# A more passenger-friendly 'Coast Starlight' timetable



## unitedstatesfan (Aug 12, 2016)

The present 'Coast Starlight' timetable has its advantages, especially with the 'tourist friendly' departure times from Los Angeles Union Station and Seattle King Street.

However, the late arrivals in both (compounded by unpunctuality fairly often) are relatively unattractive.

Perhaps commuter trains such as the 'Sounders' around Seattle and Metrolink around Los Angeles are a hindrance, but wouldn't it be sensible to bring forward each departure by an hour?

Northbound, as well as hopefully enabling an earlier Seattle arrival, it would also mean a more passenger-friendly arrival and departure time from the major intermediate stop of Sacramento.

Of course it may make connections from San Diego northbound challenging.

What do others think (I'm only a foreigner, but one who has travelled extensively by rail worldwide)? As Amtrak's most popular LD train (average patronage each way of about 620 passengers, though not all aboard at once), it deserves the best possible timetable.


----------



## TiBike (Aug 12, 2016)

An hour earlier would be great, from a Californian perspective (assuming the San Diego connection is solvable). Two hours better. Three fantastic. But that's what the Coast Daylight plan is all about (except that wouldn't do much good north of Sacramento).

But yeah, I've always wondered why the northbound departure is so late.


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Aug 12, 2016)

I am okay with the current schedule, but I don't think #14's departure should be a bit earlier. A departure of three hours earlier northbound is unrealistic from my statement, as the departure out of Klamath Falls heading north would be at around 5am, which is an hour earlier than 1970s CS schedule. 8am departure is early enough for me. Anything earlier than that is not very good, as that may require me forgoing sleep the night before (or sleeping that afternoon) just to catch #14 out of my home station, or having to detrain on the wee hours of morning when coming up from California on the homebound trip, which I see these two cases as unrealistic.


----------



## BCL (Aug 12, 2016)

I'm pretty sure that Union Pacific has a say in this too.

The commuter trains shouldn't be that big an issue. They're faster and shorter that freight trains and generally travel at about the same speed as Amtrak. I thought that the issue with freight trains is that they travel slower and that creates issues dealing with that.

I would note that Caltrain owns tracks around San Jose that the Coast Starlight uses. There's probably not much issue with one train a day and barely any overlap of the tracks.


----------



## unitedstatesfan (Aug 12, 2016)

bmjhagen9426 said:


> I am okay with the current schedule, but I don't think #14's departure should be a bit earlier. A departure of three hours earlier northbound is unrealistic from my statement, as the departure out of Klamath Falls heading north would be at around 5am, which is an hour earlier than 1970s CS schedule. 8am departure is early enough for me. Anything earlier than that is not very good, as that may require me forgoing sleep the night before (or sleeping that afternoon) just to catch #14 out of my home station, or having to detrain on the wee hours of morning when coming up from California on the homebound trip, which I see these two cases as unrealistic.


Worldwide, 0715 hours (one hour earlier than at present for the departure of train 14 northbound from Klamath Falls) is hardly the 'wee hours of the morning.'

Plenty of people can go to bed if need be at 2100 hours and wake up at say 0530 or 0600 to catch an 0715 hours train. Mind you, I don't know how far you live from the Klamath Falls station.


----------



## A Voice (Aug 12, 2016)

An hour earlier departure of the Coast Starlight from Los Angeles would break a connection from train 3, the westbound Southwest Chief, which arrives at 8:15.


----------



## bmjhagen9426 (Aug 12, 2016)

unitedstatesfan said:


> bmjhagen9426 said:
> 
> 
> > I am okay with the current schedule, but I don't think #14's departure should be a bit earlier. A departure of three hours earlier northbound is unrealistic from my statement, as the departure out of Klamath Falls heading north would be at around 5am, which is an hour earlier than 1970s CS schedule. 8am departure is early enough for me. Anything earlier than that is not very good, as that may require me forgoing sleep the night before (or sleeping that afternoon) just to catch #14 out of my home station, or having to detrain on the wee hours of morning when coming up from California on the homebound trip, which I see these two cases as unrealistic.
> ...


I only live like three miles from the station. Granted, I can get to/from the station by taxicab in 10 minutes, so getting to/from the station is no big deal. And I can deal with a 7am departure good enough. 6am, probably, 5am, might be a bit too early. Forgot to mention, if #14's departure is made earlier by two or three hours, the connection from #3 is broken.


----------



## seat38a (Aug 12, 2016)

Lets also not forget, that the CS sched is blended in with 3 corridors.

Surfliner: Between train 763 and 769.

