posted
I was contemplating a trip to California to see an old friend who resides between Sacramento and San Francisco. I thought about making a circuitous trip from STL-CHI-SEA-SAC and then SAC-LAX-CHI-STL.
I noticed that if I was to book a reservation on the #11 CS the trip to LAX would take 14 hrs and 25 minutes. I would be too late to make a connection with the SWC necessitating an over night in a hotel.
But if I caught #702 San Joaquin to Bakersfield then a bus to LAX I would arrive in LAX in time to connect with the SWC saving a hotel bill.
The San Joaquin/bus fare was $58. The CS was comparable but over 14 hours in coach isn't desirable so I would prefer a roomette which would boost the cost to $232.
My question is why is the San Joaquin/bus version so much faster, almost 7 hours, than the CS?
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
The Coast Starlight and the San Joaquins take entirely different routes to Los Angeles. The Starlight goes along UP's "Coast" route. It is a very seldom used track these days, with only a few UP freights using it.
However, the San Joaquins go inland along the BNSF tracks. It's feels weird when you take a San Joaquin train "down" (south) towards LA, because when you leave Oakland, you are heading north for quite a long time. It's not until after the Martinez stop that you actually start to head in the right direction (Think of it this way---both the San Joaquins and the Starlight share the exact same tracks between Martinez and Oakland. The southbound Coast Starlight passes the southbound San Joaquin, but they pass in OPPOSITE directions!). Also, the last 2.5 hours or so of the San Joaquin trip is by bus---much faster than going by train. The Starlight route is the "scenic route", and is definitely not intended for speedy travel.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by Iron Mountain: I noticed that if I was to book a reservation on the #11 CS the trip to LAX would take 14 hrs and 25 minutes. I would be too late to make a connection with the SWC necessitating an over night in a hotel.
Oh to turn back the clock fifty years when SP98, Coast Daylight, - LAUPT - ATSF18 Super Chief/El Capitan, was quite "safe".
"Been there, done that".
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
quote:Originally posted by Iron Mountain: I noticed that if I was to book a reservation on the #11 CS the trip to LAX would take 14 hrs and 25 minutes. I would be too late to make a connection with the SWC necessitating an over night in a hotel.
Oh to turn back the clock fifty years when SP98, Coast Daylight, - LAUPT - ATSF18 Super Chief/El Capitan, was quite "safe".
"Been there, done that".
******************************* I recently saw a local program on the Calif. State Railroad Museam, in Sacramento. I did not realize they had an old dining car, on disply, from the Sante Fe Super Chief, A really nice display. As I was around in the 1950's, the Super Chief is the one train I really wish I had a chance to take (along with the GN). 1950's would mean you could go to Chicago to see Fritz Reiner/Chicago Symph; on to see George Szell/Cleveland Orch; Eugene Ormandy/Phil. Orch; L. Bernstein/New York Phil; and Charles Munch/Boston Symphony.
Richard
RRCHINA Member # 1514
posted
And there was also The Chief which was both sleepers and chair cars but had the same fine Fred Harvey dining food and service as the Super Chief.
Railroad Bob Member # 3508
posted
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
quote:Originally posted by Iron Mountain: I noticed that if I was to book a reservation on the #11 CS the trip to LAX would take 14 hrs and 25 minutes. I would be too late to make a connection with the SWC necessitating an over night in a hotel.
Oh to turn back the clock fifty years when SP98, Coast Daylight, - LAUPT - ATSF18 Super Chief/El Capitan, was quite "safe".
"Been there, done that".
Or he could use the LARK and have a snug 'n comfy roomette, in a newly-minted 10/6 car with the traditional great porter...Gilbert- we are dating ourselves with these golden-age reminiscences of fallen flags and trains-gone-by. But it is a fun exercise, anyway.
Iron Mountain Member # 12411
posted
Smitty,
What kind of a train is the San Joaquin? Is it an Amtrak regional,like Lincoln Service in IL/MO, or a commuter as in Chicago Metra? And how do you pronounce Joaquin? Is the j a y? Is the a short and accented or silent?
I've been in California twice in my life. Once in LA as a 4 year old. My dad took us there to try and find a job. And again in 1965. I was stationed at Yuma MCAS and had a weekend liberty. We went to Disneyland, Newport Beach, and Balboa Beach. Beautiful places. I would like to see it again.
Great reminiscing about those wonderful fallen flags. Eventhough I never rode trains like the SP Coast Daylight or the ATSF Super Chief just reading their numbers and names gives me pleasure.
I myself have logged time with a couple of great ones, the UP City of Portland and the CRI&P Rocky Mountain Rocket. And as a small boy I remember well the Milwaukee Road Hiawatha blasting through Itasca, IL with a roar and in a cloud of dust or snow. What a sight.
