Railroad Forums 

  • Return of the "Daylight"

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #303660  by wigwagfan
 
From the San Mateo County Times:
Moving on to trains: Amtrak may soon resurrect the long-lost Coach Daylight Express — an 11-hour jaunt from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The train, which last ran in 1971 under Southern Pacific, would make 21 stops along its 474-mile route.

And though the train's revival may take a while, the Caltrain board on Thursday voted unanimously on a resolution supporting the train, which would run along the Caltrain corridor.
This begs the question, if the Coast Starlight were to be split into two trains, and the Daylight to terminate in San Francisco (instead of running to Jack London Square in Oakland) - how would transfers between the "Coast Daylight Express" and northern/eastern trains work, in San Jose, by motorcoach, or "on your own" (i.e. BART, taxi, bus)?

 #303663  by Noel Weaver
 
First off, I think this would be an excellent move for this problem train.
A day trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles would be a winner in my
opinion.
I guess as good of a bet for a Los Angeles connection would be at
Sacramento where there are two daily trains to Bakersfield with a bus
connection for LA.
A connection via San Jose could be possible but often a late long distance
train connection to a corridor train that is much more likely to operate on
schedule can often be difficult.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the riders are through
from north of Sacramento to south of San Jose at least. My guess is not
too many.
Noel Weaver

 #303672  by Vincent
 
Would the Coast Daylight lead to the truncation of the Coast Starlight? The proposed Daylight would offer Surfliner type scheduling--21 stops between SF and LA with Amtrak California's commendable service--while the Coast Starlight has only 8 stops between OAK and LA with sleeper and coach sevice. It also appears that the Daylights would originate in LA and SF at about 730am, earlier than the departures of Amtrak trains 11 & 14, making connections between the Daylight and the Starlight impossible. So presuming that both the Daylight and the Starlight could be operated reliably on schedule (I dream a little dream), each train would have a different mission.

Historically the Starlight's top four city pairs are (in order) SEA-PDX, LAX-SEA, LAX-OAK and LAX-PDX, so it's hard to make a case for truncating the Starlight based solely on historical ridership. Most important for the Coast Starlight is the return of reliable on-time service. Ridership has declined dramatically over the last few years, mirroring the decline in OTP.

 #303684  by David Benton
 
i would split the train at San Jose , 1/2 to S.F , 1/2 to Sacremento .
as for connection to the Starlight , well , either a overnite break , or connect direct to LA via the valley trains .

 #303713  by mkellerm
 
The California State Rail Plan has the first of the proposed Daylights penciled in for FY07-08, subject to funding, equipment availability, and (most importantly) permission from UP for an additional round-trip on the Coast Line. At one point a couple of years ago, UP simply stopped cooperating with feasibility studies for service expansions in California, but they may have become more accommodating recently.

 #303720  by Gilbert B Norman
 
As Mr. JP1822, myself, and others have noted here in the past, the proposed truncating of the Starlight into the Daylight and Cascade is simply a pragmatic recognition that it is no longer possible to operate a reliable 36 hour one night out West Coast service.

A Cascade could still make a same day connection at Martinez with a San Joaquin enabling service to the LA basin. Inaugurating the Daylight leaves open the possibility that San Francisco could have Amtrak rail service for the first time and with certainly favorable impact on ridership. Furthermore, there would no longer be a need to offer Sleeper and Diner service on the Daylight, but hopefully a Sightseer could be part of the consist.

Since the Daylight would be an intrastate operation, such could become a part of Amtrak California, and possibly brighten the environment for obtaining local funding for additional, and apparently badly needed, equipment. It would also be in line with the stated Bush administration objectives of transfering LD services to local control.

At present, this proposal could prove to be be a "win-win"; after all the 'extra-amenity' Starlight is now in the history books.

 #303746  by wigwagfan
 
I would split the train at San Jose - 1/2 to S.F., 1/2 to Sacramento. As for a connection to the Starlight, either a overnight break or connect directly to L.A. via the San Joaquins. (preceding statement based upon the quote of David Benton)

That require an extra locomotive and crew, plus switching duties and an extended stop - Amtrak is not known for European-style three minute switching stops.

What I could see is a connecting Capitols train, potentially with a cross-platform transfer. Of course, it'd be easier to run the Daylight to Sacramento, with a cross-platform transfer to a CalTrain train, since Amtrak already has servicing facilities in Sacramento but not in San Francisco. But the train ending in S.F. has definite marketing advantages over Oakland and Sacramento.

