posted
The blogger has his heart in the right place, but he doesn't understand the issues. He thinks checked baggage service is a significant cause of delays on the Starlight. And he seems to think money grows on trees.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the blogger states correctly that 12 hours on Amtrak versus 7 in a car is not going to bring that many riders to Amtrak.
This issue merits discussion and attention from the California rail groups.
I posted below some schedules for this route.
Getting into San Francisco
Presently Amtrak reaches Oakland in 11 hours, 17 minutes. If you are going to East Bay, Oakland, Berkeley, etc., the train is 11 hours, not 12. If you are going only to South Bay, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Freemont, Santa Clara, etc., the train is 10 hours, not 12, The twelve hours to San Francisco comes from taking the Amtrak bus from Oakland to the Ferry Building. That's a round about way to get to San Francisco having come through San Jose.
I looked at the present SP Peninsular train schedule
and discovered that, from the Starlight, you can take a San Francisco train at 9:10 pm and arrive at 10:41. That's well after the posted arrival of the Oakland Bus at 10:10 pm. The late night train makes 22 stops and takes an hour and a half.
However, I noticed that if you could connect with the 5:45 express train you could get to San Francisco in only an hour, about the same time the train takes to get to Oakland. The express makes five stops. An express train from San Jose to San Francisco would take more or less a half hour off the twelve hour time.
When the Starlight arrives in the evening in San Jose, idle locomotives and cars fill the station waiting for morning rush. Using some of them to go to San Francisco and other express stops would require marginal costs only for fuel and labor. Doing this should be a no brainer.
The Schedule Itself
The figures below show the SP's fastest trains at the time..
I got these figures from my shelf. Otherwise I have no knowledge of this history and what other schedules might show.
Amtrak can say that it is faster than the SP was in 1931, 11:17 versus 11:45. So Amtrak is not all bad.
However, in 1941, the SP was running the schedule in 9:30. It averaged 50 mph between Los Angeles and San Jose. Amtrak's 11:17 and 41 mph looks poor.
The 1931 and 1941 schedules ran with steam locomotives, not with today's sophisticated powerful diesel electric ones.
I understand that most Amtrak Eastern long hauls today, with the exception of the Cardinal in Ohio and Indiana, average slightly less than 50 mph, such as 47, 48 and 49.
Even against 1988, Amtrak today looks bad. Then, before improvements for the Capital Limiteds to Sacramento, Amtrak was doing San Jose Oakland at 27 mph. Now it does it at 38, which is an improvement. However, Los Angeles to San Jose fell from 47 mph in 1988 to 41 now. During that period, the route received upgrades for Metrolink service in Los Angeles.
What are reasonable expectations for this train?
Fifty mph, around the Eastern long haul speed and the 1941 SP schedule, seems a reasonable expectation without having to rebuild the railroad. At 9 1/2 hours for the train and 7 hours for a car, the train would look equal if not better.
Schedules
If you use the Opera web browser, you can make these numbers line up with menu, view, style, emulate text browser.
Time Mile Station Cumulative Segment Time Speed Time Speed
May 1931 Transportation Blue Book
8:00a 471 Los Angeles 6:43p 47 San Jose 10:43 -40 10:43 -40 7:45p 0 San Francisco 11:45 -40 01:02 -45
Official Guide, June 1941
8:15a 0 Los Angeles 4:45p 423 San Jose 08:30 50 08:30 50 5:45p 470 San Francisco 09:30 49 01:00 47
Summer 1988, Amtrak schedule
9:55a 1390 Los Angeles 6:57p 967 San Jose 09:02 -47 09:02 -47 8:34p 923 Oakland 10:39 -44 01:37 -27
Fall 2007, Amtrak schedule
10:15a 1377 Los Angeles 8:27p 954 San Jose 10:12 -41 10:12 -41 8:39p 954 San Jose 10:24 0 00:12 0 9:32p 913 Oakland 11:17 -41 01:05 -38
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being from the east coast, there might be a good reason why this hasn't been done and I just don't know what it is, but here goes:
How about having Amtrak California add two corridor day trains serving the L.A./S.F. corridor? Wouldn't it be easier to run a corridor train at 79-110 MPH (assuming the tracks are upgraded for this) than it would to run a LD tourist train at this speed?
Posts: 100 | From: Kernersville, NC | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Department’s ten-year operating plan includes one round-trip train between San Francisco and San Luis Obispo, starting in 2007-08, with a second train in 2013-14. The first train would be operated from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles as an extension of the new Pacific Surfliner train added in November 2004, and would provide through train service between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The second train would operate as an extension of the planned third Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo round-trip. Direct train connections to San Diego at Los Angeles would be available on most trips.
The Department believes this extension is a good candidate for rail service because:
• It would be the only State-supported route to provide direct train service between the two major population centers of the State, thus closing a key gap in the system.
• There is strong ridership on the one daily Coast Starlight round-trip and on the three daily Amtrak Thruway buses.
• An existing local organization –the CRCC, is actively planning the service, and implementation plans have been completed.
Note: CCRC= Coast Rail Coordinating Council
I will point out that this plan differs significantly from the 2000-2005 plan, which called for "tilt equipment" for faster speeds along with track and signal upgrades. The long term goal was 8 hours LA to SF. That goal apparently has been dropped. Also under consideration in the older plan was possible public acquisition of the Coast Line, which I don't see mentioned in the current plan.