Thanks for clarifying the bus connection. Enjoyed the the memories.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
I think that's WAH-keen. In a California bar as a very young man I once pronounced "San Joaquin Valley" the way it's spelled in English ("Joe Ah Quinn") and inadvertently caused something of a riot.
(Or maybe that's wah-KEEN. I have trouble with accents on sil-AH-bles.)
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
Henry is correctamundo on the pronunciation of "WAH-keen".
The equipment they use are double-decker "California Cars", which are owned by the state and maintained by Amtrak. Here is a link to a typical car on a San Joaquin train:
The SJ's have 5 cars---two coaches on either end, and a snack car in the middle. The middle is actually more like a dining car, but without the server. In the middle is the attendant, and on the SJ's they serve full hot meals, which the similar Capitol Corridor trains do not. There are nice little tables with lamps, and it's a really nice interior. I'll see if I can find an interior photo so that I can post a link here. I have my own set of photos, but I've never been able to figure out how to post pictures here.
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
Okay, here are some interior shots of the lounge car (aka: snack car, cafe car, etc):
Scroll down that page and you will see the little thumbnail pictures of the cafe car. Click on any photo to make it larger.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
The San Joaquin (wah-KEEN) route out of Sacramento is considerebly shorter than the Coast Route. The San Joaquin trains are Superliner dimensioned body shells with two doors to the side. The seats are not to the same level of comfort as the Superliner, and they don't rotate, so half are facing backwards. These trains have a food car that serves microwave meals, salads, sandwiches, etc.
Our usual ride is Emeryville-Fresno, which is right at 4 hours. No problem for us so far as comfort. The bus Bakersfield to Los Angeles: Well, it is a bus. As a bos goes, the Amtrak ones are OK. You are at the mercy of California traffic, but the schedule has enough slack in it that it usually happens.
Henry: San Jose is San Ho-SAY, or maybe Ho-ZA would be a better representation. Think of the Spanish origin words starting with Jo as if they were starting with Ho and you will usually be close to right.
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
George of course is right on where the accent goes---it's on "Keen". I guess I'm stupid---I didn't understand what the caps/no caps meant. But yeah, the accent goes at the end.
If Amtrak ran all of their trains like they run the Capitols/San Joaquins, we'd have a really great national train system. I don't know how one group can get it so consistently right, while another group is consistently inconsistent.
Jerome Nicholson Member # 3116
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Iron Mountain:
The San Joaquin/bus fare was $58. The CS was comparable but over 14 hours in coach isn't desirable so I would prefer a roomette which would boost the cost to $232.
Hopefully you wouldn't spend the entire 14 hours in your coach seat. When I rode the CS to LA from Oakland, after the Conductor took my ticket, I stayed in the Sightseer car, with occasional visits to the snack bar downstairs or to the dining car.I returned to my coach seat when we neared LA. Of course, a roomette will get you into the Pacific Parlour Car, but hey, it's $232!
RRRICH Member # 1418
posted
Iron Mountain -- one more note about the California cars on the San Joaquins. These are 2-level cars, and when you board, the conductor will ask you to sit upstairs unless you are elderly or physically disabled -- they want to keep the lower level seating available for those passengers. The stairway up to the second level is akin to what you see on a Superliner car. There are several tables on the second level, however, and you are welcome to sit at a table if you like (if you have a laptop, or need the extra "arm space," it works out quite well!)
Also, the San Joaquin cars have wi-fi available.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
So far as the matter of Accessibility goes, I await the day that I think will come where bi-level cars will need be equipped with elevators of adequate capacity to accommodate both a wheelchair and attendant. How many such cars need be fitted depends upon whether the dictum says every car, one per so many cars, or one per train, I'd guess is "up in the air".
In short, I'm not sure how long the powerful disability lobby will accept that their constituents will only get "a ride", but rather expect full accessibility, i.e. a disabled passenger wants to sit at a Dining Car table and share a meal with fellow passengers, then existing barriers are depriving that passneger from doing so.
But guess what volks, when it comes, it will not be without "heap big wampum" parting ways with any a number of rail passenger operators - Amtrak of course the largest and most visible.
Finally, I know several here have acknowledged they have disabilities; I acknowledge I have made it 71 years without any such. Hopefully those afflicted will concur I posted the above with respect, but if not, I'll edit or remove in its entirety.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
GBN, your message accepted without rancor.
