LA -> SF
- Thread starter KRFK5
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
June the Coach Rider
OBS Chief
Because it is not an express, it makes stops in between? Plus it does not go straight there on one highway, it travels to different areas.
Well, rail distance between LA and SF is approx. 469 miles, versus 380 miles driving (on I-5). The train also stops 10 time before getting to Emeryville (the SF connection).
Track speed is also much lower than 65mph for a lot of the trip, especially along the coast.
Station stops also add a lot of time, especially SLO which is scheduled at almost 30 minutes.
The faster train route is the bus to BAK, then San Joaquin to EMY and bus to SFO, which takes about 9 hours.
Track speed is also much lower than 65mph for a lot of the trip, especially along the coast.
Station stops also add a lot of time, especially SLO which is scheduled at almost 30 minutes.
The faster train route is the bus to BAK, then San Joaquin to EMY and bus to SFO, which takes about 9 hours.
It does take a winding route, heading out to the coast and then along bluff-top tracks by the seaside. Because it is single-track much of the way, Amtrak has to wait for other trains (including freights on the northern part of the route) to pass at sidings. It also spends some time at a couple of the stations. On the long, slow hill from the summit of the coast range down to SLO, the train goes slowly and takes a circuitous route because trains can only do a certain grade, no steeper. On the bluffs above the coast beaches, I am quite sure there is a speed limit for safety. I am sure there are other factors, but these are the ones I have experienced on the route.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,527
The route of the Coast Starlight between LA and the Bay Area hugs the coastline and weaves through mountain passes. While that is great for scenery, it is terrible for speed.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,527
Bakersfield = BFD
the_traveler
Engineer
I agree 150% - especially if the Pacific Parlour Car (PPC) is on the train and you're in a room!
rusty spike
OBS Chief
The Coast Starlight is about leisure, relaxation and scenery--not about getting from Point A to Point B. The CS and the EB are the best rides in the Amtrak system. For the total scenic experience thing take the CS all the way to Seattle. The CS is definitely a ride one should enjoy after having driven that "slingshot" of I-5 between LA and the Bay area, And if you try to drive it in under 5 1/2 hours you are really going to need a wine-tasting event like the one in the Pacific Parlour Car. Just MHO. :blink:
Edited for typos
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 356
It takes me three days to drive from LA to San Francisco 
I am not in a rush.
I am not in a rush.
the_traveler
Engineer
More likely, it will be 2347, if that soon!
We will see if the LA to SF HSR corridor will be built by 2026. My opinion is that the project schedule will actually be sped up later in this decade when oil and gas prices really begin to hurt. But the plan, as I recall is fir a 2:40 minute express LA to SF train. Which will likely get cut to 3 hours by route and operating cost compromises. Regardless a 3 hour LA to SF train will transform travel between the 2 cities.With LA having greatly expanded its rail transit network by the time a LA to SF HSR service begins.
The Coast Starlight has a padded schedule as a LD train going from LA to Seattle. A Coast Daylight from LA to downtown SF can have less padding in the schedule, so it should have a shorter trip time. CA is also funding upgrades to the Surfliner corridor on the southern end and the Caltrain corridor on the northern end along with some capacity upgrades to the planned Coast Daylight route in between. The CA state rail plan has a tentative 2015 start date for the Coast Daylight so in 3-4 years there could be a direct LA to SF train option with a more competitive trip time. Albeit still slower than driving, but a far more relaxing way to travel.
Texan Eagle
Conductor
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,705
I have always wondered, would a moderately faster than CS train between SF and LA be doable with current setup or some track/route improvement in co-operation with UP? Not substantially fast, something like this schedule- (I took CS departure time at SJ and followed the same stops, thinking of a nearly 60mph average running speed, not very high hopes)
San Francisco 9.00
San Jose 9.54
Salinas 11.15
Paso Robles 13.00
SLO 13.45
Santa Barbara 15.45
Oxnard 16.20
Simi Valley 16.40
Van Nuys 17.00
Burbank 17.08
Los Angeles 17.25
Would such a train be able to get ridership enough to sustain?
San Francisco 9.00
San Jose 9.54
Salinas 11.15
Paso Robles 13.00
SLO 13.45
Santa Barbara 15.45
Oxnard 16.20
Simi Valley 16.40
Van Nuys 17.00
Burbank 17.08
Los Angeles 17.25
Would such a train be able to get ridership enough to sustain?
Not realistic along the Coast without MAJOR improvements but I'd say it would be more attractive to me if it were on that "faster" timetable. With that said, I'm not riding the train to see the Coast. I'm riding to "commute" between Northern and Southern California. So a shorter travel time would benefit me.
I'd say a part of the joy of riding the CS though for the average passenger is having a more leisure environment and enjoy the coastal scenery. If I were zooming by, I think it would be less enjoyable if I were on a sightseeing trip.
