Bay Area to Los Angeles: Why No Commuter Sleeper Service?
Noah
forget it
Jym Dyer wrote:
> =v= A friend of mine called Amtrak to see about train service
> between the Bay Area and Los Angeles. There's a train that
> leaves from Oakland at 9:30AM and arrives in L.A. at 9:30PM;
> and another train that leaves from L.A. at 9:30AM and arrives
> in Oakland at 9:30PM.
>
> =v= It seems to me that there ought to be service that leaves
> each city at night and arrives in each city in the morning.
> That way, one could travel between the major cities of L.A.
> and San Francisco on a commute/business schedule. Riders could
> sleep on the trains, and a one-day visit wouldn't have to take
> three days.
>
> =v= I've seen this at work on the East Coast. Why can't it be
> done here?
> <_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
Merritt Mullen
An overnight Amtrak service between Oakland and Los Angeles was tried a
number of years ago and flopped, but times are changing and there are people
advocating such a service again (such as an extension of the California
Zephyr from Oakland to LA overnight). But the most immediate plans are to
establish true San Francisco-LA day service along the coast. The current
train (Coast Starlight) doesn't directly serve San Francisco, is usually
heavily booked, and since it runs between Seattle and LA, has less than
reliable timekeeping between LA and the Bay Area.
The new train, instead of running to Oakland, will actually run up the
peninsula into San Francisco. Plans call for it to be operating by 2004,
and a second day train by 2009. Once the popularity of those trains has
been demonstrated, look for an overnighter.
All of the above requires capital investment and political encouragement.
Write to your representatives in Sacramento and Washington.
If your friend is still interested in traveling between the Bay Area and LA
by train, he or she should be aware that, in addition to the Coast
Starlight, there are four daily trains that run up the San Joaquin Valley
between Bakersfield and Oakland, with Amtrak bus connections between
Bakersfield and LA (A 5th train runs between Bakersfield and Sacramento).
For example, you can leave LA at 1:30am, 7:20am, 10:20am, and 1:10pm,
arriving in Oakland at 11:05am, 4:05pm, 7:20pm, and 9:55pm, respectively.
Note that at about 9 hours the Valley route is quicker than the Coast route,
which takes almost 12 hours. The Coast Starlight is a more luxurious train,
however.
Merritt
Jym Dyer at j...@econet.org wrote on 8/14/00 9:38 PM:
Jym Dyer
> one hour than spend an uncomfortable night on a train.
=v= I think the trains are pretty comfortable. I don't know
whether "most people" agree, but I imagine that enough would
to make it possible. After all, it works on the East Coast.
<_Jym_>
Brian Mueller
>=v= It seems to me that there ought to be service that leaves
>each city at night and arrives in each city in the morning.
There is...private transportation. (airlines; I don't know about
greyhound)
>=v= I've seen this at work on the East Coast. Why can't it be
>done here?
Because people want s***ty public transit on the West Coast,
paradoxically.
--Brian
David Hatunen
Brian Mueller <seek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jym Dyer wrote:
>
>>=v= It seems to me that there ought to be service that leaves
>>each city at night and arrives in each city in the morning.
>
>There is...private transportation. (airlines; I don't know about
>greyhound)
Interesting. Greyhound does the SF->LA trip in as little as 7:30
while AMTRAK takes 12 hours (Oakland->LA).
>>=v= I've seen this at work on the East Coast. Why can't it be
>>done here?
>
>Because people want s***ty public transit on the West Coast,
>paradoxically.
I'd say it's because most people would rather fly down in one hour
than spend an uncomfortable night on a train. I know some people can
sleep on a train. My wife can sleep anywhere. But I can't sleep on
a train, and I've been on quite a few sleeper trains in Europe.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Merritt Mullen
David Hatunen at hat...@bolt.sonic.net wrote on 8/15/00 9:10 PM:
> In article <3999e540...@news.supernews.com>,
> Brian Mueller <seek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>
>>> =v= It seems to me that there ought to be service that leaves
>>> each city at night and arrives in each city in the morning.
>>
>> There is...private transportation. (airlines; I don't know about
>> greyhound)
>
> Interesting. Greyhound does the SF->LA trip in as little as 7:30
> while AMTRAK takes 12 hours (Oakland->LA).
That's the Coast Starlight (11:45 southbound, 11:22 northbound). But the
San Joaquin service makes it in 8:30 to 8:45 depending on the particular
train (which involves a bus ride between LA and Bakersfield). For that
extra hour, you get a lot more comfort than you do on Greyhound. My
son-in-law's mother lives in Healdsburg (north of San Francisco) and
regularly makes the bus-train-bus trip down the San Joaquin Valley to visit
her children and grandchildren in the LA area. She enjoys the trip.
But I'm still wondering about that overnight airline flight that Brian
referred to; the one that leaves San Francisco in the evening and arrives in
LA in the morning. Does it have sleeper compartments? <grin>
Merritt
el...@westworld.com
hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) wrote:
> I'd say it's because most people would rather fly down in one hour
> than spend an uncomfortable night on a train.
