# The Coast Daylight



## Guest_TransAtlantic_* (Sep 28, 2009)

Nothing confirmed yet, at least for public consumption, but Amtrak is proposing an extension to the current Surfliner trains 799/798, to continue beyond SLO and run right up the peninsula to San Francisco. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, plans are afoot to restore the former "Coast Daylight"!!! (This comes from Amtrak management, BTW...)


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 28, 2009)

Guest_TransAtlantic_* said:


> Nothing confirmed yet, at least for public consumption, but Amtrak is proposing an extension to the current Surfliner trains 799/798, to continue beyond SLO and run right up the peninsula to San Francisco. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, plans are afoot to restore the former "Coast Daylight"!!! (This comes from Amtrak management, BTW...)


Wonder if the Starlite will change schedule so it gets into the Bay Area in daylight, wouldnt this be a better idea?


----------



## DET63 (Sep 28, 2009)

jimhudson said:


> Guest_TransAtlantic_* said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing confirmed yet, at least for public consumption, but Amtrak is proposing an extension to the current Surfliner trains 799/798, to continue beyond SLO and run right up the peninsula to San Francisco. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, plans are afoot to restore the former "Coast Daylight"!!! (This comes from Amtrak management, BTW...)
> ...


Unless padding were taken out of the schedule, CS #14 would have to leave LAX quite a bit earlier to get into the Bay Area before dark. That would nix its connection with SL #1, unless its schedule was also adjusted to maintain the connection.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 28, 2009)

DET63 said:


> jimhudson said:
> 
> 
> > Guest_TransAtlantic_* said:
> ...


From what I understand, the Starlight's times would not change.

Also, this has been Caltrans' long-term plan for a long time. The numbers themselves, as well as the current schedule, tell the story. SP Coast Daylight 98/99. Surfliner 798/799. Coincidence? Probably not. Look at the schedule as well. It replicates the classic schedule of SP 98/99 pretty closely.

This is more of a state initiative, on 403(b) state supported trains, not really an Amtrak initiative, although Amtrak would be involved in planning and implementation. I doubt it will happen until California comes out from under the cloud of financial doom it is currently under, and it has been on the boards for a long time. These aren't "national system" trains. If Caltrans wants them, they pay.

So I wouldn't get too excited about it.

The connection between 1 and 14 is not a guaranteed connection. Since UP has improved its handling of Amtrak in general, 1 usually makes it with a lot of time to spare. But 9:40 to 10:15 is not guaranteed. There generally has to be at least an hour for a guaranteed connection outside the NEC. It was a guaranteed connection when the Sunset was running on its more customary schedule, with arrival around 7am -- but for quite awhile, it never made it. In my own personal opinion, a small part of the not-so-new, heavily padded Sunset schedule was to deliberately break that guarantee. They were paying a lot when it virtually never made it.

An earlier Starlight departure would likely break the guaranteed connection between 3 and 14, though.


----------



## pebbleworm (Sep 29, 2009)

That could be an interesting route, but the Coast Starlight takes it's own sweet time to get from LA to Oakland/Emeryville, almost 12 hours grinding along rough but scenic track. The San Joaquin takes about 8 hours, even with a 2 hour bus leg into LA form Bakersfield and going by way of Sacramento. Personally, I'd take the Daylight but 12 hours to LA has been a hard sell for others.


----------



## Rob_C (Sep 29, 2009)

It would be nice to book a one-seat trip from LAX into downtown SFO. I know it would probably make it a little more appealing for some people to vacation or do a work/vacation in SFO. But agreed, it's a tough sell for the average consumer. Probably still attract mostly leisure and vacation travelers, and others wanting to see some of California on the way. I wonder if flipping the schedule 12 hours and making it a revived "Lark" might make it a bit more appealing to business travelers wanting to leave after dinner and get in the next morning in time for a meeting? It would have to be a heavily subsidized ticket to compete with the likes of Southwest which has the LA-SF markets pretty cornered.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Sep 29, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> SP Coast Daylight 98/99. Surfliner 798/799. Coincidence? Probably not.


No coincidence. During a train 11 ride, OKJ-OXN, during the Starlight "relaunch," I had the opportunity to meet and talk at length with an Amtrak "brand manager" who was riding to see how the relaunch was progressing. The guy expedited my onboard upgrade at San Jose and agreed to an on-the-record interview in the Pacific Parlour Car.

After Salinas we talked at length. Among other things the guy noted that the Pacific Surfliner train numbers 798/799 were selected with an eye to a restored Daylight. I didn't think to ask about a renewed Lark. IIRC there was also an SP overnight run called the Owl.


----------



## NativeSon5859 (Sep 29, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > jimhudson said:
> ...


Since the SL will get a new arrival time of 8:40am into LAX with the Fall schedule change, this will now be a guaranteed connection. There is still no connection from the SB Starlight to the EB Sunset.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 29, 2009)

WhoozOn1st said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > SP Coast Daylight 98/99. Surfliner 798/799. Coincidence? Probably not.
> ...


Owl ran down the Westside Valley line via Los Banos, not the Coast.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 29, 2009)

There was an overnigth Oakland to Los Angeles train under Amtrak for a while. Do not recall exactly when or how long it lasted.

If it has reasonable westbound timekeeping, with one more trainset the CZ equipment, or part of it, could be run to make a good overnight from the Bay Area to LA.


