Search Results
7/19/2025, 9:30:25 PM
>>2048587
The worst part is that you could kinda sorta get the desired effects of HSR by just restoring the Southern Pacific's Coast Daylight on a 6-7 hour schedule (which is comparable to driving in duration). You might even be able to shave it down further by working with Union Pacific (and maybe arm-twisting it a bit) to sponsor track upgrades and even electrification so you can run a more conventional, but still quite fast service, like the Metroliner on the East Coast. All of this would be much cheaper and faster.
The worst part is that you could kinda sorta get the desired effects of HSR by just restoring the Southern Pacific's Coast Daylight on a 6-7 hour schedule (which is comparable to driving in duration). You might even be able to shave it down further by working with Union Pacific (and maybe arm-twisting it a bit) to sponsor track upgrades and even electrification so you can run a more conventional, but still quite fast service, like the Metroliner on the East Coast. All of this would be much cheaper and faster.
6/19/2025, 7:01:35 PM
>>2042292
ikr
It takes 12 hours to get from Oakland to Los Angeles by the Coast Starlight. The Coast Daylight was able to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles (an almost identical distance) in 10, sometimes as little as 8-9 hours.
ikr
It takes 12 hours to get from Oakland to Los Angeles by the Coast Starlight. The Coast Daylight was able to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles (an almost identical distance) in 10, sometimes as little as 8-9 hours.
5/16/2025, 10:57:49 AM
>>2039614
>That would have been the ideal course of action back in the 70s.
That's what I mean, obviously it's way too late for that now.
>>2039634
As >>2039614 pointed out, it would have kept all the institutional knowledge and infrastructure that private railroads already had to maintain/improve passenger service "in-house", whereas almost all of that was lost with the creation of Amtrak, permanently crippling passenger rail service in a country where it had once been one of the best on the planet. Now, they can't even build a single fucking high speed line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
btw, the existing Amtrak service, the Coast Starlight,
A. Doesn't actually run between LA and SF (requiring a transfer at Oakland by bus)
B. Takes several hours LONGER today than its original progenitor (Southern Pacific's Coast Daylight, pic related) did using steam locomotives in the 1930s.
>That would have been the ideal course of action back in the 70s.
That's what I mean, obviously it's way too late for that now.
>>2039634
As >>2039614 pointed out, it would have kept all the institutional knowledge and infrastructure that private railroads already had to maintain/improve passenger service "in-house", whereas almost all of that was lost with the creation of Amtrak, permanently crippling passenger rail service in a country where it had once been one of the best on the planet. Now, they can't even build a single fucking high speed line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
btw, the existing Amtrak service, the Coast Starlight,
A. Doesn't actually run between LA and SF (requiring a transfer at Oakland by bus)
B. Takes several hours LONGER today than its original progenitor (Southern Pacific's Coast Daylight, pic related) did using steam locomotives in the 1930s.
1/19/2024, 8:50:34 AM
>>1974496
>That's a lot of sitting in sidings
Nah, that's pretty par for the course on the Coast Daylight, which is unironically even longer (close to 12 hours, comparatively little of which is actually spent stopped).
>No one's going to pay for a luxury overnight sleeper train, I think they're misreading the market entirely. Offering a basic service with low fares seems more feasible, or a multi-class arrangement like airlines and many regular passenger trains had or have.
Honestly $300 doesn't sound that bad for the minimum ticket price. It's high enough to keep junkies and nigs off the train, but still within the spending limits of most professionals (lawyers, doctors, professors, etc.) or wagies who save up their money. Compare that to tourist companies on that usually charge $3,000+ for rides on private railcars.
>Another problem is equipment - why do they want to use antique rolling stock in daily service?
Well where the Hell are they gonna get new rolling stock? Literally no one in America makes it anymore. Pullman went under over 50 years ago and all of the European manufacturers with American customers like Bombardier, Alstom, and Stadler almost exclusively build commuter trains.
Acquiring retired Amtrak rolling stock is similarly ill-advised for three reasons.
1. It's been used and overused. The average Superliner car isn't that much younger than the Streamliners and has quite literally millions of miles to it.
2. A lot of Amtrak rolling stock is going to be in poor condition owing to aforementioned overuse, budget constraints that led to maintenance work being postponed or skipped entirely, and neglect on the part of Amtrak.
>That's a lot of sitting in sidings
Nah, that's pretty par for the course on the Coast Daylight, which is unironically even longer (close to 12 hours, comparatively little of which is actually spent stopped).
>No one's going to pay for a luxury overnight sleeper train, I think they're misreading the market entirely. Offering a basic service with low fares seems more feasible, or a multi-class arrangement like airlines and many regular passenger trains had or have.
Honestly $300 doesn't sound that bad for the minimum ticket price. It's high enough to keep junkies and nigs off the train, but still within the spending limits of most professionals (lawyers, doctors, professors, etc.) or wagies who save up their money. Compare that to tourist companies on that usually charge $3,000+ for rides on private railcars.
>Another problem is equipment - why do they want to use antique rolling stock in daily service?
Well where the Hell are they gonna get new rolling stock? Literally no one in America makes it anymore. Pullman went under over 50 years ago and all of the European manufacturers with American customers like Bombardier, Alstom, and Stadler almost exclusively build commuter trains.
Acquiring retired Amtrak rolling stock is similarly ill-advised for three reasons.
1. It's been used and overused. The average Superliner car isn't that much younger than the Streamliners and has quite literally millions of miles to it.
2. A lot of Amtrak rolling stock is going to be in poor condition owing to aforementioned overuse, budget constraints that led to maintenance work being postponed or skipped entirely, and neglect on the part of Amtrak.
Page 1