600 can be pushing it, as can 0900].


----------



## west point

South bound leave San Fran 1900 , Sacramento 1700, San Jose 2100, Arrive LAX 0800. San Diego does not appear necessary for thru cars. That would really prevent proper servicing of the rail cars in LAX.


----------



## Bonser

west point said:


> Once enough equipment becomes available what would be idea for a Lax departure at 1900. Arrive at a leisurely pace at San Jose at 0600. At San Jose split the train and front part continue to Sacramento arriving at 0930. Back a Caltrain to rear portion and arrive San Fran at 0800. If not Caltrain back one of the Amtrak AEM-7s to the rear portion. If traffic warrants run two sections one each to san Fran and one to Sacramento.
> 
> Reverse SFO section dropped at SJC and Sacramento section backs onto that section. Could even run separate sections at high travel times and combine at low season.


The key is SF arrival and departure.


----------



## Anderson

Tom Booth said:


> The key is SF arrival and departure.


I agree that it is important, but in the scheme of things I think the handling of the "whole" Bay Area is important, San Francisco proper "only" has 885k-ish residents. You've got more people living in the East Bay than on the Peninsula, and San Jose is bigger than San Francisco (Oakland is smaller, but I believe that has as much to do with being a relatively less consolidated jurisdiction as anything). This isn't to say that your path for getting from the East Bay to the Peninsula is particularly smooth (that _really_ leaves something to be desired in terms of some transit connections)...but I don't think you can take arrival/departure times at 4th and King as being the end-all/be-all here.

(Also worth considering in this is how ridership between LAX and Santa Barbara will play here. I seem to recall that such was a mixed bag for the _Spirit of California_: It generated a lot of sales but also caused a few capacity issues.)

Likewise, I suspect that having a set of stops en route from downtown SF to San Jose would generate significant ridership.


----------



## Bonser

Anderson said:


> I agree that it is important, but in the scheme of things I think the handling of the "whole" Bay Area is important, San Francisco proper "only" has 885k-ish residents. You've got more people living in the East Bay than on the Peninsula, and San Jose is bigger than San Francisco (Oakland is smaller, but I believe that has as much to do with being a relatively less consolidated jurisdiction as anything). This isn't to say that your path for getting from the East Bay to the Peninsula is particularly smooth (that _really_ leaves something to be desired in terms of some transit connections)...but I don't think you can take arrival/departure times at 4th and King as being the end-all/be-all here.
> 
> (Also worth considering in this is how ridership between LAX and Santa Barbara will play here. I seem to recall that such was a mixed bag for the _Spirit of California_: It generated a lot of sales but also caused a few capacity issues.)
> 
> Likewise, I suspect that having a set of stops en route from downtown SF to San Jose would generate significant ridership.



More stops between SF-SJ would also be more time consuming and it's pretty easy to get from any town in between to either SF or SJ on Caltrains. I get your points on demographics in the Bay Area but San Francisco (and the peninsula) has vastly more visiting business people and tourists. Because of that I think an SF stop is essential to a successful Bay Area-LA train.


----------



## MARC Rider

Tom Booth said:


> More stops between SF-SJ would also be more time consuming and it's pretty easy to get from any town in between to either SF or SJ on Caltrains. I get your points on demographics in the Bay Area but San Francisco (and the peninsula) has vastly more visiting business people and tourists. Because of that I think an SF stop is essential to a successful Bay Area-LA train.


The last time I went to San Francisco, I flew to Oakland. Even if you fly to SFO, it's not exactly in the heart of the city, in fact, it's a pretty long ride, even if shorter than the trip from the Oakland Airport. The Bay Area is so spread out, no matter where you let people off, it's going to be inconvenient for somebody. The same is true for the LA area. In fact, come to think of it, an overnight train to the Bay area really should start in San Diego. Not only do you get additional business from San Diego, you can give the people in Orange County a one-seat ride to the Bay area, too.


----------



## Bonser

MARC Rider said:


> The last time I went to San Francisco, I flew to Oakland. Even if you fly to SFO, it's not exactly in the heart of the city, in fact, it's a pretty long ride, even if shorter than the trip from the Oakland Airport. The Bay Area is so spread out, no matter where you let people off, it's going to be inconvenient for somebody. The same is true for the LA area. In fact, come to think of it, an overnight train to the Bay area really should start in San Diego. Not only do you get additional business from San Diego, you can give the people in Orange County a one-seat ride to the Bay area, too.


San Francisco is one of the smallest (49 sq miles) and densest (885,000) cities in the U.S. It's nothing at all like LA.


----------



## MARC Rider

Tom Booth said:


> San Francisco is one of the smallest (49 sq miles) and densest (885,000) cities in the U.S. It's nothing at all like LA.


I said that the Bay Area was spread out. San Francisco is just a small part of the Bay area.


----------



## sttom

I personally wouldn't say having a one seat trip from San Diego to San Francisco/Sacramento would be necessary or even advisable at the start of an overnight service. Right now, a bigger drain on ridership is having to take a bus most of the way. California could sustain way more trains than it presently has, but local politics isn't friendly to big projects here.


----------



## toddinde

ParanoidAndroid said:


> Cabin
> 
> There's now on overnight bus from LA to San Franfrisco at a moderate price. It's time for Amtrak to step it up and bring back the Spirit of California. Preferably from San Diego to Sacramento along the coastal route.


Yes, this makes a lot of sense. Night trains are returning and expanding throughout the world. For those interested in the concept, google the Caledonian Sleeper which runs from London to Scotland overnight. Many are tired of air travel, and an overnight train could make easy connections to Napa, Sonoma and the Sierras. People are looking to lessen their carbon footprint and also avoid the stress and hassles of flying. A night train from San Diego to Sacramento via the coast line, with great service, would be very popular. Of course, until the late ‘60s, the Southern Pacific has its luxury overnight Lark from LA to San Francisco. While the SP downgraded service in the mid-sixties, the Lark was luxury and popular through the 1950s, and was the way to travel overnight along the Coast Line. With the many rail and thruway connections including CalTrain, this would be a winner. A sleeper bus is a poor substitute for a train, but illustrates that there is a market for those who want to sleep while they travel to have a full day at their destination.


----------