I don't know about that anymore. There are a great deal of people who
are fed up with air travel, delays, airline food, delays, uncomfortable
coach seats, delays, inflated ticket prices, delays, annoying
passengers, delays, lost luggage and delays. There's even such thing
nowadays as "air rage," and it's not the pilots who are angry! Most of
these are business travelers, and an overnight LA-SF train totally makes
sense. Plus, why would a train be uncomfortable? There's no jet noise,
you can actually lie down and clickety-clack beats turbulence any day.
Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoy air travel (but if I had to do it all
the time I could understand all the negatives), it's just that the speed
advantage shouldn't be the only criteria.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Wilson
el...@westworld.com wrote:
>
> In article <Yuom5.40$mJ6....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) wrote:
>
> > I'd say it's because most people would rather fly down in one hour
> > than spend an uncomfortable night on a train.
>
> I don't know about that anymore. There are a great deal of people who
> are fed up with air travel, delays, airline food, delays, uncomfortable
> coach seats, delays, inflated ticket prices, delays, annoying
> passengers, delays, lost luggage and delays. There's even such thing
> nowadays as "air rage," and it's not the pilots who are angry! Most of
> these are business travelers, and an overnight LA-SF train totally makes
> sense.
Not for business travelers. Most business travelers are on some kind of
expense account, with their tickets paid for by their employer. And
most employers will pay for the cheapest air fare, period. Anything
over that comes out of the employee's pocket. There are practically no
business travelers on Amtrak overnight trains anywhere, for this reason.
The major reason air travel is so miserable is that the majority of it
is purchased by company and government administrators who never go near
an airport, so the actual customer (the person who pays the bills) never
experiences the rotten conditions and treatment of air travel. The
customers want it cheap, period, and the traveler is in the same status
as a steer on a cattle truck. If the trip doesn't actually kill the
traveler, the customer is happy, so the airlines furnish what the
customer wants; the cheapest possible shipment of a warm body from point
A to point B. Whether the warm body enjoys the trip is irrelevant to
all concerned except the warm body, who has nothing to say in the
matter. No wonder the warm bodies sometimes blow up.
73,
JohnW
Panitzmark
>But I'm still wondering about that overnight airline flight that Brian
>referred to; the one that leaves San Francisco in the evening and arrives in
>LA in the morning. Does it have sleeper compartments? <grin>
>
have sleeper compartments too! <grin>
>
>
>
David Hatunen
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>
>David Hatunen at hat...@bolt.sonic.net wrote on 8/15/00 9:10 PM:
>
>> In article <3999e540...@news.supernews.com>,
>> Brian Mueller <seek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>
>>>> =v= It seems to me that there ought to be service that leaves
>>>> each city at night and arrives in each city in the morning.
>>>
>>> There is...private transportation. (airlines; I don't know
about
>>> greyhound)
>>
>> Interesting. Greyhound does the SF->LA trip in as little as 7:30
>> while AMTRAK takes 12 hours (Oakland->LA).
>
>That's the Coast Starlight (11:45 southbound, 11:22 northbound).
>But the San Joaquin service makes it in 8:30 to 8:45 depending on
>the particular train (which involves a bus ride between LA and
>Bakersfield). For that extra hour, you get a lot more comfort
>than you do on Greyhound. My son-in-law's mother lives in
>Healdsburg (north of San Francisco) and regularly makes the
>bus-train-bus trip down the San Joaquin Valley to visit her
>children and grandchildren in the LA area. She enjoys the trip.
The schedules I'm looking at say, for example, depart Oakland
10:00, arrive Bakersfield 16:16, or 6:16 for the trip. Thence
depart on AMTRAK bus at 16:25 to arrive in LA at 21:50. So leaving
Oakland at 10:00 I can get ot LA, via train and bus, in 11:50,
assuming the Grapevine isn't vovered in snow or something. I'm not
sure what your point is, here, since the Bakersfield connection
takes about 12 hours, just like the Starlight
David Hatunen
wrote:
>In article <Yuom5.40$mJ6....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) wrote:
>
hour
>> than spend an uncomfortable night on a train.
>
>who are fed up with air travel, delays, airline food, delays,
>uncomfortable coach seats, delays, inflated ticket prices, delays,
>annoying passengers, delays, lost luggage and delays. There's even
>such thing nowadays as "air rage," and it's not the pilots who are
>angry! Most of these are business travelers, and an overnight
>LA-SF train totally makes sense.
I think you're going to find that most business travelers can stand
anything for an hour as opposed to making a 12 hour trip on a
train. Not to mention that their corporate travel people get
special deals on the planes, and their companies are unlikely to
want to spring for the extra money for the train compartment. And
the travelers themselves will probably prefer an extra evening and
night at home as opposed to spending them on a train.
>Plus, why would a train be uncomfortable? There's no jet noise,
>you can actually lie down and clickety-clack beats turbulence any
>day.
