Amtrak California to Palm Springs!

[johnny.menhennet]

Trains magazine released this article stating that Caltrans is commisioning a study for an LA - Palm Springs corridor service. I think the ridership would be promising, and I look forward to the results.

Moderator Note: You must be a Trains Magazine Subscriber to see Article.

 

[Montanan]

It's a great idea, and the corridor is a natural.

Of course, we all know what the Union Pacific is going to say about this ...

 

[The Davy Crockett]

It's a great idea, and the corridor is a natural.

Of course, we all know what the Union Pacific is going to say about this ...

How about #*#@%*#^!! & $$$$$$!!! for starters? :wacko:

I heard a radio ad yesterday from "America's Freight Railways" that had a short line in it (no, not THAT kind of short line! :blink: ) that caught my ear. It is a new ad that I had not heard before. I'm not sure if the rest of the country is blessed with the same ads as those of us that live in the shadow of the Halls of Government, but this ad, along with the usual dribble about how they pay for their own upkeep (Afterall, all the Fed and state dollars going into track improvements is for HSR, right? :giggle: )their was this line about how "There is no need to slow us down" since they are a backbone to our economy.

Seems innocent sounding enough at first , but when you think about it, just what in the heck do they really mean by that? :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

 

[Montanan]

their was this line about how "There is no need to slow us down" since they are a backbone to our economy.

Seems innocent sounding enough at first , but when you think about it, just what in the heck do they really mean by that?

Though I haven't heard the ad, I imagine it was part of a campaign intended to encourage sentiment against the proposed re-regulation of some rail freight rates.

 

[jphjaxfl]

The UP is double tracked from LA through Palm Springs. The PS Amtrak station is an out-of-way location so there would need to be connecting public transportation. Its the only major rail line out of LA without commuter rail. Its a great idea!

 

[Michael061282]

Would it be Amtrak or Metrolink ? Not that it really makes a huge difference, Its a very underserved corridor and if done right could be a huge success

 

[afigg]

Since I could not read the Trains mag news article, I did a search and found this 2010 Coachella Valley Rail Study Update 34 page report. The report appears to be written to provide a useful summary of and background briefing of the issues & past studies on providing passenger rail service from LA to Palm Springs and Indio. The report was written with knowledge of the Amtrak plan for daily Sunset Limited service which would provide much poorer connection times between LA and Palm Springs. But the report was written before UP reportedly asked for a ridiculous amount of money to allow the SL to run daily.

The general plan would be run over the BNSF & Metrolink line to Fullerton and Riverside and then switch to UP to get to Palm Springs and the valley. At a minimum, at least 2 new stations would be built in Coachella valley at Rancho Mirage and Indio with Indio having layover tracks to store the train or trains.

My guess one reason this plan is being studied again is that California has gotten funding to buy 42 new bi-level corridor cars as part of the total 120 bi-level car order. Even if the 42 new corridor cars are all slotted for the existing CA corridor services, if Caltrans can find the money, they can add more cars to the bi-level order. Far easier to purchase equipment if there is an existing production line than to try to place a small equipment order with a lot of NRE and start-up costs.

Now, whether UP will go along with corridor service to Palm Springs, even just 2 round trip trains a day, is the obvious major hold-up. I guess UP could demand that a 3rd track be built out to Indio for the corridor trains. The new study report could be an interesting read when it comes out.

 

[AlanB]

Of course, we all know what the Union Pacific is going to say about this ...

Actually UP and Amtrak California get along much better than UP & Amtrak.

 

[George Harris]

Of course, we all know what the Union Pacific is going to say about this ...

Actually UP and Amtrak California get along much better than UP & Amtrak.

A big factor in this is that the Amtrak California people do understand railroading and also the Teddy Rooseveldt form of diplomacy. for thet younger here, that is "Speak softly and carry a big stick." In this case, the big stick is the state checkbook that had paid for a lot of imporvements on the former SP lines.

 

[Anderson]

Of course, we all know what the Union Pacific is going to say about this ...