Capitol Corridor:

San Jose: Last train going north after train 548

Oakland North: Between 548 and 550

Cascades:

Between 516 and 508 going north

The CS seems to fill in what would be big gaps in the corridor between trains, which I'm guessing helps the corridor with ridership by giving people more options and also helps to increase riders on the CS. Having seem and also been on the CS from end to end. The number of people boarding where it shares the route with the corridors is huge (Just from observations). LAX to SBA and PDX north seems to be pretty busy.


----------



## jis (Aug 12, 2016)

For reasons that seat38 mentions above, changing the timings of 14 is not trivial. It does have to mesh into several other schedules and there is also the pesky issue of convenient a timely crossings on extensive single track route with often relatively infrequent crossing sidings.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 12, 2016)

In reality the argument is San Diego (via Surfliner) vs. Sacramento. In any schedule shift, there will always be winners and losers.

I'd personally like to see the CS travel overnight between LAX and the Bay Area but that would put PDX in the graveyard shift. The Spirit of California (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19821031&item=0053) would've been great for me. I have traveled between the Bay Area and Los Angeles several times I have family in both areas) and the CS is completely impractical for me. Last time I did the Thruway Bus San Jose to Santa Barbara and then Surfliner to Irvine. To me, California High Speed Rail between San Fran and LA can't get here soon enough. Maybe one day you can take a train from LA to San Fran without changing trains or using buses.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 13, 2016)

I think it's good enough as it is, maybe move it forward 20-25 minutes, but that's about it. After that, you'd be breaking connections from San Diego #763, SWC #3, and Bakersfield #703. Unless you move both of them forward, but that would put San Diego before 6am.

Or ask UP *really really nicely* to let Amtrak go over the . . hahaha no that's never gonna happen.

So that's it.

LAX 945A

SBA 1208P/1215P

SLO 257P/310P

SJC 746P/758P

OKJ 859P/914P

SAC 1134P

KFS 742A/752A

EUG 1204P/1211P

PDX 307P/337P

SEA 747P

But on the plus side, more time for the EB connection!


----------



## Lazy Z (Aug 18, 2016)

I dont care for getting in at 9pm in Los Angeles


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 18, 2016)

That would put Sacramento before 6am.

SEA 900A

PDX 115P/150P

EUG 428P/435P

KFS 915P/925P

SAC 600A

OKJ 800A/815A

SJC 920A/932A

SLO 232P/245P

SBA 520P/527P

LAX 825P


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 21, 2016)

Also, Coast Nightlight?

LAX 810P

SBA 1033P/1040P

SLO 122A/135A

SJC 611A/623A

OKJ 724A/739A

EMY 754A/804A

SAC 959A

Adds another Pac-Surf frequency and replaces Capitol 524 with a not too long-distancy train. Maybe move 524 back?

SAC 435P

EMY 610P/620P

OKJ 635P/650P

SJC 755P/807P

SLO 107A/120A

SBA 355A/402A

LAX 700A


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 21, 2016)

maxbuskirk said:


> Also, Coast Nightlight?
> 
> LAX 810P
> 
> ...


I would love these schedules. I think SJC northbound might be a bit early but necessary to make a connection with the eastbound CZ at EMY/SAC. This would not only give overnight LA-SF but LA to SLC/DEN. Maybe push the southbound back to give more of a buffer from the westbound CZ.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Aug 21, 2016)

I was thinking of my schedule shifted #2 when creating the southbound schedule.

Otherwise, shift it back 1.5 hours, which doesn't disrupt anything else, and leaves a good gap between it and #768.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 26, 2016)

I've said before and I'll say again that, _provided equipment were available_, an overnight LAX-Bay Area train would likely be a winner. From what I've anecdotally read, the reason the Spirit of California ran into as much trouble as it did (ignoring the shift in who was in the Governor's Mansion...Brown getting a third term in '82 would make a difference) was because it was set up to run coach-heavy but the traffic was sleeper-heavy since it was a "full overnight". The result was packed sleepers and empty coaches for much of the route. Oops.

As it stands, presuming cooperation from UP (which is always a big question mark) there's probably room to roughly merge an existing Surfliner schedule and Capitol Corridor schedule together over much of the route and get the desired train from LAX-SAC (SAN being a plausible-but-not-mandatory addition). I have to wonder how much more it would cost to do this vis-a-vis the present costs (as well as how much added revenue you might generate from such to offset it).


----------



## fairviewroad (Sep 19, 2016)

unitedstatesfan said:


> What do others think (I'm only a foreigner, but one who has travelled extensively by rail worldwide)? As Amtrak's most popular LD train (average patronage each way of about 620 passengers, though not all aboard at once), it deserves the best possible timetable.