----------



## Rob_C (Sep 29, 2009)

George Harris said:


> There was an overnigth Oakland to Los Angeles train under Amtrak for a while. Do not recall exactly when or how long it lasted.
> If it has reasonable westbound timekeeping, with one more trainset the CZ equipment, or part of it, could be run to make a good overnight from the Bay Area to LA.


That's a fantastic "out-of-the-box" idea! I would just hate to be on one of these trains after a major domino effect breakdown where a train has a significant delay in CA, then delays the Zephyer into Chicago, and delays the return snowballing into a canceled train. Yikes.

And there is the issue of Amtrak just running the wheels off its equipment. I'm sure with great maintenance it could run almost 24/7, but it's not getting that kind of servicing if I'm not mistaken...

Still we can dream I suppose.


----------



## Rumpled (Sep 29, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> Owl ran down the Westside Valley line via Los Banos, not the Coast.


From Los Banos where did it go?

Would that go over Tehachapi or skirt back to the coast?

Just curious.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 29, 2009)

Rumpled said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > Owl ran down the Westside Valley line via Los Banos, not the Coast.
> ...


Westside line tied back into to the Valley line just north of Fresno, then same route as the San Joaquin Daylight, Valley line to Bakersfield then over Tehachapi.


----------



## zephyr17 (Sep 29, 2009)

NativeSon5859 said:


> Since the SL will get a new arrival time of 8:40am into LAX with the Fall schedule change, this will now be a guaranteed connection. There is still no connection from the SB Starlight to the EB Sunset.


Just verified that by testing itineraries at Amtrak.com, so agree with that. How did you get the new sched? Not up at Amtrak.com to my knowldege.

Thanks.


----------



## pebbleworm (Sep 30, 2009)

The old proposals for the Coast Daylight I can find on the web all have some substantial track and signal upgrades included, which could speed things up a little bit, but it is still a long route. There really isn't a lot of population (by California standards) between Paso Robles and Salinas. This would be a good plan to increase or add service between the Bay area and Salinas and extend the Surfliners to Paso Robles with the added benefit of Bay area to LA service. For a one seat ride and no bus I'd put up with it! It could also generate some traffic to Pismo Beach, San Simeon, and Big Sur but new stops and connector buses would be needed.

Making an overnight run makes sense to me, but it's been so long since night trains existed in this country it would take a while for people to wrap their brains around the advantages. I can't see Caltrans wanting to run sleepers so it would probably be a night in a coach or business class seat.

The San Joaquin doesn't currently run an overnight service, but the bus legs to anywhere from Bakersfield are a dis-incentive.

Edit:

Caltrain service as far as Gilroy is pretty limited- I wonder what the ridership is like?


----------



## p&sr (Sep 30, 2009)

pebbleworm said:


> The San Joaquin doesn't currently run an overnight service, but the bus legs to anywhere from Bakersfield are a dis-incentive.


They certainly have over-night busses. For example, Train arrives at Bakersfield at Midnight, then Bus to San Diego arrives around 5:30 AM. Likewise, late-night bus from San Diego, leaves LAX at about 1:30 AM, arrives Bakersfield in time for the early morning Train.


----------



## DET63 (Sep 30, 2009)

p&sr said:


> pebbleworm said:
> 
> 
> > The San Joaquin doesn't currently run an overnight service, but the bus legs to anywhere from Bakersfield are a dis-incentive.
> ...


There's nothing more exciting than the thought of traveling overnight in a bus!


----------



## p&sr (Sep 30, 2009)

DET63 said:


> There's nothing more exciting than the thought of traveling overnight in a bus!


The only excuse would be if it gets you somewhere in time to catch the next Train!


----------



## tp49 (Sep 30, 2009)

There's nothing more exciting then spending any amount of time in Bakersfield


----------



## George Harris (Oct 1, 2009)

p&sr said:


> Likewise, late-night bus, leaves LAX at about 1:30 AM, arrives Bakersfield in time for the early morning Train.


Been there done that. A few years ago when we were attending special a college function with one son in Long Beach one evening and daughter of friend's college graduation the next day in Freson.

There were enough people dong this late night bus that there were two buses. connecting with the early morning train at Bakersfield. Later found that we could have caught the bus in Long Beach and not needed our son to drive us up to LAUS.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 1, 2009)

Is there any chance that the Tehachapi Pass will ever be double-tracked? It's my understanding that it's a heavily used single-track line, precluding its use for regularly scheduled passenger service. Double-tracking might make such a service feasible, but are plans to build HSR likely to make it appear unnecessary?


----------



## George Harris (Oct 1, 2009)

Here is the reality for Tehachapi Grade:

The railroad climbs something like 3,600 feet between Bakersfield at milepost 312.9 and Summit Switch at milepost 362.4. That is 49 5 miles between points that are around 39 miles apart in a straight line. The grade starts gently right out of Bakersfield and goes above 1% at about milepost 318. At milepost 331 or thereabouts it goes above 2% and stays between 2.2% and 2.5% all the way to just short of Summit Switch. The speed limit drops to 30 mph at 330.6 and stays between 30 mph and 23 mph, with a short distance at 15 mph all the way to milepost 359.5. It really does not get that fast after this, with a number of restrictions resulting in little of the distance having limits above 35 ot 45 mph between the Summit and Palmdale at milepost 414.