Actually UP and Amtrak California get along much better than UP & Amtrak.

A big factor in this is that the Amtrak California people do understand railroading and also the Teddy Rooseveldt form of diplomacy. for thet younger here, that is "Speak softly and carry a big stick." In this case, the big stick is the state checkbook that had paid for a lot of imporvements on the former SP lines.

Knowing how Brown has been going, I'm wondering if there might be a bit of stick to go with some carrot. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some improvements the state has the ability to either speed up or slow down which UP wants to have happen, and I'm also fairly certain that there's some arm-twisting that the state could do. It doesn't hurt that most of the state's frequent trains (both the Surfliner and the San Joaquin are, I believe) mostly go over BNSF tracks, IIRC, reducing how much UP can screw CA on retaliatory dispatching.

 

[PRR 60]

Of course, we all know what the Union Pacific is going to say about this ...

Actually UP and Amtrak California get along much better than UP & Amtrak.

A big factor in this is that the Amtrak California people do understand railroading and also the Teddy Rooseveldt form of diplomacy. for thet younger here, that is "Speak softly and carry a big stick." In this case, the big stick is the state checkbook that had paid for a lot of imporvements on the former SP lines.

Knowing how Brown has been going, I'm wondering if there might be a bit of stick to go with some carrot. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some improvements the state has the ability to either speed up or slow down which UP wants to have happen, and I'm also fairly certain that there's some arm-twisting that the state could do. It doesn't hurt that most of the state's frequent trains (both the Surfliner and the San Joaquin are, I believe) mostly go over BNSF tracks, IIRC, reducing how much UP can screw CA on retaliatory dispatching.

The Capitol Corridor, and part of the Surfliner and San Joaquin routes are on the Union Pacific. The on-time records of all these lines are very good. With the Capitol Corridor, the CCJPB (manager of the service for Caltrans) bypassed Amtrak and worked a separate deal with the UP. They pay the Union Pacific much closer to actual cost than Amtrak, also paid for line upgrades. As a result, the CC gets great dispatching from the UP. By most accounts, the CCJPB has more trouble dealing with Amtrak than the Union Pacific. If you look at the Capitol Corridor PDF timetable, you will see the union Pacific shield displayed as a partner in the service.

All this is to say that the sometimes poor relationship between Amtrak and the Union Pacific may not be all the UP's fault.

 

[afigg]

Would it be Amtrak or Metrolink ? Not that it really makes a huge difference, Its a very underserved corridor and if done right could be a huge success

The Coachella Valley study report I found discusses Metrolink versus Amtrak California running the train while emphasizing that Amtrak's has rights to run over freight tracks that a state commuter line would not have. with respect to UP. The distance is 141 miles via BNSF to Fullerton and Riverside to Indio with a projected trip time of roughly 3 hours 10 minutes. Pretty far for a commuter train.

The upcoming $400K study will probably (re)look at who should run the service but Amtrak California with bi-level Surfliners would be the obvious choice. If California can get UP to cooperate, this would become the 4th corridor service in the state. Wonder what the train service would be called?

The other California service that has been in discussion for a long time is the Coast Daylight. If California can rustle up the funding, a big if, the state could have 5 corridor services up and running in a few years which would be impressive.

It is also worth noting that both of the two proposed CA corridor services would be over routes served by LD trains. The LD trains have kept passenger service intact over those routes with existing stations which make it far easier to start up a corridor service. Freight railroad can't claim that the tracks are completely unsuitable for passenger service. The communities on the LD route have current train service, so it is not an exotic idea to the community leaders. Similar to the situation with the very successful Lynchburg extension of a NE Regional in Virginia over the Crescent route and part of the Cardinal route. I think this benefit of the LD trains gets overlooked by those who are otherwise passenger train supporters by bash the LD trains as a waste of money.

In turn, corridor service helps the LD train service by paying to upgrade tracks and stations over that part of the LD route along with increasing the ridership base. Win-win situation for both really.