The "overnight break" is a HUGE disadvantage; particularly if the Starlight continues as an overnight train - what would be the point? It'd require two nights to get from Los Angeles to Portland. If the Starlight simply became the Coast Daylight and the Shasta Daylight, it'd be a very long trip in coach if you went from Portland to the Bay Area and there'd be no benefit for business travellers (it'd cost an entire day without the potential of getting any work done over a large strech of the route), so it'd become - as the pro-Amtrak rally claims, "Greyhound on Rails". And if you're continuing south - add an overnight, and another day. Southwest and Alaska Airlines sound REAL good; at least you only lose three hours of work, even if those three hours are cramped.

As an overnight train, at least one could "nod off in Portland, wake up in California" - to steal a marketing slogan used by Lufthansa on the side of MAX trains ("Nod off in Portland, wake up in Europe"). However as such, what would be the "public benefit" of the train so as to warrant public investment (read: taxpayer subsidy)?

 #303748  by CNJ
 
I believe that a direct San Fransisco to Los Angeles train (downtown to downtown) is an excellent idea.

Whay would even be better would be a "Morning Daylight" and an Afternoon Daylight"...much in the same way the Hiawathas were run between Chicago and Minneapolis.

 #303908  by Vincent
 
Judging by the increasing passenger counts on the Surfliners and the Capitol Corridor trains it appears that having multiple frequencies makes train travel a more compelling option for California's travellers. Terminating the Starlight in San Jose or Oakland with an inconvenient transfer to/from points south doesn't make sense from a service point of view. We can expect most of the SEA/PDX/EUG/SAC to Southern California business to just fly away--leaving the Starlight with an even uglier operating loss. In the very recent past the Starlight was the jewel of Amtrak's system, giving up on it now seems short-sighted and foolish.

 #303971  by wigwagfan
 
Vincent wrote:We can expect most of the SEA/PDX/EUG/SAC to Southern California business to just fly away--leaving the Starlight with an even uglier operating loss.
Looking at the SEA and PDX airline arrival/departures for points south, I'd argue that the vast majority of Southern California business already flies, and so does the Northern California business as well.

So, exactly what can Amtrak offer that isn't already offered by the half-dozen airlines? (And Greyhound is a competitor in this market as well, having one benefit - it serves the Southern Oregon cities along the I-5/old U.S. 99 corridor that Amtrak doesn't - like Roseburg, Grants Pass and Medford.)

An overnight train from Portland to San Jose would make sense - why wake up at 4:00 AM, be at PDX at 5:30 AM, to catch a 6:30 AM flight that arrives at one of the Bay Area airports around 8:00-8:30 AM (at the morning rush hour), and then commute to work; when you can leave Portland the afternoon/evening before, have a good night's sleep, wake up and enjoy a breakfast, catch up on your e-mails, and arrive much closer to your worksite, refreshed and unrushed.

For those passengers who want to continue south, they can connect to either a Coast Daylight or a San Joaquin train, with an easy and convenient transfer. Transfers aren't inconvenient unless it is made to be; I easily transferred from a SB Starlight to a Thruway bus in Sacramento; to another train in Stockton, to another bus in Bakersfield, and to another train at LAUPT to Anaheim; return from Anaheim to LAUPT, cross-platform transfer to the Starlight up to PDX. For passengers continuing east from PDX (when the train used to run on time) the connection to the Empire Builder was cross-platform, or required crossing two tracks of which the Empire Builder's short consist was parked north of the pedestrian crossover and easily indentifable.

Given that most people say that MAX is easily accessible from Portland's Union Station (in fact, it is an unsigned NINE BLOCK walk through a not-so-good part of Old Town; unless one catches a bus to transfer at Morrison/Yamhill Streets - but is hauling luggage up steps of a transit bus and stowing it...stowing it?...any more convenient? And beginning in three months, four of those blocks will be under construction, requiring a walk down a street with no sidewalks and frequented by bands of homeless bums, and across a four-lane street with no crosswalk or traffic light - and the number of busses serving the Union Station area will be reduced from a half-dozen today to just one, whose stop is three and a half city blocks from the main entrance to Union Station) - certainly transferring between two trains that are less than 50 feet apart can't be difficult unless you're blind.

From a tourist perspective; the Starlight route is advertised as the Pacific Coast. While the Eugene-Chemult "Cascade Crossing" is during the light of day, it isn't necessarily any more scenic than the Empire Builder or California Zephyr; there aren't any interesting rock formations, mountain peaks, national parks, or other "points of interest" along the stretch. Chemult-Chico is pretty much in the dark both directions. North of Eugene is just another agricultural valley for 300 miles; the San Joaquin Valley looks pretty much the same as the Willamette Valley.