In the 49.5 miles between Bakersfield and the summit, there are 28 miles of second main right now. In the 21 miles of single main on the worst of the grade, there are 6 sidings, all over one mile line and three of these over 1.5 miles long. It might be possible to connect some of these sidings to give additional sections of double track, but some area would probably need line changes to fit in another track.

When there was passenger service on this line, it was S-L-O-W. It is unlikely that it could be any faster now. Think something like 6 hours between LA and Bakersfield.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 1, 2009)

George Harris said:


> There was an overnigth Oakland to Los Angeles train under Amtrak for a while. Do not recall exactly when or how long it lasted.


It was called the "Spirit of California", it ran only in 1981 and 1982, less than a year, and was a 403(b) financed by the state.


----------



## zephyr17 (Oct 2, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > There was an overnigth Oakland to Los Angeles train under Amtrak for a while. Do not recall exactly when or how long it lasted.
> ...


And it ran Los Angeles - Sacramento. It ran under train numbers 16 & 17 , I think. It only operated from October 1982 to September 30, 1983.

Extra points awarded for its informal nickname.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (Oct 2, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


I give up, what was it's informal nickname?

Can I get points for knowing that Espee (phonetic spelling of SP)was the nickname for Southern Pacific Railroad?


----------



## Donctor (Oct 2, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> And it ran Los Angeles - Sacramento. It ran under train numbers 16 & 17 , I think. It only operated from October 1982 to September 30, 1983.
> Extra points awarded for its informal nickname.



And I believe its consist was as follows:

F40PH

Heritage Baggage

Heritage 10-6 Sleeper

Amfleet I Café

Amfleet I Coach

Amfleet I Coach

Amfleet I Coach

Of course, I could be wrong.


----------



## MrFSS (Oct 2, 2009)




----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 2, 2009)

Amtking said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> > And it ran Los Angeles - Sacramento. It ran under train numbers 16 & 17 , I think. It only operated from October 1982 to September 30, 1983.
> ...


I have the last one on my desktop as wallpaper.

F40 283

H-bag

10-6

10-6

10-6

Amcafe

Coach

Coach


----------



## zephyr17 (Oct 2, 2009)

MrFSS said:


>


Oops. 16 & 17 were the SP operating numbers south of Oakland.


----------



## tp49 (Oct 2, 2009)

I believe the informal nickname for the Spirit of California was "The Medfly."

Also, considering how Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown could very well be givernor of California again maybe we get a return of "The Medfly."


----------



## zephyr17 (Oct 2, 2009)

tp49 said:


> I believe the informal nickname for the Spirit of California was "The Medfly."
> Also, considering how Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown could very well be givernor of California again maybe we get a return of "The Medfly."


We have a winner!


----------



## George Harris (Oct 2, 2009)

tp49 said:


> I believe the informal nickname for the Spirit of California was "The Medfly."
> Also, considering how Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown could very well be givernor of California again maybe we get a return of "The Medfly."


Actually, the train had respectable ridership. This from discussion of that time frame and the equipment listed by GML. Otherwise, it would not have needed multiple sleepers. I'm not sure that Governor Moonbeam should get either credit or blame for this train.

For those that don't know, Moonbeam is the current Attorney General for the state. He seems to have grown up some, or maybe I have been here too long, as a lot of the time now he says things that make sense.


----------



## DET63 (Oct 6, 2009)

George Harris said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the informal nickname for the Spirit of California was "The Medfly."
> ...


He's 71 now. That doesn't necessarily make him older than dirt, but he's not the young Turk that he was in the 70s.


----------



## afigg (Dec 6, 2015)

This a 6 year old thread, but it is on-topic for the Coast Daylight plans which have been inching along in the intervening years.

The FRA recently posted the Final Program EIS and Record of Decision for the Coast Corridor segment of the Coast Daylight route from Salinas to San Luis Obispo. Link to webpage with the documents. A quick skim shows that they backed off on some curve re-alignments due to public objections on the property impacts. How quickly CalTrans is able to move from this point, don't know.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 6, 2015)

afigg said:


> This a 6 year old thread, but it is on-topic for the Coast Daylight plans which have been inching along in the intervening years.
> 
> The FRA recently posted the Final Program EIS and Record of Decision for the Coast Corridor segment of the Coast Daylight route from Salinas to San Luis Obispo. Link to webpage with the documents. ... How quickly CalTrans is able to move from this point, don't know.


Great link, thanks. I read some of it, enuff to finally find this: (*emphasis added)*



> The Service Development Plan (SDP) proposes initial service of 1 daily southbound and 1 daily northbound train between San Francisco and Los Angeles, requiring 2 full trainsets *for 2020 service* and 2 additional trainsets for 2040 service.
> 
> 
> Preliminary proposed schedules indicate trains leaving San Francisco and Los Angeles in the early morning (approximately 7 a.m.), and arriving at their respective destinations between 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. *Future expanded service* would see the addition of *1 additional daily *southbound and northbound *departure*. This expanded service would be *overnight*, leaving San Francisco or Los Angeles in the early evening and arriving at the respective destination early the following morning.
> ...


The study lists numerous curve realignments, new or lengthened sidings, and other work that would raise much of the route to *maximum speed of 90 mph*, with other sections at 70 mph, and a few sections remaining with lower maximum speeds.



> The full list of improvements and equipment purchases are *estimated to cost several hundred millions of dollars* to design and implement.