This statement provides a likely explanation for at least some of the changes:
quote: In fall 2004, the CRCC released the Capacity Analysis for this service. The analysis identified several capital improvements that would be helpful in order to increase train frequencies on the Coast Route. The CRCC is now working with Amtrak, UP, and the Department to identify how to move forward since capital funding for the improvements is extremely limited. Additionally, at this time, the UP is not considering new passenger routes due to an increase in freight traffic and their need to accommodate this demand.
So, as you can see, it is not a lack of desire or planning that is holding up progress.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was addressing the short run/medium run, up to 5 years or so, during which time an above 79 mph upgrade could not get politically or physically done.
California has a high speed rail program with "bullet trains operating at speeds up to 220 mph."
That program runs the train through the Central Valley, Bakersfield and Fresno. The valley is flat and, unlike the coast, amenable for high speed runs.
The plan does nothing for people living on the coast, in the Salinas Valley, and on the Monterey Peninsula. A long term problem of providing transportation there exists. Given the topography of the Coast Route, which actually crosses a major mountain chain, the Coast Ranges, 79 mph service is probably the limit.
Personally, I think the high speed rail program is pie in the sky and will never get done for lack of money. The cost figures are astronomical, $9 billion, $30 billion, $80 billion. Take your pick. I have never seen a construction project with such overruns happening before it has got started. The state has trouble supplying $20 text books for school kids.
The high speed proposal, unfortunately, has taken 79-110 mph technology off the table. I think your idea of that technology running up the Valley makes a lot of sense. Once reality catches up with the high speed people, it will come back.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Toy's reference is essentially the latest news. My own opinion is that the California High Speed has a lot more than a "pie in the sky" chance of being built. To call the various numbers "overruns" is not correct. There is not yet a true estimate on the cost of the project. I do not know where the $9 billion came from, but the $30 billion range is the current talking number.
I would also say that is is wrong to say that the high speed plan has taken the 79 to 110 mph stuff off the table. There is still a lot of work on the 79 to 110 stuff in California. It is just that if you wanted to do a good 79 to 110 mph line from Bakersfield to Los Angeles it would likely cost almost as much doing a 220 mph line between the same points due to the terrain.
Back to the coast line: There is work in the plan is various locations. Go back and read Mr. Toy's reference, particularly:
quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------- In fall 2004, the CRCC released the Capacity Analysis for this service. The analysis identified several capital improvements that would be helpful in order to increase train frequencies on the Coast Route. The CRCC is now working with Amtrak, UP, and the Department to identify how to move forward since capital funding for the improvements is extremely limited. Additionally, at this time, the UP is not considering new passenger routes due to an increase in freight traffic and their need to accommodate this demand. -------------------------------------------------------------------- What this last sentence is telling us is that UPRR has been burned severely by the railroad industry's downsizing over the last 50 years and more particularly by the very poor condition that a lot of the former SP lines were in when they took it over, so at this point they are not about to give away or sell off any capacity anywhere. Therefore, selling the Coast Line or any other line is not going to happen, and if California want to add trains to it, they had better be willing to come up with the money for all the siding additions and improvements, signal changes and track improvements so that there is absolutely no diminisment of the ability of the line to carry the freight capacity it has now.
Posts: 2810 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by amtraksupporter: California has a high speed rail program with "bullet trains operating at speeds up to 220 mph.".....
That program runs the train through the Central Valley, Bakersfield and Fresno. The valley is flat and, unlike the coast, amenable for high speed runs.
The plan does nothing for people living on the coast, in the Salinas Valley, and on the Monterey Peninsula.
Hence the ongoing planning for Coast Daylight service. If the high speed plan gets going the demand for the Daylight would be reduced for through travelers, but would still be important for travel between intermediate points.
Incidentally, there is about 100 miles between Salinas and Paso Robles suitable for 80+ operating speeds, with appropriate upgrades and grade separations. The only problem is money.
quote:Personally, I think the high speed rail program is pie in the sky and will never get done for lack of money.
Its true the projected cost is pretty high. But it is cheap compared to the cost of adding additional highway and airport capacity in the same corridor. Coincidentally, this morning Ron Diridon was on a KGO radio talk show this morning discussing this very topic. He said highway and airport expansion would cost at least twice as much as the high speed rail plan. Any way you cut it, the capacity will be needed in the next 20 years, and high speed rail is the most cost effective, energy efficient, and environmentally friendly way to go. It is also the only way to expand capacity without conflicting with state mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So It's gonna happen, its just a matter of when.
Posts: 2649 | From: California's Monterey Peninsula | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
I could have done without all of the hype on how high speed rail reduces greenhouse gases and the positive impact on global warning, but the point about how it would be cheaper than the projected expansion needs in airport and highway traffic, as Mr Toy points out, I think is well taken.
Some highlights:
The Pacheco Pass would be used, with conection between Montery and Gilroy. Express trains would avoid intermediate stops.... the projected time, from SF to LA would be 2.5 hrs. Cost: Projected to cost the Calif taxpayers 9 billion from bonds, with 21 billion from other govt sources and private investors. A caller asked a good question about cost overruns, and the cost of a 10 yr environmental impact report. Diridon said he would hope the contracts would force the contractors to absorb the cost overruns.
Time Frame: Bond issue on ballot in Nov, 2008. If it passes, construction to begin sometime from 2010 to 2012, with start-up, hopefully, in 2020. Well, we will see.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