If it works for you, so be it. But a lot of people have trouble
sleeping on moving vehicles of any kind. And you may not have
ridden many sleeper trains: there's all those station stops, all
the side to side jostling over switches and things, places of
uneven track, noises in the aisleway, etc.
>Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoy air travel (but if I had to do
>it all the time I could understand all the negatives), it's just
>that the speed advantage shouldn't be the only criteria.
It isn't. But so far you haven't shown a single real advantage of
taking a sleeper train over taking a plane that cancels out that
speed advantage.
Merritt Mullen
Panitzmark at panit...@aol.com wrote on 8/16/00 8:43 AM:
>>
>> But I'm still wondering about that overnight airline flight that Brian
>> referred to; the one that leaves San Francisco in the evening and arrives in
>> LA in the morning. Does it have sleeper compartments? <grin>
>>
> It might be on a DC-3 (as they did
> have sleeper compartments too! <grin>
I guess it circles around for a few hours to give people time to sleep.
Merritt
Michael Graff
hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) wrote:
> The schedules I'm looking at say, for example, depart Oakland
> 10:00, arrive Bakersfield 16:16, or 6:16 for the trip. Thence
> depart on AMTRAK bus at 16:25 to arrive in LA at 21:50. So leaving
> Oakland at 10:00 I can get ot LA, via train and bus, in 11:50,
> assuming the Grapevine isn't vovered in snow or something. I'm not
> sure what your point is, here, since the Bakersfield connection
> takes about 12 hours, just like the Starlight
Try:
http://www.quickaid.com/~qrail/routing/routes.cgi?origin=OKJ&destination
=LAX
They show that bus arriving in LA at 18:40.
Merritt Mullen
David Hatunen at hat...@bolt.sonic.net wrote on 8/16/00 9:08 AM:
> In article <B5BF7CD4.25085%mmu...@ispchannel.com>,
> Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's the Coast Starlight (11:45 southbound, 11:22 northbound).
>> But the San Joaquin service makes it in 8:30 to 8:45 depending on
>> the particular train (which involves a bus ride between LA and
>> Bakersfield). For that extra hour, you get a lot more comfort
>> than you do on Greyhound. My son-in-law's mother lives in
>> Healdsburg (north of San Francisco) and regularly makes the
>> bus-train-bus trip down the San Joaquin Valley to visit her
>> children and grandchildren in the LA area. She enjoys the trip.
>
> The schedules I'm looking at say, for example, depart Oakland
> 10:00, arrive Bakersfield 16:16, or 6:16 for the trip. Thence
> depart on AMTRAK bus at 16:25 to arrive in LA at 21:50. So leaving
> Oakland at 10:00 I can get ot LA, via train and bus, in 11:50,
> assuming the Grapevine isn't vovered in snow or something. I'm not
> sure what your point is, here, since the Bakersfield connection
> takes about 12 hours, just like the Starlight
Except you made a huge mistake. You were doing alright up to the point you
left Bakersfield on the bus, but your arrival at LA is way off. It does not
take the bus 5 hours and 25 minutes to go the 135 miles between Bakersfield
and LA (that would be an average of 25 mph on the Interstate). The bus is
scheduled for 2 hours and 30 minutes (averaging 54 mph, and I am told it
usually makes it quicker). Here are the correct times for train/bus 714 you
used as an example (per current Amtrak schedule):
lv. Oakland 1000
Ar. Bakersfield 1616
Lv. Bakersfield 1625
Ar. Los Angeles 1855
TOTAL TIME 8 hours and 55 minutes.
N.B. - Current schedules are about 15 minutes slower (10 minutes of which is
due to a lengthening of the bus schedule) than last winter's schedule, which
I used in my original calculations.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
el...@westworld.com at el...@westworld.com wrote on 8/16/00 2:45 AM:
> Plus, why would a train be uncomfortable? There's no jet noise,
> you can actually lie down and clickety-clack beats turbulence any day.
Except with welded rail, there is no clickety-clack either.
Merritt
David Hatunen
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>
>David Hatunen at hat...@bolt.sonic.net wrote on 8/16/00 9:08 AM:
>
>> In article <B5BF7CD4.25085%mmu...@ispchannel.com>,
>> Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But the San Joaquin service makes it in 8:30 to 8:45 depending on
>>> the particular train (which involves a bus ride between LA and
>>> Bakersfield). For that extra hour, you get a lot more comfort
>>> than you do on Greyhound. My son-in-law's mother lives in
>>> Healdsburg (north of San Francisco) and regularly makes the
>>> bus-train-bus trip down the San Joaquin Valley to visit her
>>> children and grandchildren in the LA area. She enjoys the trip.
>>
>> 10:00, arrive Bakersfield 16:16, or 6:16 for the trip. Thence
>> depart on AMTRAK bus at 16:25 to arrive in LA at 21:50. So leaving
>> Oakland at 10:00 I can get ot LA, via train and bus, in 11:50,
>> assuming the Grapevine isn't vovered in snow or something. I'm not
>> sure what your point is, here, since the Bakersfield connection
>> takes about 12 hours, just like the Starlight
>
>Except you made a huge mistake. You were doing alright up to the
>point you left Bakersfield on the bus, but your arrival at LA is
>way off.