> The SDP notes that the project partners have approximately $26 million available from State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) programming and funds received through Proposition 1B. Additionally, there is $25 million in Proposition 1B funding dedicated to the Coast Daylight, totaling $51 million in funding. As full funding for all improvements is not available at present, the most likely scenario is that proposed improvements would be constructed in phases.



OK. All they need now is several hundred million dollars. (So do we all.)


----------



## chakk (Dec 6, 2015)

I believe raising speed limits to 90 mph in sections would also require major signaling improvements and eliminating all grade crossings that now have no barrier gates.


----------



## afigg (Dec 7, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> Great link, thanks. I read some of it, enuff to finally find this: (*emphasis added)*
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


The Service Development Plan was written in May 2013 and is an Appendix. The more recent revelant documents are the Executive Summary, the rest of the EIS, and the Record of Decision (which restates much of the executive summary). The question is what upgrades are needed to start the Coast Daylight service so it meets the initial desired trip time and reliability performance? Start the service and lay out a series of planned incremental improvement projects to be done over the next several decades leading up to adding a second daily Coast Daylight by 2040 (or whenever).

In the Executive Summary, it states:



> The Build Alternative assumes the restoration of “Coast Daylight” passenger service, which would initially consist of 2 trains per day traveling between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, increasing to 4 trains per day by the year 2040. The Build Alternative includes an exhaustive list of potential physical components between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, some number of which may be found necessary to accommodate increased Coast Daylight service. The extent of needed physical components has not been identified at this time, but is expected to be determined outside the context of the California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act (CEQA/NEPA) environmental review. The Build Alternative looks broadly at each physical component contemplated for the area to provide decision-makers additional information in identifying which, if any, conceptual physical components should be carried forward.


So what this really means, as I interpret it, now that they have official approval of the route, service, and proposed improvements, CalTrans and Amtrak now have to sit down with UP and hammer out what are the initial improvements that UP will accept to run a daily Coast Daylight service.

This statement in the ROD makes me wonder that without funding for a Coast Daylight, whether the Coast Starlight might someday be facing the problem of degrading infrastructure threatening the LD train service:



> Investment in corridor rail service has not kept pace with population and travel demand growth. Particularly within the Salinas to San Luis Obispo portion of the corridor, many tracks, signals, and bridges have not been upgraded or improved in decades – and in some cases are over 100 years old. Aging infrastructure in need of maintenance or replacement can result in a decrease in operating safety and can impede trains from operating at top speeds. Aging infrastructure if not properly maintained can, therefore, translate to longer travel times and decrease the attractiveness of rail as a transportation option.


----------



## neroden (Dec 7, 2015)

afigg said:


> This statement in the ROD makes me wonder that without funding for a Coast Daylight, whether the Coast Starlight might someday be facing the problem of degrading infrastructure threatening the LD train service:


Short answer, yes. Long answer: if-and-when CAHSR is up and running, that will threaten the viability of the Starlight south of San Jose as well. The Daylight is the future of the route; it is desirable for its service to intermediate stops, but it needs the upgrades to serve those markets well.


----------



## blondninja (Dec 7, 2015)

If the second Daylight happens, it'll be like the original one that had sleeping cars it sounds like.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 8, 2015)

From a "strict transportation" perspective, I agree that CAHSR presents a long-term challenge to the Starlight/Daylight route(s) as-is, not unlike similar challenges experienced in Japan. However, that concession requires a few odd-and-end stipulations:
(1) There's a good bit of tourist traffic on the route. Alone this is not enough to support a train, but the trade here is non-trivial and that won't evaporate with the addition of CAHSR.
(2) There's a LOT of "internal" traffic on the route (e.g. to/from SLO, SBA, etc.). Most of this isn't going to shift to CAHSR because doing so would involve rather long backtracking moves plus a change of train. SLO and SBA are the biggest stations for this, but there's a non-trivial amount of O/D involved all along the route.
(3) A through-baggage train is going to be needed for passengers who might transfer from "points north" (e.g. PDX, SEA) to CAHSR (which will likely lack checked baggage service).
(4) And of course, all of this presumes that CAHSR is "to spec". I don't think anyone here is going to be surprised if the end product only comes close to the required specs "on paper" in the same sense that one Metroliner a day met certain operational goals back in the 1970s (notably 2:30 WAS-NYP...there was one morning and one evening train so timetabled in 1970 which had vanished by 1971). I think plenty of us can envision a situation where the train /really/ takes much longer than it "should" for a long, long time.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 8, 2015)

neroden said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > This statement in the ROD makes me wonder that without funding for a Coast Daylight, whether the Coast Starlight might someday be facing the problem of degrading infrastructure threatening the LD train service:
> ...


I'd argue that a successful CAHSR will do more for the passenger train product, the Amtrak brand, and the California Amtrak services, than anything else that could happen out West.

The prevailing image of Amtrak today is of rust buckets creeping along the tracks, or parked at a siding waiting for god knows what, and losing big money with every minute. After CAHSR the public will know, by the millions of "experienced it myself", that trains can be modern, clean, comfortable, as well as fast, and show a good return on the investment. Then a 12-hour scenic daylight trip San Francisco-L.A. will not seem like something so much to be avoided.

Meanwhile population growth will continue along the coastal edge. More corridor service (more _Surfliners _L.A.-Santa Barbara and L.A-San Luis Obispo, and trains Salinas-Gilroy-San Jose-Oakland/S.F.) will share the upgraded tracks with the _Starlight_ and the _Daylight_. They'll share some costs, raise brand awareness, and support the proposed new stations at Soledad and King City, which should help the _Starlight_ and the _Daylight_.

