Passenger Trains > Coast Daylight: Will it return?

With all the recent discussion of corridors vs. LD trains, I was wondering if anyone knew the status of Amtrak California's (aka Caltrans) progress on starting up a daily San Francisco - Los Angeles train -- a return of SP's Coast Daylight. I believe the plan would be to run this in addition to the Coast Starlight, and would probably provide more reliable service, especially southbound.

I know this has been discussed for a while now, but I was wondering if there is any information on possible start dates, the likelihood that this is actually going to happen, what needs to happen before it can run, etc.

Thanks for any info.

peh934 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With all the recent discussion of corridors vs. LD
> trains, I was wondering if anyone knew the status
> of Amtrak California's (aka Caltrans) progress on
> starting up a daily San Francisco - Los Angeles
> train -- a return of SP's Coast Daylight. I
> believe the plan would be to run this in addition
> to the Coast Starlight, and would probably provide
> more reliable service, especially southbound.
>
> I know this has been discussed for a while now,
> but I was wondering if there is any information on
> possible start dates, the likelihood that this is
> actually going to happen, what needs to happen
> before it can run, etc.
>
> Thanks for any info.


No activity that would lead one to conclude that any progress toward implementation is occurring (other than talking).

The current Governor is emphasizing highways, and rail is back in the background. The recent bond measure approved by the voters (Prop. 1B, Nov. 2006) includes $400 million earmarked for intercity rail capital, of which $125 million is set aside for rolling stock. But in putting forth his budget proposal, the Governor did not include any amount from this source this year for intercity rail, and the Department of Finance apparently rejected Caltrans' request to start the process for ordering rolling stock. That sets the tone. To be fair, Finance did agree to increase the budgeted amount for intercity rail, an amount that has been frozen for about 5 years, and Caltrans has existing sources of funds to continue its capital program.

The Capitol Corridor people are taking the lead in getting the Legislature to address this deficiency. That will play out later this year.

The Coast Daylight is far behind all of this. It's a tough project to do. You need (A) rolling stock, (B) operating money, and (C) an agreement with UP. Unless (C) is done, (A) and (B) are less likely....nobody wants to tie up resources on a project that is not ready to go. (B) should be the easiest; the state is loaded with transportation revenues. (A) competes with existing corridors. Coordinating all this is something that Caltrans/Rail is too weak to do effectively, and local interest can be described as tepid, and a legislative sponsor seems nonexistent.

The project will take leadership by someone to get done. Leadership is not in sight.

That's my assessment.

This train should go further south than Downtown LA to serve at least Orange County (Irvine).
Some service should run all the way from San Francisco to San Diego to give travelers the option of that entire corridor.
I would expect more than just one daily Coast Daylight train would easily be needed to service this major corridor.
I look forward to further discussion about this Coast Daylight Corridor.
--- Daniel

RailPAC has a report of the most recent info on the Coast Daylight from the most recent Coast Rail Coordinating Council meeting here:

http://www.railpac.org/2007/02/27/coast-rail-coordinating-council-meeting-report/

Basically, Amtrak California is short on cars right now and will request request $25M for capital improvements and $150M for an order of new cars from the California Transportation Commission, the group that's doling out the Prop. 1B bond money. Because new cars using the $150M will take about 4 years to design, build, and put into service, they're hoping the $25M can be used for refurbishing Amtrak cars at Beech Grove for starting service of some kind in the meantime.

Amtrak California will submit this wish list on April 2nd and the CTC will have its decision on the list on June 7th. It will most likely be accepted and it will just be a matter of getting the cars from Amtrak as quickly as possible.

They Got the Plans for Surfliner Cars. Design What?

From what I have gathered from various sources, the ridership on the buses between Bay Area and SLO/Santa Barbara is pretty good. In light of what others above have said, this is perhaps the only good news. It is absurd that with the reality of energy shortages, high gasoline costs, global warming, etc. no politician has taken up the cause of serious improvements in rail transportation. The money that is going to be spent on highways as mentioned above actually accomplishes very little--we can all appreciate what it would do to improve intercity rail service!

