The Coast Daylight

[Donctor]

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]

 

[Green Maned Lion]

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.

I have the last one on my desktop as wallpaper.

F40 283

H-bag

10-6

10-6

10-6

Amcafe

Coach

Coach

 

[zephyr17]

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

 

[tp49]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

Coast Daylight trains would stop at existing Amtrak stations in the Coast Corridor and potentially also at … Soledad and King City. The proposed [SIZE=14.166666030883789px]…[/SIZE] service would require the acquisition of locomotives and passenger railcars.
...

Corridor-Wide. Extend Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) from Salinas to Soledad; install island CTC from San Lucas to Bradley. Grade crossing safety and mobility enhancements from San Lucas to Bradley: tie replacement, installation of continuous welded rail, ballasting, track surfacing, track structure realignment, rehab existing Salinas and Soledad sidings; replace turnouts; rolling stock purchases

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]

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]

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

.....

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.)

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]

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]

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

 

[Anderson]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.