Perhaps most of all, more corridor trains will help to justify the needed capital investment along this route. What's "just not worth it" for one added roundtrip has much better math when the cost is for three or four or five more trains.

With the contemplated improvements to allow a _Coast Daylight_, the planners talk about roughly 12 hours roundtrip. That's an hour better than now on the _Starlight_ Southbound, allowing an hour earlier arrival in L.A., at 8 p.m. instead of 9 p.m. as now. That time would give riders better connections to MetroLink etc and a better chance of getting home by bedtime. (The _Starlight _is 12 hours now Northbound, 10 a.m. out of L.A. and !0 p.m into Emeryville. With an hour gained for turnaround, tweaking the schedule might allow an hour earlier departure out of L.A. and a 9 p.m. arrival in the Bay Area.)

Anyway, I'm a devout believer that added frequencies _always _bring many added riders. Then that economies of scale thing kicks in. And again, the cure for what ails Amtrak is more Amtrak, including more _Coast_ trains in Cali.

So I ain't scared of no CAHSR.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 8, 2015)

Something else to consider: Speeding up chunks of the route provides room to add stops while keeping the same general schedule we have now. There's a question of balance there (I doubt there are a dozen stops worth adding, assuming 5 min/stop). Also, the southbound Starlight _does_ have a pad at the end.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 8, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Something else to consider: Speeding up chunks of the route provides room to add stops while keeping the same general schedule we have now. There's a question of balance there (I doubt there are a dozen stops worth adding, assuming 5 min/stop). Also, the southbound Starlight _does_ have a pad at the end.


The stations mentioned for this coastal corridor seem fairly promising. King City plans a new station with "an area set aside for military personnel transfers" due to a large military facility nearby. However, Soledad did not mention "an area set aside for transfers to or from the largest and most famous institution in the area". LOL. Instead Soledad's downtown area renewal efforts were discussed.

Other new stops, to the south of or north of this segment were not part of this study, but are certainly possible.

Upgrades to the _Surfliner_ segment to the south of San Luis Obispo, and from Salinas north to the Bay Area were not discussed. An aside indicated that the UP might have a number of suggestions for needed work up and down the route. Wot a surprise.


----------



## BCL (Dec 8, 2015)

WoodyinNYC said:


> King City plans a new station with "an area set aside for military personnel transfers" due to a large military facility nearby. However, Soledad did not mention "an area set aside for transfers to or from the largest and most famous institution in the area". LOL. Instead Soledad's downtown area renewal efforts were discussed.


The local member of Congress made a big push to declare Pinnacles a national park. However, I'm not sure if that would be a big driver for train traffic to King City. I can't find any transportation options other than private car. No car rental and no tours from King City.


----------



## neroden (Dec 8, 2015)

Well, my point regarding CAHSR is really one of network design; with CAHSR operating, it may not make sense to run the one-a-day train from Seattle all the way through to LA. It'll still make sense to run trains on the Coast Line -- and yes, more trains than today -- but people will get used to transfers, and more transfers may make more sense! I would be totally OK with the Coast Starlight running from the Pacific Northwest to NorCal with a change of trains at Sacramento, Oakland, or San Jose to a frequent, many-times-daily corridor service along the coast from NorCal to SoCal.

Much like the current change of trains at LA if you're heading to San Diego.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 8, 2015)

neroden said:


> Well, my point regarding CAHSR is really one of network design; with CAHSR operating, it may not make sense to run the one-a-day train from Seattle all the way through to LA. It'll still make sense to run trains on the Coast Line -- and yes, more trains than today -- but people will get used to transfers, and more transfers may make more sense! I would be totally OK with the Coast Starlight running from the Pacific Northwest to NorCal with a change of trains at Sacramento, Oakland, or San Jose to a frequent, many-times-daily corridor service along the coast from NorCal to SoCal.
> 
> Much like the current change of trains at LA if you're heading to San Diego.


I'd be curious as to whether there would be any savings by dropping the through operation. No small part of the issue there is that between Sacramento and Portland you're still at UP's mercy, which means that you're looking at blowing an hour or two on that connection.


----------



## neroden (Dec 9, 2015)

Anderson said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Well, my point regarding CAHSR is really one of network design; with CAHSR operating, it may not make sense to run the one-a-day train from Seattle all the way through to LA. It'll still make sense to run trains on the Coast Line -- and yes, more trains than today -- but people will get used to transfers, and more transfers may make more sense! I would be totally OK with the Coast Starlight running from the Pacific Northwest to NorCal with a change of trains at Sacramento, Oakland, or San Jose to a frequent, many-times-daily corridor service along the coast from NorCal to SoCal.
> ...


Consider scenario A and scenario B:A: lots of trains heading down the coast line, HSR down the Central Valley, Coast Starlight goes to LA

B: lots of trains heading down the coast line, HSR down the Central Valley, Coast Starlight stops at Sacramento and is replaced with *one more* regional train on the Coast Line

In scenario B, the regional train has more reliable scheduling than the Coast Starlight would, giving it more riders. It's likely also cheaper to operate.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 9, 2015)

neroden said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


True, but only if you can reliably guarantee the Coast Starlight will successfully connect at Sacramento (or Emeryville, Oakland, or San Jose...take your pick, but I'd be inclined to run the train through the Bay Area if only to try and allow _those_ single-seat riders which no iteration of CAHSR is likely to poach). For example, let's presume a connection at San Jose. Right now the Starlight arrives at 0955 and departs at 1007. Assuming the same schedule, you'd need an SB "Surfliner Daylight" train departing SJC...probably no earlier than 1100, probably more like 1130. If we presume (roughly) the present schedule, that would be train 796 or something similar...

