Passenger Trains > Selection of ATSF vs. SP route thru Calif central valle

When the decisions were being made regarding new / modified Amtrak routes in 1971, how did Amtrak manage to select the ATSF route thru the valley over the SP route?

(A) SP wanted too much money?
(B) SP was uncooperative?
(C) ATSF route was faster?
(D) ATSF was more cooperative?
(E) All of the above
(F) None of the above

Show your work

PS: I'm currently rocking / swaying / sashaying down the Valley aboard #704. Track seems rougher now than last year. Ride 'em cowboy!!

John Gezelius
Tustin, CA

The service didn't start until 1974.

Chris

I didn't know that they had dropped all valley service in '71 but I'm not surprised. Even so, the same questions apply - Why ATSF instead of SP?

John Gezelius
Tustin, CA

It seems as though ATSF had a better working relationship with Amtrak at the time. Don't know whether that has anything to do with it.

-scax330

E is the correct answer: "all of the above". (Addedum: A is probably not applicable; SP said no, likely at any price...although Amtrak in 1974 got "free" access to ATSF).

The 1974 ATSF decision received a 2nd look in 1990, when the "new" SP lobbied heavily to move the service to its line. Caltrans, after lengthy studies, decided ATSF was and continued to be the better fit. SP was very annoyed, and held up the Sacramento-Stockton extension for several years before capitulating. (SP had included $140 million in Prop. 116, the rail bond, for upgrades to its lines, but the language also allowed expenditure on the ATSF).

The decision remains one of the best ever made. Santa Fe was willing to host the service, and agreed to its expansion to several roundtrips. Santa Fe was willing to go with 79mph. Santa's Fe's freights were shorter and faster....more closely matching speedy pax trains than SP's long, lumbering trains.

While Santa Fe at some point reached capacity and perhaps regretted its open access to multiple Amtrak frequencies, and while on time performance has suffered from time to time, it has been an easier partner to deal with...just like it is a better partner than UP on HSR (Santa Fe says yes, UP says no). Right now, on time performance is excellent. Santa Fe and Caltrans have jointly developed projects to increase capacity.

Initially, it was thought that SP's central city locations were a missed opportunity, but most of Amtrak's customers are suburban. And, Modesto eventually was served, even though initially omitted. At best, station locations are a wash.

Today, the short period of no service 1971-74 seems incredibly short. At the time, it seemed more like an eternity.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/10 20:55 by reindeerflame.

ATSF had better ties under rail that were idenified as ties.

Despite the 3-year hiatus since Amtrak Day, I believe that because both SP and ATSF had passenger service down the Valley on Amtrak day, and because both roads joined Amtrak, that Amtrak could select either line (for a low level of service). Since Caltrans was funding Amtrak, Amtrak allowed Caltrans to choose. If I recall correctly, Caltrans was excited that ATSF had 90mph operation down the Valley before Amtrak, and Caltrans assumed that it could have 90mph again. So Caltrans requested the ATSF route.

Best regards,

Rob L.

Thanks for the reminder--I remember taking my daughters on the last Saturday of San Joaquin Daylight service (LA to Bakersfield & back) but forgot about the San Francisco Chief, which also did its last runs at the end of April 1971.

SP had no desire to allow trains down its Valley Line. Period. Too congested, SP wanted millions on improvements, etc.

Look at the original Railpax plan, the only SP line was the Overland Route. What does that say about SP's influence on the White House at that time

Caltrans was not involved with the San Joaquin route in 1974; indeed, the Caltrans rail program did not begin until 1975 or later.

The San Joaquin startup in 1974 was fully an Amtrak decision. The route was started under the experimental new routes provisions in effect at that time.

Caltrans involvement began in 1979, after Amtrak proposed running the service on a quadweekly basis under the Brock Adams reductions (Carter Administration). The service was saved, but Caltrans insisted on doubling the service, with the second train starting in early 1980. Dedicated feeder buses started in September 1980 with the Sacramento-Stockton route. Amazing, this year marks the 30th anniversary of that service.

Ultimately, Caltrans would achieve schedule times with a 79mph speed limit that were essentially equivalent to what Santa Fe had with 90mph in 1971.

Several years back SP wanted to bill Amtrak for ALL Coast Line maintenance because (sp said SP brass) the Starlight was the only train using those tracks, so...