Arggh. You're right. My eyes slipped over a column when I put
down 21:50.
Never mind.....
Merritt Mullen
John Wilson at wilso...@home.com wrote on 8/16/00 6:06 AM:
> Not for business travelers. Most business travelers are on some kind of
> expense account, with their tickets paid for by their employer. And
> most employers will pay for the cheapest air fare, period. Anything
> over that comes out of the employee's pocket. There are practically no
> business travelers on Amtrak overnight trains anywhere, for this reason.
If that were true, all those Business Class seats in the airliners would be
empty. And anyway, you are assuming that the cost of a sleeper on Amtrak is
more expensive to the company than the cost of an airline ticket, hotel, and
meal (possibly 2 meals), all of which is included in the Amtrak fare.
You are correct that many company travel offices don't realize that and
simply don't understand why it can be cheaper to ride the train, or have
company rules that prevent them from taking advantage of the train.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
David Hatunen at hat...@bolt.sonic.net wrote on 8/16/00 9:13 AM:
> I think you're going to find that most business travelers can stand
> anything for an hour as opposed to making a 12 hour trip on a
> train. Not to mention that their corporate travel people get
> special deals on the planes, and their companies are unlikely to
> want to spring for the extra money for the train compartment. And
> the travelers themselves will probably prefer an extra evening and
> night at home as opposed to spending them on a train.
But as a frequent business flyer (before I retired), I was often required to
be in distant city for a morning meeting. That required flying there the
day before and staying overnight in a hotel. So I didn't get that "extra
night at home" anyway. For many city pairs an overnight train can replace
the airplane, hotel, and restaurant meals.
>> Plus, why would a train be uncomfortable? There's no jet noise,
>> you can actually lie down and clickety-clack beats turbulence any
>> day.
>
> If it works for you, so be it. But a lot of people have trouble
> sleeping on moving vehicles of any kind. And you may not have
> ridden many sleeper trains: there's all those station stops, all
> the side to side jostling over switches and things, places of
> uneven track, noises in the aisleway, etc.
A lot of people have trouble sleeping in a stange hotel bed, not to mention
sleeping in an airline seat. If you ride trains frequently, I suspect you
would soon learn to sleep well in a sleeper compartment, even if the first
time gave you trouble. I have even learned to sleep in an airline seat!
>> Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoy air travel (but if I had to do
>> it all the time I could understand all the negatives), it's just
>> that the speed advantage shouldn't be the only criteria.
>
> It isn't. But so far you haven't shown a single real advantage of
> taking a sleeper train over taking a plane that cancels out that
> speed advantage.
Cost, and productive use of one's time. By replacing the cost of an airline
ticket, hotel, and up to two meals, a first-class sleeper on Amtrak can be
cheaper than flying. Also, during the trip (when not sleeping or eating),
one can work productively on company business, which is difficult to do on
an airliner. For trains that leave late in the evening and arrive at the
destination early in the morning, the total travel time is much less than
(non-red-eye) flying. Flying probably means missing the prior day's
afternoon at the office. If you take the overnight train, you work a full
day or more, then go to the train station to board your train, have a
leisurely meal, and arrive relaxed the next morning.
Note that there are many, many circumstances where the train is just not
effective and flying is the only economic and timely way to meet one's
business commitments. But the question was, can a sleeper train have an
advantage over flying, and the answer is YES, when the conditions are right.
And the conditions can be right is a large percentage of cases.
Merritt
SL News Posting
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> writes:
|> > I'd say it's because most people would rather fly down in
|> > one hour than spend an uncomfortable night on a train.
|>
|> whether "most people" agree, but I imagine that enough would
|> to make it possible. After all, it works on the East Coast.
|> <_Jym_>
So what. The east coast isn't the west coast, and because
it works there, in no way implies that it will work here. Geographical
differences are the primary reason that the analogy is broken.
David Hatunen
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>
>David Hatunen at hat...@bolt.sonic.net wrote on 8/16/00 9:13 AM:
>
>> I think you're going to find that most business travelers can stand
>> anything for an hour as opposed to making a 12 hour trip on a
>> train. Not to mention that their corporate travel people get
>> special deals on the planes, and their companies are unlikely to
>> want to spring for the extra money for the train compartment. And
>> the travelers themselves will probably prefer an extra evening and
>> night at home as opposed to spending them on a train.
>
>But as a frequent business flyer (before I retired), I was often
>required to be in distant city for a morning meeting. That
>required flying there the day before and staying overnight in a
>hotel. So I didn't get that "extra night at home" anyway. For
>many city pairs an overnight train can replace the airplane,
>hotel, and restaurant meals.