...which is the present legal connection between the Starlight and San Diego. To be fair, I suspect that cutting the Starlight in the Bay Area probably means running at least one (possibly more) of the Surfliner Daylights to San Diego to allow a two-seat ride there. I don't think a single transfer is the end of the world, but forcing a double transfer _does_ present an issue...and if there aren't sleepers involved or a dining car (I suspect you'd have at most an "enhanced cafe" and possibly some sort of "Business Class Plus", which I do believe a full Bay Area-LA/SD run could sell) I think you can make a solid case for doing so since a lot of the complications which tie the train to terminating at LAX vanish.

All things considered, I'd be inclined to consider the dynamics of doing so if a serious proposal were to also arise to run the "Starlight North" through to Vancouver, BC. Yes, I know the border issues...but the border arrangement in BC is a _hell_ of a lot friendlier to such an arrangement than, say, the one at Rouses Point or Niagara Falls. Even if you had to close off another track for it, it seems like something that _would_ be worth the look.

Edit: Honestly, I do think an "enhanced business class" of some sort (talk to Ed Ellis for thoughts here) is a reasonable condition for this. The route is "touristy enough" for it. I'd probably put the transfer at Oakland/Emeryville (take your pick, both work)...but I'd also want the overnight train (possibly with only an "enhanced cafe" or CCC-esque operation instead of a "full" dining car). Still, there's a "political problem" insofar as you'd be forcing the operation over to California from Amtrak...and to be honest, at that point (as long as the Starlight doesn't just fall apart south of the Bay Area due to CAHSR) I think you'd have a serious talk going on between CA, WA, and OR about grabbing the Starlight from Amtrak and just throwing Amtrak off the West Coast.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 9, 2015)

neroden said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


You know how I feel about transfers. Maybe if HSR has unreserved seating and if you miss your connection in Sacramento or the Bay Area and you don't have to wait in a long line to change your ticket for a later train when you miss your connection (like I did) it might be worth it. It also depends on how much quicker the HSR train is from SAC to LAX than the CS is. If it's an hour or two savings, I'd probably rather stay on the CS. If it's close to the difference between the situation in Philly right now (the transfer to either WAS or NYP saves about 6 hrs compared to the Cardinal), I would make the transfer.

In reality, if the lack of transfer is any advantage for Amtrak, I think they'd be foolish to give it away and lose their business between the Bay Area and LAX (that's currently around 14 hours on the CS between SAC and LAX). If they do terminate the CS in Northern California, who would then take an Amtrak train unless they run as quick as HSR does? And if Amtrak could run anywhere close to HSR speed between SAC and LAX then the time difference is not as great and the lack of transfer becomes a bonus for Amtrak.

The other potential HSR threat to Amtrak is Xpress West (http://www.xpresswest.com/network.html) if they get to Denver. Could passengers from CHI to LAX then take the CZ to DEN and transfer to an Xpress West to LAX?

In reality, Amtrak really was dumb to give up on Vegas in 1997. They should have at least begun LAX-Vegas service back when the 750 mile rule wasn't in place. Now with it in place, why would Nevada spend a dime on a LAX-Vegas route when Xpress West is on its way? Now Amtrak has lost the Vegas market permanently.

I've always wanted Amtrak to have competition. Maybe these moves (and AAF) actually forces Amtrak to try to expand or improve service instead of them saying to us "we know you're going to ride our trains no matter how lousy they are".


----------



## Paulus (Dec 9, 2015)

The current suggestion from Amtrak, and the likely plan if the Daylight ever gets put into play, is to run San Jose to San Diego.



> It also depends on how much quicker the HSR train is from SAC to LAX than the CS is. If it's an hour or two savings, I'd probably rather stay on the CS. If it's close to the difference between the situation in Philly right now (the transfer to either WAS or NYP saves about 6 hrs compared to the Cardinal), I would make the transfer.


It would save about 11 hours.


----------



## BCL (Dec 9, 2015)

Paulus said:


> The current suggestion from Amtrak, and the likely plan if the Daylight ever gets put into play, is to run San Jose to San Diego.


Is that workable without maybe using a push-pull configuration? Maybe locomotives at both ends? Maintenance would probably still be in Oakland.


----------



## trainviews (Dec 9, 2015)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


These musings are almost comical. Have you read any of the CAHSR plans?

Sacramento-LA will when fully built out be less than 4 hours - or 10+ hours faster than the coastal route. Except for a bit of scenic route tourism there will be no endpoint to endpoint market on that route after CAHSR starts running. The route might still have more passenger potential than today, but as local traffic and feeder route for the HSR line.

Same thing with Las Vegas. Amtrak could have built up a solid corridor or not - the moment a high speed route cuts travel time to a fraction of Amtrak's it's dead. Especially with the lack of any mentionable middle markets on that route.

But while HSR will spell doom for a few Amtrak lines, it has large possibilities for the rest of the system - if Amtrak is able to arrive to the future in time. HSR could mean a whole new era of passenger railroading, including for the connecting system of traditional speed passenger routes.