PSurfliner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RailPAC has a report of the most recent info on
> the Coast Daylight from the most recent Coast Rail
> Coordinating Council meeting here:
>
> http://www.railpac.org/2007/02/27/coast-rail-coord
> inating-council-meeting-report/
>
> Basically, Amtrak California is short on cars
> right now and will request request $25M for
> capital improvements and $150M for an order of new
> cars from the California Transportation
> Commission, the group that's doling out the Prop.
> 1B bond money. Because new cars using the $150M
> will take about 4 years to design, build, and put
> into service, they're hoping the $25M can be used
> for refurbishing Amtrak cars at Beech Grove for
> starting service of some kind in the meantime.
>
> Amtrak California will submit this wish list on
> April 2nd and the CTC will have its decision on
> the list on June 7th. It will most likely be
> accepted and it will just be a matter of getting
> the cars from Amtrak as quickly as possible.


This may be all well and good, but where is the agreement with the UP?

Will they allow the use of their ROW for free?

Will they require significant upgrades, like CTC all the way?

Will they require money beyond that, like money to take care of deferred maintenance rather than adding capacity, which apparently is what happened to the $40 million required to startup SAC-SKT?

UP did allow the 2nd SLO train to operate "for free", largely because it had failed to complete a project.

So, this is the key question.

I'm not holding my breath on a SF-LA train down the coast, but if it does happen, I really hope they don't call it the Coast Daylight. The real Coast Daylight was a very unique and special train and its name should be retired, never to be used again. While I'm suppose any new train will provide adequate services, it won't hold a candle to the amenities and service the Coast Daylight offered in its prime.

PSurfliner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RailPAC has a report of the most recent info on
> the Coast Daylight from the most recent Coast Rail
> Coordinating Council meeting here:
>
> http://www.railpac.org/2007/02/27/coast-rail-coord
> inating-council-meeting-report/
>
> Basically, Amtrak California is short on cars
> right now and will request request $25M for
> capital improvements and $150M for an order of new
> cars from the California Transportation
> Commission, the group that's doling out the Prop.
> 1B bond money. Because new cars using the $150M
> will take about 4 years to design, build, and put
> into service, they're hoping the $25M can be used
> for refurbishing Amtrak cars at Beech Grove for
> starting service of some kind in the meantime.
>
> Amtrak California will submit this wish list on
> April 2nd and the CTC will have its decision on
> the list on June 7th. It will most likely be
> accepted and it will just be a matter of getting
> the cars from Amtrak as quickly as possible.


This is the "talking" stage I was talking about. It sounds good. The problem is that the Caltrans Director did not have enough clout with the Department of Finance to get bond funds released for ANY intercity purpose in an expedited manner, let alone the Coast Daylight project. So now, it's retreat and regroup, in order to fight THAT fight. I'm glad the talking is going on, but it needs to move to the action stage, and the "we don't take 'no' for an answer stage". That's how intercity rail policy has been made in the past.

For the record, I support the Coast Daylight project. As for names, we can call it the Three Rivers for all I care! :))

And yes, the Amtrak bus services running for many hours between the Bay Area and SLO/SBA are performing quite well.

I just hope Arnie ain't gon' to the route most politicians do when it comes to highways vs rail, because he goes that route, what Caltrans has done since the mid 70s is really gonna haunt him!

Well. I wonder which train service. The Daylight or the LA/Vegas. I think we might be lucky to see both trains pop up about the same time. Who knows when that will be.

calhog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not holding my breath on a SF-LA train down
> the coast, but if it does happen, I really hope
> they don't call it the Coast Daylight. The real
> Coast Daylight was a very unique and special train
> and its name should be retired, never to be used
> again.

Have you looked to see if the "Coast Daylight" moniker is copyrighted or protected? it may very well be.