But most people in that situation get better sleep in a nice big
stationary hotel bed than they'll get in a cot-sized sleeper bunk
on a moving jiggling train. And you'll be a lot fresher in the
morning taking a nice hot shower followed by a leisurely breakfast
or whatever than you will be trying to put yourself together in a
train compartment, then stepping out and trying to get to your
meeting site.
>>> Plus, why would a train be uncomfortable? There's no jet noise,
>>> you can actually lie down and clickety-clack beats turbulence
>>> any day.
>>
>> If it works for you, so be it. But a lot of people have trouble
>> sleeping on moving vehicles of any kind. And you may not have
>> ridden many sleeper trains: there's all those station stops, all
>> the side to side jostling over switches and things, places of
>> uneven track, noises in the aisleway, etc.
>
>A lot of people have trouble sleeping in a stange hotel bed, not
>to mention sleeping in an airline seat. If you ride trains
>frequently, I suspect you would soon learn to sleep well in a
>sleeper compartment, even if the first time gave you trouble. I
>have even learned to sleep in an airline seat!
Good for you. Unfortunately, your personal characteristics aren't
what will make a sleeper train successful.
I do sleep well on trips where I've had two nights in a row on a
train. The Boy Scout campout effect. But that's not what we're
talking about here.
>>> Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoy air travel (but if I had to do
>>> it all the time I could understand all the negatives), it's just
>>> that the speed advantage shouldn't be the only criteria.
>>
>> It isn't. But so far you haven't shown a single real advantage of
>> taking a sleeper train over taking a plane that cancels out that
>> speed advantage.
>
>Cost, and productive use of one's time. By replacing the cost of
>an airline ticket, hotel, and up to two meals, a first-class
>sleeper on Amtrak can be cheaper than flying. Also, during the
>trip (when not sleeping or eating), one can work productively on
>company business, which is difficult to do on an airliner. For
>trains that leave late in the evening and arrive at the
>destination early in the morning, the total travel time is much
>less than (non-red-eye) flying. Flying probably means missing the
>prior day's afternoon at the office. If you take the overnight
>train, you work a full day or more, then go to the train station
>to board your train, have a leisurely meal, and arrive relaxed the
>next morning.
I can get on a plane at the same time I would get on the train, be
in LA or Burbank or Orange County or Ontario an hour later, in time
to get a nice meal, do some work, etc. My stay will probably be in
a hotel where my company has a special rate deal.
You forgot that, inevitably, it will mean a return trip by train
also, meaning a slow trip home.
An hour plane ride just isn't that big a deal. Train advocates have
got to grasp this fact.
>Note that there are many, many circumstances where the train is
>just not effective and flying is the only economic and timely way
>to meet one's business commitments. But the question was, can a
>sleeper train have an advantage over flying, and the answer is
>YES, when the conditions are right. And the conditions can be
>right is a large percentage of cases.
That is NOT the question. The question is whether a sleeper train
between SF and LA would have the kind of ridership that would make
it feasible. If you think it would, I suggest your form a company
to provide such service. You'll clean up.
stas...@ix.netcom.com
What could have changed people's minds about riding a train all night
between LA and SF?
I don't mind it, but then I've ridden a good number of trains. Certainly
there are people who simply cannot sleep aboard a train or bus. Personally,
I can sleep in a Pullman room (remember them?) quite comfortably. Riding in
a chair car all night is another matter. Track can be rough riding as any
experienced rail passenger knows. Any of that beats riding a bus, including
Amtrak buses.
Delays are part of riding trains with the SF-LA routes being the typical
single track. Too many trains, not e-nuf track. These days, there are not
the full crews of yesteryear to line hand-throw switches. Some Coast route
sidings are too short for the lengthy trains of today. Then they get
bottled up with the SF and LA commute services. Unless substantial sums are
spent on infrastructure improvements, service will be subject to delays.
That doesn't necessarily bother me, but some travelers can be annoyed by
that part of railroading.
As for economy, Amtrak charges big bucks for sleeping car space. A hotel is
probably cheaper. But the feds want Amtrak to make lots of money and
therefore the prices are to the max. Do people want to pay the big bucks
for a 9-12 hour train ride? Not much scenery at night, either.
I presume some highly-paid consultants will analyze this and figure out if
there is a market.
Anti-BRU
> In article <Yuom5.40$mJ6....@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen) wrote:
>
> > I'd say it's because most people would rather fly down in one hour
> > than spend an uncomfortable night on a train.
>
> are fed up with air travel, delays, airline food, delays,
> uncomfortable coach seats, delays, inflated ticket prices, delays,
> annoying passengers, delays, lost luggage and delays. There's even
> such thing nowadays as "air rage," and it's not the pilots who are
> angry! Most of these are business travelers, and an overnight LA-SF
> There's no jet noise, you can actually lie down and clickety-clack
> beats turbulence any day.
In April, my employer sent me to Oakland from LA for some work-related
training. I chose to take the train, which meant that I had to front
the money and get reimbursed afterword, but I didn't care. Why???
Because the train is much better and less stressful.