The wisest thing Amtrak could do is to embrace the new routes as hard as they can with through ticketing and as seemless transfers as possible (and with todays technology there's a lot better ways to handle missed connections than make people stand in long lines at the transfer point. An automated new reservation and a text message with the new departure time plus a number to call if that is not the preferred solution should do the job).


----------



## BCL (Dec 9, 2015)

trainviews said:


> Sacramento-LA will when fully built out be less than 4 hours - or 10+ hours faster than the coastal route. Except for a bit of scenic route tourism there will be no endpoint to endpoint market on that route after CAHSR starts running. The route might still have more passenger potential than today, but as local traffic and feeder route for the HSR line.


What's it going cost though? There will still be a market for the budget conscious whether it's a bus or a bus/train combo.


----------



## Paulus (Dec 9, 2015)

BCL said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > The current suggestion from Amtrak, and the likely plan if the Daylight ever gets put into play, is to run San Jose to San Diego.
> ...


All California trains run push-pull, maintenance would be in Los Angeles


----------



## Blackwolf (Dec 9, 2015)

Paulus said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> > Paulus said:
> ...


Actually, I would believe maintenance would be equally split between Los Angeles and Oakland. Remember, the Oakland yard is actually owned by the California Department of Transportation, where-as I believe LA is Amtrak owned.

Not that it really matters where, of course. As long as the trains actually ARE maintained and kept professionally cleaned (that last aspect is sorely lacking on most Amtrak LD trains outside of Sleeper, and there are cases when the whole darn train is disgusting no matter what class you book.)


----------



## BCL (Dec 9, 2015)

Blackwolf said:


> Paulus said:
> 
> 
> > BCL said:
> ...


What I can find about the "Oakland Maintenance Facility" is that it was jointly built by Amtrak and Caltrans.

http://www.trainweb.com/news/2002/2002k14a.html#sthash.GDha6OoV.dpbs

This investment represents another example of Amtrak's successful partnership with the state of California to improve passenger rail services. As part of the joint capital investment, Amtrak has committed $27 million toward construction of the facility, while the state of California will invest $38 million.

"California is one of Amtrak's strongest partners and has a deep business interest in ensuring that the maintenance of the state-owned equipment is first-rate," said Warren Weber, Manager of the California DOT Rail Program. "The state invested funds in the new Amtrak Oakland maintenance facility to protect the states' investment in train equipment and build upon the success of passenger rail service in California."

This says that the state owns 60% of the yard:

http://dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/owd/tpfa/AmtrakOaklandMaintenanceFacility.pdf

Anyone know what Amtrak used before this yard? I'm guessing they might have paid SP/UP for the right to use their maintenance yard somewhere in the area?

Not sure about the progress on building a Sacramento yard. I suppose if this ever gets built it might make a difference regarding maybe stopping the Coast Starlight in Sacramento.

http://www.sacbee.com/mobile/bees-best/article2578351.html


----------



## Paulus (Dec 9, 2015)

Maintenance in Oakland would require deadhead moves through a major corridor while Los Angeles simply requires regular rotation of the sets through a combined pool with the Surfliner. As it is, the trains already operate as a Daylight truncated at San Luis Obispo.


----------



## BCL (Dec 9, 2015)

Paulus said:


> Maintenance in Oakland would require deadhead moves through a major corridor while Los Angeles simply requires regular rotation of the sets through a combined pool with the Surfliner. As it is, the trains already operate as a Daylight truncated at San Luis Obispo.


Parking a corridor train is easy enough to do. However, isn't there an issue with reaching capacity limits? The Sac Bee article I found claimed that Oakland is already maxed out. I'm wondering about LA. They're probably going to shift around the equipment once Sac gets a maintenance yard.


----------



## neroden (Dec 10, 2015)

trainviews said:


> Sacramento-LA will when fully built out be less than 4 hours - or 10+ hours faster than the coastal route. Except for a bit of scenic route tourism there will be no endpoint to endpoint market on that route after CAHSR starts running. The route might still have more passenger potential than today, but as local traffic and feeder route for the HSR line.


Exactly. Once CAHSR is up and running, all remaining traffic on the Coast Line will be local traffic (heading to Salinas, San Luis Obispo, etc.) and you've got to reconsider the network design in that light.


----------



## tp49 (Dec 10, 2015)

BCL said:


> Not sure about the progress on building a Sacramento yard. I suppose if this ever gets built it might make a difference regarding maybe stopping the Coast Starlight in Sacramento.
> 
> http://www.sacbee.com/mobile/bees-best/article2578351.html


Based upon the linked Bee article (which is now a tad over two years old so we know some of what's happened since it was published) the East Sacramento site mentioned as a potential yard will not happen because the housing development former State Treasurer Angelides was backing is now under construction. Haven't heard word one on the site near Sutter's Landing park. The best place to put it based on the sites mentioned in the article is McClellan Park. Haven't heard much here either way so who knows where in the process any of this is.


----------



## Karl1459 (Dec 10, 2015)

Don't put fully operational CAHSR into the discussion. Its either going to get built or not, and its either going to get ridership or not. If it does get built and is a success its a total game changer so the political pressure will be to have HSR on all corridors and there will be a cash cow to fund it. Bye-bye snailrail, the Starlight runs SEA-SAC with CAHSR and corridor trains from there.