 

[sportbiker]

As someone who occasionally goes to Palm Springs for a weekend, I'd love to see regular train service. But…

PS is all sprawl and low-density development. Very, very little of it is walkable and it doesn't have good transit. Even if you could get a shuttle from the miles-out-of-town station, you'd probably be stuck in your hotel room most of the time.

Speaking just for myself as a visitor (and PS is largely about visitors), I'd have to think twice about taking the train.

 

[Sactobob]

As someone who occasionally goes to Palm Springs for a weekend, I'd love to see regular train service. But…

PS is all sprawl and low-density development. Very, very little of it is walkable and it doesn't have good transit. Even if you could get a shuttle from the miles-out-of-town station, you'd probably be stuck in your hotel room most of the time.

Speaking just for myself as a visitor (and PS is largely about visitors), I'd have to think twice about taking the train.

I see your point. However, your situation is only one of several potential markets. For example, Valley residents could drive their cars to a station and park there and take the train for a trip into Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, or wherever. Also, some Valley visitors might have friends or relatives who could pick you up at the station. Finally, some hotels might pick passengers up at the station with their vans. Some visitors are content to stay in one place during their visit, and would not need a car.

 

[sechs]

With the Capitol Corridor, the CCJPB (manager of the service for Caltrans) bypassed Amtrak and worked a separate deal with the UP.

I think that has more to do with who has the checkbook than with relationships. The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board wanted to increase service and was willing to pay for necessary changes; really, this is why they took over management of the service from CalTrans.

 

[Donctor]

Amtrak California pays incentives separately from Amtrak, correct?

 

[gswager]

Amtrak California pays incentives separately from Amtrak, correct?

Yes, majority of the funds are from CA. Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliners, San Joaquin and their bus feeder routes are primarily fund by CA.

 

[trainviews]

Since I could not read the Trains mag news article, I did a search and found this 2010 Coachella Valley Rail Study Update 34 page report. The report appears to be written to provide a useful summary of and background briefing of the issues & past studies on providing passenger rail service from LA to Palm Springs and Indio.

...

Now, whether UP will go along with corridor service to Palm Springs, even just 2 round trip trains a day, is the obvious major hold-up. I guess UP could demand that a 3rd track be built out to Indio for the corridor trains. The new study report could be an interesting read when it comes out.

I find this report very interesting. It does nothing to update the very rough ridership or cost estimates of previous reports even though the rapid growth in the valley has probably outdated them somewhat (several communities in the valley have seen 50%+ growth over the last decade)

I see it much more as a political document to put some pressure on UP and the local officials and gaming interests.

The report mentions that an earlier state rail plan actually had set a start up date including allocating funds for operations (but not for capital costs). This was abandoned due to UP objecting to the train on the line. The report then reapeatedly states that the host railroad actually has a legal obligation to host intercity services, with a long chapter arguing why this will be an intercity and not a commuter service. It also states that the host railroad can demand capacity upgrades if it can prove they are needed. Now the line in question is double tracked all the way from Colton to Indio, which is the part where it will use UP tracks. Somewhere east of Indio it becomes single track. Now I would like to see how UP can just remotely prove that one or two round trips a day can seriously hamper capacity on a line where to the east the freight trains have to squeeze in on a single track line with much lower capacity and where the passenger trains leave the line just as it enters the probably much more congested LA basin to the west. Now, the report doesn't state this directly, but it could look like collecting ammo before negotiations start in earnest...

Concerning the local interests it again repeatedly makes comparisons with the efficient organisation and lobbying work that the communities on the coast have been doing to get a new corridor going there, and directly states that local authorities in the Coachella Valley need to do the same if they ever want a train. Likewise with the gaming interests, as it also directly states, that a second frequency originating in LA in the morning and thus being able to bring day gamblers up to the valley, will only be possible if the gaming industry chips in - stations, shuttles, shelters and possibly part of the operating subsidy. It directly mentions NJT's Atlantic City weekend train and the plans for the Desert Xpress to Vegas (the direct competitors on the LA gaming market) as examples of big gaming getting to the pockets to get train service.