--
Chris Paley aka Anti-BRU
Seeking and speaking the truth about transit in Los Angeles, in contra
to the Bus Riders Union.
John Bianco
el...@westworld.com wrote in message <8ndnrh$7ua$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> than spend an uncomfortable night on a train.
>
>are fed up with air travel, delays, airline food, delays, uncomfortable
>coach seats, delays, inflated ticket prices, delays, annoying
>passengers, delays, lost luggage and delays. There's even such thing
>nowadays as "air rage," and it's not the pilots who are angry! Most of
>these are business travelers, and an overnight LA-SF train totally makes
>sense. Plus, why would a train be uncomfortable? There's no jet noise,
>you can actually lie down and clickety-clack beats turbulence any day.
>
>the time I could understand all the negatives), it's just that the speed
>advantage shouldn't be the only criteria.
>
Try at least 10-12 hrs if the line was all rail, vs a 1 hr flight. The
Amtrak San Jouaqons do have LA-SF schedules that is all rail north of
Bakersfiled, and those are a little over 8 hrs.
Jym Dyer
> flight.
=v= Versus a 1 hr flight, plus finding a place to sleep, the
hassle of getting to that place to sleep, getting fed, etc.
Add in the time spent sleeping, and rail starts to look very
competitive.
=v= If we'd get high-speed train service, it would of course
be even *more* competitive.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> it works there, in no way implies that it will work here.
=v= I was referring specifically to the issue that some people
can sleep comfortably on a train, and as far as I know, the
ability to do so has nothing to do with what coast one is on.
=v= For this to work, all you'd need are enough people in the
Bay Area and Los Angeles who (1) are comfortable (enough to
sleep) on a train and (2) do business in both areas.
> Geographical differences are the primary reason that the
> analogy is broken.
=v= I don't see why.
<_Jym_>
Brian Mueller
>Interesting. Greyhound does the SF->LA trip in as little as 7:30
>while AMTRAK takes 12 hours (Oakland->LA).
Why am I not surprised...
>I'd say it's because most people would rather fly down in one hour
>than spend an uncomfortable night on a train.
Interesting, I thought you were advocating slower forms of
transportation earlier.
As far as sleep, nothing beats a submerged submarine. Of course, for
some reason, you always have to piss when you wake up...
--Brian
Merritt Mullen
David Hatunen at hat...@bolt.sonic.net wrote on 8/16/00 11:30 AM:
> In article <B5C01D5E.25183%mmu...@ispchannel.com>,
> Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>>
>> David Hatunen at hat...@bolt.sonic.net wrote on 8/16/00 9:13 AM:
>>
>>> I think you're going to find that most business travelers can stand
>>> anything for an hour as opposed to making a 12 hour trip on a
>>> train. Not to mention that their corporate travel people get
>>> special deals on the planes, and their companies are unlikely to
>>> want to spring for the extra money for the train compartment. And
>>> the travelers themselves will probably prefer an extra evening and
>>> night at home as opposed to spending them on a train.
>>
>> But as a frequent business flyer (before I retired), I was often
>> required to be in distant city for a morning meeting. That
>> required flying there the day before and staying overnight in a
>> hotel. So I didn't get that "extra night at home" anyway. For
>> many city pairs an overnight train can replace the airplane,
>> hotel, and restaurant meals.
>
> But most people in that situation get better sleep in a nice big
> stationary hotel bed than they'll get in a cot-sized sleeper bunk
> on a moving jiggling train. And you'll be a lot fresher in the
> morning taking a nice hot shower followed by a leisurely breakfast
> or whatever than you will be trying to put yourself together in a
> train compartment, then stepping out and trying to get to your
> meeting site.
You can have a nice hot shower and a leisurely breakfast on the train as
well. All Amtrak sleepers have shower facilities and diners.
>
>>>> Plus, why would a train be uncomfortable? There's no jet noise,
>>>> you can actually lie down and clickety-clack beats turbulence
>>>> any day.
>>>
>>> If it works for you, so be it. But a lot of people have trouble
>>> sleeping on moving vehicles of any kind. And you may not have
>>> ridden many sleeper trains: there's all those station stops, all
>>> the side to side jostling over switches and things, places of
>>> uneven track, noises in the aisleway, etc.
>>
>> A lot of people have trouble sleeping in a stange hotel bed, not
>> to mention sleeping in an airline seat. If you ride trains
>> frequently, I suspect you would soon learn to sleep well in a
>> sleeper compartment, even if the first time gave you trouble. I
>> have even learned to sleep in an airline seat!
>
> Good for you. Unfortunately, your personal characteristics aren't
> what will make a sleeper train successful.
My personal characteristic doesn't matter. Enough people find Amtrak's
sleeping accommodations good enough to keep them fully occupied during the
busy season. One of Amtrak's problems is not enough sleeping cars to meet
the demand.
>
> I do sleep well on trips where I've had two nights in a row on a
> train. The Boy Scout campout effect. But that's not what we're
> talking about here.