We must, however, remember that the Americans with Disabilities Act specifies REASONABLE accommodations for disabilities, and most if not all members of the "disability lobby" recognize this restriction. Nobody is asking that Amtrak install elevators and widen corridors so that wheelchair users can get to the dining car. The well-recognized reasonable accommodation for them is for the sleeping car attendant to bring them their meals in the handicap room.
The "disability lobby" knows very well that asking for UNreasonable (meaning expensive) accommodations will bring an unwanted backlash.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
Well said, Henry. Most people with disabilities are sensible in accepting limitations on what can be provided for them, certain members of my family and friends included.
I think the technological challenges in a safe car-to-car transfer on the upper level would be quite interesting - though there are single level trains elsewhere with virtually seamless joins between cars, albeit with those cars semi permanently coupled. There's a picture here: http://www.egelnickandwebb.com/blog/2010/06/east-london-line/ - these particular trains also have level access with the station platform with just a tiny gap.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Henry:
"Reasonable" seems to be very much in the eye of the beholder. Some of the requirements that may seem reasonable to those demanding the accommodation may not seem reasonable to those that have to provide them.
I am very much for access whereever it is not rediculous to provide. There are lots of buildings with random seemingly sets of two to four or five steps where a sloped section would have worked as well, or even better. Many accodations can be made at little or no cost other than a little bit of thought on the part of the designer/builder/operator. There are numerous other examples, but I will stop here.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
Of course, defining "reasonable" and "ridiculous" has kept lawyers for both sides in full employment for 22 years of the ADA.
But after those 22 years, controversies about the law have simmered down greatly. Once in a while a cause celebre crops up and grabs the headlines, but then is quietly adjudicated and disappears from memory.
One ADA problem regarding Amtrak still needs to be solved: the identification of service animals. Current DOJ rules forbid conductors from inquiring as to the purpose or credentials of a service animal, for that, the rules say, would be probing into the private health issues of a passenger. As a result, now and then a passenger gets a dog aboard a train just by claiming it's a service animal. Only if the dog misbehaves can the conductor banish it.
Nothing's perfect. Life's imperfect. We deal with it as best we can.
Iron Mountain Member # 12411
posted
Thanks for the Joaquin pronunciation guidance. I would have gotten it wrong.
Thinking about the leg of my contemplated journey from SAC to LAX I think a roomette on the CS and access to the Parlour Car sounds like the best deal. When I am at the end of life's road I am not going say,"Gee, I wish I hadn't spent the extra $170 on that roomette." Quite the opposite.
I spent the bulk of my final years working as a special education administrator. I know only too well how unreasonable, ineffective, wasteful and expensive government driven regs and laws can be and often are, especially when trying to make things "fair". On the other hand if anyone has ever tried to deal with some kind of disability, you know the problems the loss of a sensory modality or ambulation can present. Sometimes there are no easy answers.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: One ADA problem regarding Amtrak still needs to be solved: the identification of service animals. Current DOJ rules forbid conductors from inquiring as to the purpose or credentials of a service animal, for that, the rules say, would be probing into the private health issues of a passenger. As a result, now and then a passenger gets a dog aboard a train just by claiming it's a service animal. Only if the dog misbehaves can the conductor banish it.
A curious situation. If one is eligible to park in a blue parking space then either the license plate of the car or a permit of some sort is hung from the internal mirror or placed on the dashboard. As far as I know they do not state the nature of the whys and wherefores but simply indicate eligibility by their existence. One would have thought a similar tag on the dog could achieve the same result - but when has logic ever been important?!
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
Very good question, Geoff.
I am only guessing, but maybe one important difference between handicapped parking tags and service animal identification is that the parking tags are issued by government but there is no similar state-issued identification for service animals.
The private organizations that train the animals issue their own IDs according to their own rules; there as yet are no national standards. So there's nothing to stop someone from printing up a fake ID for his animal. (This may vary in some states.)
How's a conductor to judge? If a conductor forbids an animal from boarding a train and the owner of the animal sues and persuades a jury that rights have been violated, it will hurt Amtrak financially. Probably it's just easier to accept the claim and hope nobody gets bitten or peed on.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
At the risk of conjuring ponies and bagpipes, one of my better old stories involves driving a bus from Soldier Field to the Museum of Art in downtown Chicago on the same day a new class was navigating downtown Chicago with their new guide dogs for the first time.
But then this is entirely off-topic.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
You're right, Henry, I forgot that service animals aren't a government thing (same in UK, for interest). One can always fake a parking permit too though.
The issue of "rights" amuses me too. "I am an American Citizen: I have a RIGHT to be on this plane!". Irrelevant and wrong! It reminds me of the smoking lobby in the UK who had a "right" to smoke wherever they chose - but sod those who had a right to fresh air, including their defenseless kids.
posted