Perhaps a main reason why it's Amtrak's most popular long distance train has a lot to do with its current schedule. Why mess with success?

I would suggest looking at Amtrak's _least_ popular LD train and seeing what could be done instead.


----------



## jis (Sep 19, 2016)

Make the two least popular LD trains daily from three times a week before gratuitously fiddling with their schedules, would be my take. 

I know armchair schedule fiddling is a major hobby around here, and this might be an unpopular position.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 19, 2016)

jis said:


> Make the two least popular LD trains daily from three times a week before gratuitously fiddling with their schedules, would be my take.
> 
> I know armchair schedule fiddling is a major hobby around here, and this might be an unpopular position.


Ditto! Well played!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 19, 2016)

fairviewroad said:


> unitedstatesfan said:
> 
> 
> > What do others think (I'm only a foreigner, but one who has travelled extensively by rail worldwide)? As Amtrak's most popular LD train (average patronage each way of about 620 passengers, though not all aboard at once), it deserves the best possible timetable.
> ...


Couldn't agree more.



jis said:


> Make the two least popular LD trains daily from three times a week before gratuitously fiddling with their schedules, would be my take.
> 
> I know armchair schedule fiddling is a major hobby around here, and this might be an unpopular position.


If the schedule still sucks, being daily vs. non daily doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I'd rather have a train 3 days a week at 2:45pm than a train 7 days a week at 2:45am.

I don't know whether or not it is a coincidence but IMO the two non daily trains have the worst schedules in not serving their largest cities at convenient times and I have proposed schedule changes for each of them.


----------



## jis (Sep 19, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> If the schedule still sucks, being daily vs. non daily doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I'd rather have a train 3 days a week at 2:45pm than a train 7 days a week at 2:45am.
> 
> I don't know whether or not it is a coincidence but IMO the two non daily trains have the worst schedules in not serving their largest cities at convenient times and I have proposed schedule changes for each of them.


That may seem so to you but it is not logical. A train that runs for 7 days instead of three will carry at least about 7/3 number of passengers, and possibly more due to better predictablity and regularity of service, when compared to its 3 day schedule, irrespective of what the schedule is.

Improving the schedule will of course improve that further. but the claim that increasing the number of days on which runs has no effect on ridership is just plain nonsense and you know it. There is absolutely no reason to hold up improving frequency just because it is difficult to negotiate a new schedule. OTOH if a new schedule is required to make it daily, so be it. But the consideration there primarily is first making it daily and then next figuring out "better" schedule according to someone's opinion of "better".


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 19, 2016)

I'm with the faction that says that you're wrong in thinking that a 3 times a week LD Train with a Good Calling time will outperform a Daily LD Train with a "bad" calling time.

As we've discussed here many times, history shows that this is not true, and the adage that the More Trains the More Riders has proven to be true!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 19, 2016)

When I said 3 good is better than 7 bad, I was referring to a particular city. Of course the daily train that serves one city during the graveyard shift will serve a different city at a good time and overall the daily train will be better. I'm just saying how much will San Antonio care if the train to LA is made daily if it still leaves at 2:45am?


----------



## railiner (Sep 19, 2016)

Bob Dylan said:


> ...history shows that this is not true, and the adage that the More Trains the More Riders has proven to be true!


The same thing with roads...build a brand new highway, and when it opens, it will soon be overcrowded and obsolete


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 19, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> When I said 3 good is better than 7 bad, I was referring to a particular city. Of course the daily train that serves one city during the graveyard shift will serve a different city at a good time and overall the daily train will be better. I'm just saying how much will San Antonio care if the train to LA is made daily if it still leaves at 2:45am?


Yep, guaranteed that a Daily Sunset/Eagle between SAS and LAX would increase ridership even with a 245am Departure time! 
Your pet train, the Cardinal, would show similar results! Book it!⚠⚠⚠


----------



## fairviewroad (Sep 19, 2016)

jis said:


> Make the two least popular LD trains daily from three times a week before gratuitously fiddling with their schedules, would be my take.
> 
> I know armchair schedule fiddling is a major hobby around here, and this might be an unpopular position.


Going from 3x a week to daily _is _a form of schedule fiddling, of course. 

Anyhow, I suggested "seeing what could be done" with the least popular trains. That doesn't necessarily mean changing departure times, as you noted.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Sep 19, 2016)

Seems like the end points don't dictate the _Coast Starlight_'s schedule: Sacramento does. It is the begin or end point for a huge number of trips. And the current times at the capital city are excellent.