 

[cirdan]

As someone who occasionally goes to Palm Springs for a weekend, I'd love to see regular train service. But…

PS is all sprawl and low-density development. Very, very little of it is walkable and it doesn't have good transit. Even if you could get a shuttle from the miles-out-of-town station, you'd probably be stuck in your hotel room most of the time.

Speaking just for myself as a visitor (and PS is largely about visitors), I'd have to think twice about taking the train.

This is true, but that description could equally be applied to dozens of other destinations served by Amtrak, yet people use those trains nevertheless.

 

[Trogdor]

Amtrak California pays incentives separately from Amtrak, correct?

Yes, majority of the funds are from CA. Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliners, San Joaquin and their bus feeder routes are primarily fund by CA.

The question was incentives, not subsidy. Incentives are a rather complicated deal.

 

[AlanB]

The report mentions that an earlier state rail plan actually had set a start up date including allocating funds for operations (but not for capital costs). This was abandoned due to UP objecting to the train on the line. The report then reapeatedly states that the host railroad actually has a legal obligation to host intercity services, with a long chapter arguing why this will be an intercity and not a commuter service. It also states that the host railroad can demand capacity upgrades if it can prove they are needed. Now the line in question is double tracked all the way from Colton to Indio, which is the part where it will use UP tracks. Somewhere east of Indio it becomes single track. Now I would like to see how UP can just remotely prove that one or two round trips a day can seriously hamper capacity on a line where to the east the freight trains have to squeeze in on a single track line with much lower capacity and where the passenger trains leave the line just as it enters the probably much more congested LA basin to the west. Now, the report doesn't state this directly, but it could look like collecting ammo before negotiations start in earnest...

UP will now argue that they need money to install the Congressionaly mandated PTC, so that they can avoid paying for it themselves.

 

[trainviews]

The report mentions that an earlier state rail plan actually had set a start up date including allocating funds for operations (but not for capital costs). This was abandoned due to UP objecting to the train on the line. The report then reapeatedly states that the host railroad actually has a legal obligation to host intercity services, with a long chapter arguing why this will be an intercity and not a commuter service. It also states that the host railroad can demand capacity upgrades if it can prove they are needed. Now the line in question is double tracked all the way from Colton to Indio, which is the part where it will use UP tracks. Somewhere east of Indio it becomes single track. Now I would like to see how UP can just remotely prove that one or two round trips a day can seriously hamper capacity on a line where to the east the freight trains have to squeeze in on a single track line with much lower capacity and where the passenger trains leave the line just as it enters the probably much more congested LA basin to the west. Now, the report doesn't state this directly, but it could look like collecting ammo before negotiations start in earnest...

UP will now argue that they need money to install the Congressionaly mandated PTC, so that they can avoid paying for it themselves.

They will probably argue that the capacity will be needed in the future as they are working on double tracking the whole route to Texas. I have no idea how that will fly if it comes to any kind of legal battle. I also think that both Caltrans and Amtrak will do almost anything to avoid ending up in court over the matter - it's not exactly the best basis of future cooperations. But still it might be beneficial for the negotiations to remind UP of the possibillity and their obligations...

 

[CHamilton]

Long slow climb toward daily Amtrak service

September 10, 2014

The daily Amtrak route between Indio and Los Angeles is inching closer to reality as slowly as the Coastline Starlight climb on the Cuesta Grade up north out of San Luis Obispo. It's a long, slow climb, but there are signs of hope on the horizon.

Riverside County supervisors on Tuesday approved a resolution urging approval of a $3 million federal grant to complete the environment assessment of the route. The grant would be matched with $900,000 in local funding.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, wrote to the U.S. secretary of transportation supporting the grant.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

The daily Amtrak route between Indio and Los Angeles is inching closer to reality as slowly as the Coastline Starlight climb on the Cuesta Grade up north out of San Luis Obispo. It's a long, slow climb, but there are signs of hope on the horizon. [emphasis added]

Obviously written by an avid rider of #14...

 

[seat38a]

Can this service be added in with the current equipment pool of Surfliner sets? Maybe less time idling in LA?