A more passenger-friendly 'Coast Starlight' timetable

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

unitedstatesfan

Train Attendant
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
70
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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'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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
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.
Couldn't agree more.

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.
 
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".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
 
...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
 
Back
Top