I'll bet serious $$$ the same thing would have happened had Amtrak selected the Valley tracks. SP would have (on paper) rewritten the rules so all "through" freight traffic would have magically disappeared off that line (phantom trains to and from Fresno?) and Amtrak would have been stuck with all costs.

> Santa Fe was willing to go with 79mph.

Initially, timetable maximum was 70.

djansson Wrote:

> SP would have (on paper) rewritten the rules so
> all "through" freight traffic would have magically
> disappeared off that line

Sounds magical, all right. Would they have
moved them to the Coast, or relaid the C&C?

a) The Santa Fe route was faster (still is).

b) Part of the bargain to get SP to join Railpax was to agree not to run trains over Tehachapi. The San Joaquin Daylights and the other valley route passenger trains were casualties. Therefore, the SP line was not part of the plan, and subject to negotiation later.

Santa Fe was a stakeholder in Amtrak; SP was not.

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SP had no desire to allow trains down its Valley
> Line. Period. Too congested, SP wanted millions on
> improvements, etc.
>
> Look at the original Railpax plan, the only SP
> line was the Overland Route. What does that say
> about SP's influence on the White House at that
> time


It doesn't say a lot, because SP ended up with the Coast line and the Sunset line in Amtrak, as well.

And, I doubt there was any "agreement" not to run over Tehachapi, but rather that a route over that line was not included. In any case, by 1978, a mere 7 years later, the Carter Administration in its Amtrak restructuring plan proposed to eliminate the CZ and Southwest routes in favor of a "City of Everywhere" splitting at SLC, including a Bay Area connection through Las Vegas via the Tehachapis.

You do not force yourself upon the enemy...

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WAF Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SP had no desire to allow trains down its
> Valley
> > Line. Period. Too congested, SP wanted millions
> on
> > improvements, etc.
> >
> > Look at the original Railpax plan, the only SP
> > line was the Overland Route. What does that say
> > about SP's influence on the White House at that
> > time
>
>
> It doesn't say a lot, because SP ended up with the
> Coast line and the Sunset line in Amtrak, as
> well.
>
> And, I doubt there was any "agreement" not to run
> over Tehachapi, but rather that a route over that
> line was not included. In any case, by 1978, a
> mere 7 years later, the Carter Administration in
> its Amtrak restructuring plan proposed to
> eliminate the CZ and Southwest routes in favor of
> a "City of Everywhere" splitting at SLC, including
> a Bay Area connection through Las Vegas via the
> Tehachapis.

When the supporters of Railpax (Amtrak) complained to the White House about the lack of routes on the SP, it was rumored that Nixon told Biaggini to go along with the two extra routes, because Amtrak won't be around after 1973 ( of course, Nixon wasn't around the following year), into allowing the Portland-LA and LA-New Orleans. There was agreement between SP and Amtrak in an emergency that SP would allow Amtrak to detour over the Tehachapis. This was used twice in one day in 1974 because of an derailment at San Ardo on the Coast. When talk came about the San Joaquin in 1973, SP said NO.

All interesting, but the only constant in railroading is change. UP probably runs more traffic on the Valley Line today than SP ever did, BNSF has paid for clearance improvements and additional track capacity in the Tehachapis, and UP has cleared the Coast Line for double-stacks (after through freight had ceased to run at all in the last years of SP).

I was on a detour of the "Starlight" over Tehachapi in October 2008, and UP cleared the railroad for us. After leaving Sacramento, we only stopped once -- at Bakersfield for a crew change. There were trains against us in every siding; in a couple of places, there were two freights nose to tail. We got into LA before 5 PM. Great ride, spectacular scenery.

I've been on the ATSF line as well, and SP seems to run more through the centers of towns (especially Fresno) than does ATSF. Most of the passenger stations still stand, and as of 2008 the track rode very well. UP allowed us 79, so I was told.

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (snip)
>
> I've been on the ATSF line as well, and SP seems
> to run more through the centers of towns
> (especially Fresno) than does ATSF. Most of the
> passenger stations still stand, and as of 2008 the
> track rode very well. UP allowed us 79, so I was
> told.

I wonder what it would take to get the line up to 90 (or higher)? Could be a lot cheaper than building a whole new HSR alignment

What's the point? 90 passenger doesn't mesh well with 70 freight. Best to keep ALL trains moving. We Californians don't need more problems with the state's economy, either.

As for HSR, it ought to run via I-5. But politics dictates it hit every valley town.


Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> I wonder what it would take to get the line up to
> 90 (or higher)? Could be a lot cheaper than
> building a whole new HSR alignment