posted
I am taking a train trip next year and am considering a few different route options. How is the connection from the northbound Starlight to the eastbound Builder doing at Portland these days? Will they hold the eastbound Builder for a slightly tardy Starlight? If there is busing, where do the buses go from and to? Would they leave from Eugene, or Klamath Falls (Klamath falls would REALLY stink!) Any help would be appreciated!!
Posts: 38 | From: Highland, NY, USA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This hopefully may not apply to next year, but the Builder has been so chronically late this summer, they have occasionally turned the train around at Spokane. Yes, that means bustitution into the wee hours eastbound from Portland and Seattle. Due to track conditions, slow orders, and freight congestion in Dakota/Montana, 7 ends up 4-5 hours late and 8 is 5-7 hours late (6:40 as we speak). If 7/27 gets late enough, they can't get it ready to become 8/28 and stay on schedule.
Despite this the Builder is near sold out all summer. Some have speculated that since this line needs so much track work (and the season for that is short up north) that next summer might be a repeat.
A tardy Starlight has not been the problem, and I do believe K-Falls IS where they bus from.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Train #14 is often quite late into Portland, the average delay over the last few weeks being more than 1 hour. Irregardless of how the Empire Builder is doing, I would not recommend a 14-28 connection in Portland, and I would guess that AMTRAK won't even reserve that connection for you.
Posts: 2428 | From: Grayling, MI | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a report elsewhere that a sixth set of equipment will be added to the Empire Builder pool so that the equipment arriving SEA on #7 will turn NEXT DAY to #8 rather than the existing (planned) same day turn. This equipment no doubt comes in great part from that released owing to the change in Sunset Limited days of operation.
Owing to the poor performance of #8 Chicago arrivals, Amtrak will no longer guarantee any same day connection other than 59 (800P) or 48 (930P).
Regarding the 14-PDX-28 connection, that at present remains guaranteed; however, as Rich notes, a "busteetoot" from KFS to PSC depriving a rider of the views traversing the Cascade Mountains and along the Columbia River, is probably the rule rather than the exception. If the scenery viewing is a large reason for your trip, best plan an overnight at Portland. Even if I haven't been there myself "in years", I'm told it is a very attractive, pedestrian-friendly, city.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It used to be a reliable connection, but not lately. As GBN noted, Amtrak just changed (within the last few days) the guaranteed connection thing. In my AmTravels over the years, I have always built in a day of "cushion" so that I don't stress out on the train about missing a connection. So if your schedule will allow it, you should take #14 to Portland, spend the night in a hotel, and then take #28 the next afternoon (you'll have most of the day to play tourist in Portland since 28 departs in the late afternoon). You can go to Powell's Books, Voodoo Doughnuts, take a little river cruise, or just hang out and people-watch!
For the bussing, yes, it is from K-Falls to Pasco, WA. That is one very long bus ride.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would never try again to connect in Portland. My plan is to spend the night and enjoy thast great city. Comimg back I would go to Seattle and enjoy that great city before heading south. That way you never have to worry about your connections this from someone you has been bussed.
Posts: 711 | From: Santa Ana | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by chrisg: I would never try again to connect in Portland. My plan is to spend the night and enjoy thast great city. Comimg back I would go to Seattle and enjoy that great city before heading south. That way you never have to worry about your connections this from someone you has been bussed.
Wisdom here.
I've never had a connection blown or suffered a bustitute in the Pacific Northwest though in 2011 I did change an itinerary which included trains 28 & 7 at the last minute due to the flood delays.
Literally.
The nice people at AGR took me off the Empire Builder and put me in the last available bedroom on #11 just three days before I was due to fly to Seattle.
Bottom Line - there is enough to see in Portland and/or Seattle that an overnight layover (time permitting) to reduce the chance of being put on a bus is worthwhile.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the bustitute Empire Builder connection is a really bad idea (is it still from Klamath Falls to the Tri Cities area?. The stopoever in Portland is a nice rest between the Starlight and Empire Builder.