I think the routing through the Valley is more practical for those looking for speed. There is not as much to see and SJ operates at 79 MPH along most of that territory already. The coast just seems more relaxing and seems to cater more to that demographic.
I'd say a part of the joy of riding the CS though for the average passenger is having a more leisure environment and enjoy the coastal scenery. If I were zooming by, I think it would be less enjoyable if I were on a sightseeing trip.
I think the routing through the Valley is more practical for those looking for speed. There is not as much to see and SJ operates at 79 MPH along most of that territory already. The coast just seems more relaxing and seems to cater more to that demographic.
I expect those more familiar with the route will weigh in, but you are likely being way too optimistic on what could be achieved over the coastal route. How many routes outside of the NEC does Amtrak currently maintain a 60 mph average speed over any notable distance over multiple stops? To maintain a 60 mph average, really need to have 90 or 110 max speed tracks where the max speed can be sustained for a significant piece of the route.
Pulling up the CA 2013 draft state rail plan, it splits capital investments for the Coast corridor into 3 phases: near term of $26 million (presumably the minimum to start the service), medium term = $710 million (some of this appears as it would be shared with other corridor expansions), and long term = $462 million. The medium and long term project list includes curve realignments, siding extensions, second tracks, powered switches. Which puts into perspective the probable costs of significant trip time reductions for a Coast Daylight. According to the state rail plan, the Coast Daylight route would be 474 miles.
But perhaps a sub 10 hour Coast Daylight will get enough ridership to come close to covering its operational costs? It will be traveling between 2 very large population centers, both with good or expanding local rail transit systems.
M
Mark
Guest
Faster way would be taking Megabus from LA Union Station direct to San Francisco Cal Train Station. It takes about 7.5 hours and is really cheap. One ride on megabus will also make you appreciate the Coast Starlight no matter how long it takes. Just think 81 people on a bus with just one rest stop and still the same old I-5
Texan Eagle
Conductor
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,705
Except that the route through valley is not a "train" route from Bay Area to LA, and for people except railfans, just too many transfers and hence low on interest.
If the central valley route is faster, how about a one seat SJ/OAK to LA train through the central valley? Picking up on schedule of one of the existing San Joaquins and adding some "fantasy schedule" to complete the gap we could get something like-
San Jose 09.15
Oakland 10.05
Emeryville 10.15
(Follow the exact schedule of train #714)
Bakersfield 16.11
Los Angeles 18.15 (considering bus takes 2hr 20 min or so)
An 8-9 hour one seat ride from SF area straight into LA might get many takers, isn't it? So what exactly is stopping filling the Bakersfield-LA gap? I am sure the tracks exist, just the owner being pain in the posterior? Can they not be convinced/forced into allowing one or two passenger trains over that route?
M
Mark
Guest
Sadly this has been discussed many times before. The answer is in theory You and I along with a lot of people would love to see that happen. However the first problem is that the running time between Bakersfield and LA by train is more like 5 hours instead of 2.5. The bus goes straight over I-5 and the train would have to go over Tehachapi Loop. At one point an overnight train that would have done just that and brought passengers into Union Station by daybreak was recommended. However that idea was killed by problem number 2. The owners of the tracks are being pains in the posteriors. The trackage in question is one of the busiest rail corridors for both BNSF and UP. Neither railroad would give Amtrak the slot if they paid all the gold in Fort Knox. So yes I could highly agree with a direct SF-LA San Joaquin but it's gonna take a politician with the backbone to tell a private entity what they can do with their own property.
George Harris
Engineer
Look at the map. Not a road map, a topographic map. Even without any other interferenc from other trains, a train on the current Bakersfield to Los Angeles line would probably take around 5 hours. Metrolink already owns the line south of Palmdale. Ever heard of the Tehatchapi Loop? The railroad climbs something like 3,500 feet in elevation between Bakersfield and Tehatchapi by means of one of the major 19th century engineering feats of the world. In fact, if the line were to be built new today, it would be much the same. The only way to be straighter and shorter would be to be steeper. There is no possibility of something like the so called "base tunnels" that are being built in the Alps in Europe. It would amount to building a tunnel most of the distance between Bakersfield and Sylmar, what is that? Around 80 miles and crossing several faults? The longest tunnel elsewhere in the world is somewhere under 30 miles and wa horrendously expensive.
Texan Eagle
Conductor
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,705
Yea, I did not realize train route from Bakersfield to LA would require traversing the Tehachapi loop. I have not just heard of it, but actually spent an entire day photographing trains there and I realize how overcrowded and treacherous that route is. I got carried away by the fact that bus takes only 2hr something to do Bakersfield-LA so I presumed trains could do similar timings too.
So yea, central valley route to LA is practically ruled out, that only leaves the coastal route to be double tracked and upgraded, and who knows, if someday it can be electrified too, a double track electrified LA-SJ-SF corridor doing the run in 6 hours or so might be a better use of money than the eleventy gazillion dollars that the proposed maybe-maybenot-to-be-built HSR is going to cost.
- Status