In the meantime incremental upgrades to fast conventional rail make sense. And interconnections are a big part of that. Enlarging the base of rail passengers be positive in its own right and will give a ready market for CAHSR, as it will be easier to educate the potential market to take a faster train than switch from a car/air to (any) train.


----------



## neroden (Dec 10, 2015)

Well, this is one reason I'd like to see the Daylight up and running before CAHSR gets running. To make sure there's a sustainable base of passengers along the coast before UP tries to get rid of passenger service altogether.


----------



## tp49 (Dec 10, 2015)

Karl1459 said:


> Don't put fully operational CAHSR into the discussion. Its either going to get built or not, and its either going to get ridership or not. If it does get built and is a success its a total game changer so the political pressure will be to have HSR on all corridors and there will be a cash cow to fund it. Bye-bye snailrail, the Starlight runs SEA-SAC with CAHSR and corridor trains from there.
> 
> In the meantime incremental upgrades to fast conventional rail make sense. And interconnections are a big part of that. Enlarging the base of rail passengers be positive in its own right and will give a ready market for CAHSR, as it will be easier to educate the potential market to take a faster train than switch from a car/air to (any) train.


You're making the assumption that CALHSR will either be operated by Amtrak or have some type if interline ticketing agreement with Amtrak. If neither of these happen (though I could see the later happening) then I could see the Starlight still going to LA.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 11, 2015)

It's possible to make this complicated, especially by adding in a HSR line a hundred miles inland.

Seems to me it's simpler than that.

The _Coast Daylight_ will be a glorified _Surfliner_. Those trains are very successful. So what's one more? It will be successful, too.

Looks like 11 _Surfliners_ run between San Diego and L.A. Almost clock face, stretched a little thin in the middle of the day. I'm sure California has been making plans to add another departure or two or three when they can get the equipment to have hourly times. That point will come when the initial order for bi-levels for the Midwest and West Coast corridors is completed. I expect Cali will order more cars before then. And they'll need new cars for the _Coast Daylight _if they hope to start it in 2022 or so.

Of those 11 _Surfliners_, 4 continue to Santa Barbara, and 2 of those to San Luis Obispo. Surely no one expects that HSR in the Central Valley will diminish demand San Diego-L.A.-Santa Barbara-SLO. I'd expect another Surfliner to be added here as soon as capacity improvements are made to satisfy the UP and to provide better and safer service.

Then the small part of the game will be for a train or two to continue SLO-Salinas-SanJose-SF/Oakland-Sacramento.

The _Coast Starlight'_s 3:37 p.m. stop in SLO will be almost like another Surfliner train coming in, except the _Starlight _and the _Daylight _will pass thru, and not dead-end in San Luis Obispo. If SLO can support two _Surfliners_ and the _Starlight _now, I expect the route beyond can easily support another thru train, as well as a couple more _Surfliners_ from L.A. that will turn at SLO.

Long distance and medium distance trains do better when they share a route with corridor trains. The _Lake Shore_, the _Ethan Allen_, the _Adirondack_, and the _Maple Leaf_ are some of the almost hourly trains NYC-Albany. The _Texas Eagle_ benefits from being part of the line-up of trains CHI-STL and will do better when part of the 110-mph pack in 2018. The _Coast Starlight _already benefits, and will benefit more when two more departures are added, from being part of the trains running Seattle-Portland.

So I'm still not worried. The _Starlight_ and the _Daylight_ will thrive as part of expanded _Surfliner_ service in the near future.


----------



## leemell (Dec 11, 2015)

Please don't call California "Cali". Most of us here don't like it, much like "Frisco". It was started out of state (East Coast I believe), not here.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 11, 2015)

leemell said:


> Please don't call California "Cali". Most of us here don't like it, much like "Frisco". I was started out of state (East Coast I believe), not here.


There's worse names for California like The Shakey State, La La Land, Lotus Land and the Home of Dick Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

How about The Left Coast or the Wrong Coast? Is that offensive to Golden Staters?


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 11, 2015)

leemell said:


> Please don't call California "Cali". Most of us here don't like it, much like "Frisco". I was started out of state (East Coast I believe), not here.


I was hoping you'd find a more persuasive reason for me to not call the state Cali. After all, I'm on the East Coast. I'm not sure that West Coasters finding the term annoying is not a plus.

But since this is a railroad blog, I guess I can shorten the multi-syllabic name to CA, as in CAHSR. Then you, and the 1960s era abbrev. scanners at the Post Office, can have it your way. LOL.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Dec 11, 2015)

neroden said:


> Well, this is one reason I'd like to see the Daylight up and running before CAHSR gets running. To make sure there's a sustainable base of passengers along the coast before UP tries to get rid of passenger service altogether.


Why would UP want to get rid of passenger service along the coast line? There's not a whole lot of freight on the coast line and I imagine the revenue from the various passenger trains along the route bring in as much revenue as any kind of freight for the UP. As long as they are properly compensated, I'm sure UP will play nice just like they do on the Capital Corridor, Lincoln Service and Metra service in the Chicago area. UP's extreme anti-passenger attitude seems to have disappeared at the same time as Amtrak's ill-planned freight and express experiment.


----------



## leemell (Dec 11, 2015)

I'm pointing it out to those whom may use the term without knowing. On the other hand, if your intent is to annoy you are right, there are many other choices. I have heard them all. I was born here and spent quite a few years in the Air Force. I HAVE heard them all. many times. That has rolled off my back several decades ago.


----------