>
>>>> Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoy air travel (but if I had to do
>>>> it all the time I could understand all the negatives), it's just
>>>> that the speed advantage shouldn't be the only criteria.
>>>
>>> It isn't. But so far you haven't shown a single real advantage of
>>> taking a sleeper train over taking a plane that cancels out that
>>> speed advantage.
>>
>> Cost, and productive use of one's time. By replacing the cost of
>> an airline ticket, hotel, and up to two meals, a first-class
>> sleeper on Amtrak can be cheaper than flying. Also, during the
>> trip (when not sleeping or eating), one can work productively on
>> company business, which is difficult to do on an airliner. For
>> trains that leave late in the evening and arrive at the
>> destination early in the morning, the total travel time is much
>> less than (non-red-eye) flying. Flying probably means missing the
>> prior day's afternoon at the office. If you take the overnight
>> train, you work a full day or more, then go to the train station
>> to board your train, have a leisurely meal, and arrive relaxed the
>> next morning.
>
> I can get on a plane at the same time I would get on the train, be
> in LA or Burbank or Orange County or Ontario an hour later, in time
> to get a nice meal, do some work, etc. My stay will probably be in
> a hotel where my company has a special rate deal.
Of course. But that probably means leaving about 4 or 5 pm instead of
perhaps 8 or 9pm on the train.
>
> You forgot that, inevitably, it will mean a return trip by train
> also, meaning a slow trip home.
Why? Just because the airlines have bizarre rates that penalize one-way
travel doesn't mean it has to be that way. Amtrak round trip fares are
always exactly twice the one way fare. And if a person enjoys an overnight
trip to his business appointment, he might also enjoy an overnight trip
home. Traveling while you sleep kills two birds with one stone.
> An hour plane ride just isn't that big a deal. Train advocates have
> got to grasp this fact.
Of course it isn't. Any "train advocate" who thinks that overnight trains
will replace one-hour airline flights just isn't dealing with reality. All
we are talking about here is providing an alternative for those who find it
attractive.
>> Note that there are many, many circumstances where the train is
>> just not effective and flying is the only economic and timely way
>> to meet one's business commitments. But the question was, can a
>> sleeper train have an advantage over flying, and the answer is
>> YES, when the conditions are right. And the conditions can be
>> right is a large percentage of cases.
>
> That is NOT the question. The question is whether a sleeper train
> between SF and LA would have the kind of ridership that would make
> it feasible. If you think it would, I suggest your form a company
> to provide such service. You'll clean up.
There already is such a company, called Amtrak. And of course that is
exactly the question: is there sufficient demand to make the operation of
the train "feasible"? I notice you didn't say profitable, and I am sure no
one is going to "clean up" operating one, so if you were thinking of
investing in it, I would advise against it. You might note that in all my
comments about why such a train might be useful, I never once suggested that
conditions are such to make an LA-SF overnight train successful. That would
have to be determined. As you realize, there are plenty of "cons" to offset
my "pros."
Merritt
David Hatunen
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>
>David Hatunen at hat...@bolt.sonic.net wrote on 8/16/00 11:30 AM:
>My personal characteristic doesn't matter. Enough people find
>Amtrak's sleeping accommodations good enough to keep them fully
>occupied during the busy season. One of Amtrak's problems is not
>enough sleeping cars to meet the demand.
They are nicely in demand by those willing to spend a lot of money
on vacation travel.
[...]
>> That is NOT the question. The question is whether a sleeper train
>> between SF and LA would have the kind of ridership that would make
>> it feasible. If you think it would, I suggest your form a company
>> to provide such service. You'll clean up.
>
>There already is such a company, called Amtrak. And of course
>that is exactly the question: is there sufficient demand to make
>the operation of the train "feasible"? I notice you didn't say
>profitable,
No, I didn't.
>and I am sure no one is going to "clean up" operating one, so if
>you were thinking of investing in it, I would advise against it.
>You might note that in all my comments about why such a train
>might be useful, I never once suggested that conditions are such
>to make an LA-SF overnight train successful. That would have to
>be determined. As you realize, there are plenty of "cons" to
>offset my "pros."
Yep. I noticed the cons.
David Hatunen
Brian Mueller <seek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Hatunen wrote:
>
>>Interesting. Greyhound does the SF->LA trip in as little as 7:30
>>while AMTRAK takes 12 hours (Oakland->LA).
>
>Why am I not surprised...
>
>>I'd say it's because most people would rather fly down in one hour
>>than spend an uncomfortable night on a train.
>
>Interesting, I thought you were advocating slower forms of
>transportation earlier.
Nope. Not necessarily. I've clearly said, for instance that I like
traveling by train and I like high speed trains; I ride trains all
the time in Europe. But I am skeptical about any kind of high speed
rail in California.
David Hatunen
>> Try at least 10-12 hrs if the line was all rail, vs a 1 hr
>> flight.
>
>=v= Versus a 1 hr flight, plus finding a place to sleep, the
>hassle of getting to that place to sleep, getting fed, etc.
>Add in the time spent sleeping, and rail starts to look very
>competitive.