I think one answer might be to start #14, out of LA, 3 hours earlier. That should allow a much easier connection, with the Empire Builder, out of Portland. It would also get the northbound Starlight into the bay area at a much more reasonable hour. In addition, by having #14 earlier into Seattle it could allow a connction with Cascade train #516 to Vancouver (now leaving Seattle at 6:50 PM). It would alleviate the need to take the present bus connection they now provide.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, your immediate proposal would kill the 3-LAX-14 connection, which is likely the strongest one made at LA.
The other alternative would simply be to break the Starlight into a Coast Daylight and a Cascade with the latter leaving Uakland three hours earlier. Those wanting a same day connection from LA would use existing San Joaquin service (3-LAX-5815-BFD-715-SKN-3715-SAC-14) and connect at Sacramento.
Those desiring to use the existing Starlight that would now involve a "delay en-route" would overnight at their expense at location of their choice anywhere between San Jose and Sacramento.
There would also be savings available to Amtrak in that it would no longer be necessary to operate Sleeping Cars on the "Coast Daylight", although possibly there would be demand to offer a "Parlour Class" using the existing "Pacific Parlor" cars.
The ultimate prize would be Caltrain allowing access so that the "Daylight" could serve 4th and Townsend, which I understand is no longer "wine country" (haven't been out since 1990 - just no longer reason to go).
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: There would also be savings available to Amtrak in that it would no longer be necessary to operate Sleeping Cars on the "Coast Daylight"
Savings or a lost revenue stream? (I don't know - are the sleepers profitable on the CS?)
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman: I know we have had prior discussions with regard to a Coast Daylight and the problem with bus and light-rail connections, in LA, if the Coast Starlight were to depart LA much earlier in the morning.
I still wonder, say if the Starlight left LA at 7 AM, if there couldn't be a dedicated route with LA Metro Rail and/or commuter bus services to accomodate an early Starlight departure from the LA Union station.
I also would like to see some sort of survey pertaining to how Coast Starlight passengers get to the LA station and other, nearby, stations. Just what percentage of passengers take public transport and what percentage either drive in and park or have someone drive them in. If most use a car or taxi to get to the station would not, say, a 7AM departure actually be better? Most likely commuter traffic at that earlier hour would be less congested.
It's not that I'm unsympathetic to the needs of LA area passengers. I understand their commuter situation and know their interest should be considered. My concern with the present Starlight boarding time (10:25 AM) is that what's convenient for LA passengers is extremely inconvenient for the rest of the passengers, who board and detrain along most of the rest of the Starlight route. My feeling is that the very late arrival into the SF Bay Area and Sacramento is simply unacceptable.
As far as a "daly en-route", well, maybe. However, I would still like to see the Starlight get to the Bay Area, in the early evening, and continue on overnight to Oregon and Washington. The reason, for me, is purely selfish. I would not like a long daylight run from the Bay Area to the north as I don't like riding in coach for long hours. Only a sleeper, for me... I always like waking up, in the morning, in Klamath Falls for an early breakfast.
I hope you can get to the wine country. One way would be a stop in Davis or Martinez, on the CS or Zephyr, and rent a car. You can also fly (Horizon) from Portland, Las Vegas, or LA, direct, to Santa Rosa which would get you into the Sonoma County wine country and be not too far from Napa Valley wine country, either.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: The ultimate prize would be Caltrain allowing access so that the "Daylight" could serve 4th and Townsend, which I understand is no longer "wine country" (haven't been out since 1990 - just no longer reason to go).
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: I hope you can get to the wine country. One way would be a stop in Davis or Martinez, on the CS or Zephyr, and rent a car. You can also fly (Horizon) from Portland, Las Vegas, or LA, direct, to Santa Rosa which would get you into the Sonoma County wine country and be not too far from Napa Valley wine country
Richard, I think something got "lost in translation" here.
When I was last in San Francisco during 1990 (just no reason to go there anymore; my travels nowadays - 21 nights YTD with 3 more "committed" - are simply what is needed to "keep friends friends and family family". I'm from the New York area; no family out in "Cali"), the area East (below) of Market Street was simply known as "wine country". Back then, it was hardly for the selections of wine bars as it could well be today.
An awful lot of Carlo Rossi jugs were "consumed" down there - likely on the curb in front of first Third and Townsend and later Fourth and Townsend.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'Wine Train' here would be a 'Night Train'?
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