You guys and gals remember when Amtrak wanted to change the name of the "Southwest Limited" to "Southwest Chief?" Santa Fe. at the time, would not allow the usage of the "Chief" name because the service was not good enough for their liking. Amtrak did improve 3/4's service and thus got the name Chief installed in the trains' name.

Amtrak California has been using the Coast Daylight name to refer to the SB/SLO-SF buses since 2003 without any trouble. It seems to have stuck.

GP25 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well. I wonder which train service. The Daylight
> or the LA/Vegas. I think we might be lucky to see
> both trains pop up about the same time. Who knows
> when that will be.


I'm not aware of any "talking" efforts on behalf of the Las Vegas service. So that one would be further behind. At least Caltrans is involved on the Daylight. Who's involved on the Las Vegas service?

Caltrans has repeatedly refused to be involved in the Las Vegas project. From 1997 to 2002, Amtrak was the force working to reinstate the service. They were doing rather well until Mineta added the "no new services" condition in Summer '02. Now, the Southern Nevada Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) is working on their own feasibility study. There was also a rumor on another message board that Amtrak was again working to restore service, with a start-up date this July. I guess we'll see...

With the sorry condition of our road/highway infrastructure in this state, I'd gladly deprive a hundred people of a pretty train ride down the coast in exchange for not blowing out an expensive tire on yet another pothole. Besides the equipment and operating funds issues, this isn't going to happen until UP gets tax $$$ to install CTC islands and other upgrades for their "congested" Coast Route.

As I understood it, UP isn't really a big problem. The Daylight could start-up w/o major track improvements. Once the train is running, UP would expect improvements, however.

If Amtrak is looking to break up long distance trains into some corridors, unfortunately, the Coast Starlight may fit the bill quite well - everything could be corridor service except between Sacramento and Eugene/Portland. So as discussed previously, I certainly could see a truncation of sorts for the Coast Starlight where it just operates from the Bay Area to Seattle or some where in the Pacific Northwest to connect with the Amtrak Cascades service.

jp1822 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Amtrak is looking to break up long distance
> trains into some corridors, unfortunately, the
> Coast Starlight may fit the bill quite well -
> everything could be corridor service except
> between Sacramento and Eugene/Portland. So as
> discussed previously, I certainly could see a
> truncation of sorts for the Coast Starlight where
> it just operates from the Bay Area to Seattle or
> some where in the Pacific Northwest to connect
> with the Amtrak Cascades service.

Since most of the delays occur between Sacramento and Portland, I don't see how it would benefit most passengers by having a SAC-PDX segment that runs three hours over its scheduled 15:50 running time compared to a LAX-SEA train that runs four hours over its 34:30 scheduled running time. Add in one or two transfers, and it would take most passengers longer to get from Seattle to southern California, even if they changed from Superliners to higher speed equipment at Sacramento.

Coast Daylight has been out of use so long that any applicable copyrights have long since expired. The situation with the Chief was different. When Amtrak was new, they called the train the Super Chief. As they rearranged equipment and removed ammenities like the pleasure dome, Santa Fe objected. At the time, they had recently used the Super Chief brand themselves, and still had the Super C freight train. So they forced Amtrak to rename the train. Amtrak chose the "Southwest Limited" name. When the train was upgraded to Superliners in the 1980s, they asked for and received permission to use the Chief name again, but selected the "Southwest Chief" name to put their own mark on the service.

-Tim

AlwaysLate Wrote:
> Have you looked to see if the "Coast Daylight"
> moniker is copyrighted or protected? it may very
> well be.
>
> You guys and gals remember when Amtrak wanted to
> change the name of the "Southwest Limited" to
> "Southwest Chief?" Santa Fe. at the time, would
> not allow the usage of the "Chief" name because
> the service was not good enough for their liking.
> Amtrak did improve 3/4's service and thus got the
> name Chief installed in the trains' name.