I used to fly a lot in my work as a nuclear vendor auditor. I never
had any of those hassles. I just told the corporate travel clerk
where I'm going and when, and a day or so later she or he has the
tickets and reservations dropped off at my desk. The hotels always
had a restaurant, so eating was mostly a matter of taking an
elevator or walking down a few hallways. My rental car was always
ready when I arrived at the destination airport.
>=v= If we'd get high-speed train service, it would of course
>be even *more* competitive.
If...
If wishes were horses...
Matt Simmons
s> As for economy, Amtrak charges big bucks for sleeping car
s> space. A hotel is probably cheaper.
s> But the feds want Amtrak to make lots of money and therefore
s> the prices are to the max.
I'm sure the feds would be happy if Amtrak made *lots* of money, but
isn't their goal at this point to get Amtrak to break even? IIRC,
Amtrak gets a hefty subsidy simply because they don't break even.
Matt
--
Matt Simmons - simm...@eng.sun.com - http://www.netcom.com/~simmonmt
Words skittered out of his mouth like cartoon dogs on fresh-waxed
linoleum, frantically going nowhere. --Amy Tan
Merritt Mullen
Matt Simmons at simm...@eng.sun.com wrote on 8/17/00 10:07 AM:
>>>>>> "s" == stash810 <stas...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> s> As for economy, Amtrak charges big bucks for sleeping car
> s> space. A hotel is probably cheaper.
>
> s> But the feds want Amtrak to make lots of money and therefore
> s> the prices are to the max.
> I'm sure the feds would be happy if Amtrak made *lots* of money, but
> isn't their goal at this point to get Amtrak to break even? IIRC,
> Amtrak gets a hefty subsidy simply because they don't break even.
In any case, the prices are set to maximize revenues, not to maximize price.
Just "setting prices to the max" is a sure way to earn less money, not more.
And yes, at this point, the feds and all of us would be very happy if Amtrak
could at least break even operationally, let alone make a profit.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
Jym Dyer at j...@econet.org wrote on 8/16/00 11:43 PM:
>>> After all, it works on the East Coast.
>> So what. The east coast isn't the west coast, and because
>> it works there, in no way implies that it will work here.
>
> =v= I was referring specifically to the issue that some people
> can sleep comfortably on a train, and as far as I know, the
> ability to do so has nothing to do with what coast one is on.
>
> =v= For this to work, all you'd need are enough people in the
> Bay Area and Los Angeles who (1) are comfortable (enough to
> sleep) on a train and (2) do business in both areas.
And since we are talking about one overnite train a day, with maybe one or
two sleeping cars (plus coaches, lounge, diner, mail and express), we only
have to find enough people to sell about 15-30 compartments. How many
people travel between LA and SF on business each day? A huge number I'm
sure. Only a very small percentage of those traveler need to prefer an
overnight train to fill up a couple of sleeping cars.
>
>> Geographical differences are the primary reason that the
>> analogy is broken.
>
> =v= I don't see why.
Me either. The distance that the Twilight Shoreliner travels between Boston
and Washington DC is 457 miles and it takes 10 and a half hours. The
distance between Oakland and LA on the Coast Line is 463 miles and it takes
about 11 and a half hours. For people in the sleepers, what is between the
end points doesn't matter. It does matter for the people in coach, as the
coaches are more likely to accommodate shorter distance travelers between
intermediate cities. There the Twilight Shoreliner has the west coast train
beat, as two of the intermediate cities are Philadelphia and New York, among
others, which will generate a lot more traffic than say, Santa Barbara.
Merritt
David Barts
>
> Me either. The distance that the Twilight Shoreliner travels between Boston
> and Washington DC is 457 miles and it takes 10 and a half hours. The
> distance between Oakland and LA on the Coast Line is 463 miles and it takes
> about 11 and a half hours. For people in the sleepers, what is between the
> end points doesn't matter. It does matter for the people in coach, as the
> coaches are more likely to accommodate shorter distance travelers between
> intermediate cities. There the Twilight Shoreliner has the west coast train
> beat, as two of the intermediate cities are Philadelphia and New York, among
> others, which will generate a lot more traffic than say, Santa Barbara.
If one wishes to maximize the amount of shorter-distance coach passengers
on such a train, it would make much more sense to run it through the
Central Valley than along the coast. Fresno is several times bigger than
the biggest city on the coast route.
--
David W. Barts (dav...@scn.org) / http://www.scn.org/~davidb
Oakland, CA, USA
Merritt Mullen
David Barts at n5...@ricochet.net wrote on 8/17/00 8:37 PM:
I agree. But right now, that is not possible because of the freight train
bottle neck over Tehachapi. The California 5-Year Rail Improvement Plan
states "Because of freight traffic and circuitous routing of existing lines,
a new rail corridor would be required to implement passenger service between
Bakersfield and Los Angeles. The CA HSR Authority is considering a new
passenger corridor through the Tehachapi Mountains."
So don't hold your breath.
Merritt