Agreed that the higher priority is to make the _Sunset Ltd_ daily, that change just might entail a schedule change as well. The potential effect on the _Starlight_ is imponderable now. The current arrival, btw, seems terribly early, looking at clocks set on Pacific Time. But the Time Zone change means that passengers' bodies feel like they got an hour more sleep than the clock says, and that's good.

Meanwhile, in a 10- to 20-year time frame, the route will change underneath the _Starlight_.

More minutes will be shaved off the run Seattle-Portland when, not if, but when, the _Cascades_ route is further upgraded. Still more minutes will disappear when Oregon upgrades its _Cascades_ routing Portland-Eugene.

California could do more, and get it done sooner. The northern segment of the _Pacific Surfliner_ route, L.A.-San Luis Obispo, will shed minutes as curves are straightened etc over a multi-year upgrading. Another chunk of time will drop out with the revival of the _Coast Daylight_ or whatever the second thru train L.A.-Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo-San Jose train will be called. (Those tracks north of S.L.O. up to San Jose have a lot of potential for improvement. LOL.) And also on the to-do list is upgrading the Sacramento-Redding corridor, making those 150 miles or so go a little faster for the _Starlight_ as well as the corridor trains coming there.

So I'm not going to try to change the current schedule. I'll lay back and watch infrastructure investments change it, and change it very much for the better. In that 10- to 20-year time frame, the _Coast Starlight_ should grow and thrive. It will be another example that the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak.


----------



## neroden (Sep 27, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> When I said 3 good is better than 7 bad, I was referring to a particular city. Of course the daily train that serves one city during the graveyard shift will serve a different city at a good time and overall the daily train will be better. I'm just saying how much will San Antonio care if the train to LA is made daily if it still leaves at 2:45am?


A lot, actually.

Cleveland: Terrible calling hours, terrible station location (can't reach it by public transportation normally), but it's got both the Capitol Limited and the Lake Shore Limited daily -- even though they run at almost the same time. Ridership: 46,096 in 2015.

(And being a 2015 number, that's still suffering from the aftereffects of NS's "Autorouter meltdown".)

Houston: Bigger city, centrally located train station, daytime calling hours. But it's three-a-week. Ridership: 19,857 in 2015.

Three-a-week is junk, a guaranteed ridership killer. You're just mistaken about this one; accept it and move on.


----------



## neroden (Sep 27, 2016)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Meanwhile, in a 10- to 20-year time frame, the route will change underneath the _Starlight_.


Indeed, in a 20-year time frame, CAHSR will probably open from SF to LA.
The Coast Daylight, if it ever opens, will siphon off daytime demand for the stations along the coast and make it more sensible to run the Coast Starlight at night along that route. CAHSR will remove the LA-SF demand, and probably the LA-Sacramento demand.

That is the point at which it makes sense to run the Coast Starlight through Far Northern California and the Oregon Mountains in daylight.

Right now, the LA-California Coast-Bay Area-Sacramento market is too good to run it at night. Once other trains are serving that market, the calculation changes.


----------



## saxman (Oct 3, 2016)

The only thing an earlier CS might help is the northbound connection to the Empire Builder at PDX. It's a popular connection giving only 1:13 hours between trains. But then again you mess with the connection with the Southwest Chief, which is also important. Then again, the Southwest Chief only connects with the Coast Starlight going northbound, but California has lots of connections via the Central Valley still making a connection to #4 possible. Otherwise the CS should remain as is.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid (Jan 3, 2017)

I know that there are many schedule change proposals around here, but what's the best way to actually change it? Contact my congressman? Contact Amtrak? Join NARP?


----------



## Lonestar648 (Feb 3, 2017)

Three days a week is very hard to schedule a trip around. I expect there are many trips that are not scheduled on Amtrak because the SL isn't daily. Many of these unscheduled trips involve a connection with the CS both ways. The push seems to make the daily TE daily to LAX. That makes three major connections San Diego, SWC, TE that need a smooth connect to the CS both directions. The southbound CS doesn't connect well with SL with only an hour and not at all with the SWC, so those who are going towards CHI have issues on their return. There is no help from the CZ. The only other option is the EB through Portland. Scheduling to promote increased ridership in a certain market seems to also have a negative effect in an existing market.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Feb 3, 2017)

More discussion about the CS (and other) schedules: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/69838-what-if-amtrak-could-set-the-schedules-and-not-the-host-railroads/

Passenger friendly schedules? Good luck getting the host railroads to sign up for that.


----------