From a "transportation necessity" perspective, Klamath Falls is the only stop with a significant population that would lose Amtrak service. It has bus service to Medford (which has a large regional airport), and K-Falls has its own airport with air service to Portland, and soon to San Francisco. (In deference to the "transportation subsidies" thread, neither Medford nor Klamath Falls are EAS subsidized airports. However, Klamath Falls' airport is located on an Air National Guard base used for F-15/F-16 fighter training.)

So, Amtrak's current Coast Starlight train doesn't offer a real benefit in serving communities that aren't served by other means of transportation; it isn't a very timely service (even when the train was consistently on-time), and the on-board amentities don't really make up for the lost time. It basically serves people who "enjoy the romance of the rails", who "can't fly" for one reason or another (although Amtrak handles a minority of ground transportation, too), or because Amtrak is cheaper than Greyhound or the airlines, and the person travelling is not time-sensitive. Well, the GrandLuxeExpress could take the #1 category away (without Amtrak's unfair competition, it could probably dedicate a trainset to this route, and with "economies of scale" offer both a "train ride only" option, and a "tour" option that combines the train with numerous off-ons and local hotel stays making the two day trip a six or seven day journey); and reasons #2 and #3 are hardly justifable reasons for federal subsidization of transport, unless all those airliners in the sky (and Greyhound on the I-5) are going to get an equal subsidy as well (I wouldn't mind paying only $80 each way, and not having to pay those pesky TSA, 9/11, and PFC taxes!!)

 #303982  by Mr. Toy
 
Just so everyone is clear, the Daylight is not intended to replace any portion of the Starlight route, but rather supplement it. If anything it is intended to replace the existing Surfliner Thruway bus north of San Luis Obispo.

It is not an Amtrak proposal. It is a California state project intended to connect northern and southern California corridors. Officially, the Daylight is considered as an extension of the Surfliner route.

Some proposed stops that are not served by the Starlight are Millbrae, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Gilroy, Pajaro (Watsonville), King City and Soledad.

Startup is proposed for 2007-2008, with a second train added 2013-2014.

Erik is correct that there will be connections to the Capitol Corridor at San Jose.

For further reading the latest ten year California State Rail Plan can be downloaded here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/rail/pubs/Stat ... rp2005.pdf WARNING: very large file - 28MB. The Surfliner extension to San Francisco is discussed on pages 66 and 125.

And on a related note, the Starlight's timekeeping has improved significantly in the last few weeks.

 #304290  by taoyue
 
It's interesting that the Starlight's timekeeping improved recently, what with the noise made about Union Pacific dispatching in the newspapers. Is UP making a special effort? Or did some of the slow orders get lifted when maintenance ended?

An hour late into Seattle is not bad at all. And a state-supported train ought to do even better if it's tied into the overall incentive scheme for UP.

 #304313  by jp1822
 
If Amtrak wanted to attract more business travellers or tourists who are short on travel time, but want to enjoy the train, Amtrak ought to consider overnight routes that depart stations between 4 p.m. and 11 p.m. and arrive at destinations between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. I can think of many markets for such a train - West Coast to East Coast. The Vermonter could easily be turned into an overnight route - reminiscent of the Montrealer, but holding at perhaps Springfield to allow for more passenger friendly arrivals from Bellows Falls north. Same for the Adirondack or a train travelling between Niagara Falls and NYC. San Fransisco to LA would also be another interesting overnight market. To make this economical, labor rules for onboard staff would have to be more flexible and Amtrak would need some more sleeper cars! I think Amtrak misses the mark by not offering the "hotel on wheels" concept.

 #304353  by Noel Weaver
 
Maybe the best thing to do in this case is to run a daylight train between
Seattle and Oakland in each direction. No connections at the south end.
The cost of operation would be less with no sleeping cars needed and
maybe less food service too. Good possibility of less freight congestion
too as often freight trains start out in late afternoons or early evenings.
I do not think Portland - Oakland could be considered a corridor but
rather a long distance train and in almost all cases, the long distance
business traveler has been lost to the jet plane age. This is a very scenic
route and could be advertised to sightseeing travel and tourist business.
One thing is quite clear and that is that existing service is not working too
well right now.
Noel Weaver

 #304369  by wigwagfan
 
taoyue wrote:Is UP making a special effort? Or did some of the slow orders get lifted when maintenance ended?
Some of the major projects have ended and the temporary slow orders have been lifted...

However quite a few permanent speed restrictions remain and will remain for years to come. The snow is about to fall, so the track workers are moving to other parts of the system, or are gearing up for snow removal (and derailment) duty instead of programmed maintenance.