Revived Spirit of California (Split from HSR for MSP)

[Blackwolf]

Paulus, on 04 Feb 2014 - 1:27 PM, said:

California tried an overnight train, The Spirit of California, which was cancelled after poor ridership.

That was also 30+ years ago. The demographics, and the demand for ground-based passenger service (rail and bus,) have changed considerably in that time frame. I would be willing to bet that, with proper handling, such a train would fair much differently today.

Edit: Additionally, the train was not axed because of low ridership. It was cut because newly-elected Republican governor George Deukmejian wielded a very large pair of veto scissors against a great deal of state spending (over $1 billion in 1983 dollars.) Even the San Joaquin and San Diegan routes were snipped, both barely surviving due to local outcry.

Mod Note: This thread was split from this discussion, hence the "running start".

 

[Anderson]

California tried an overnight train, The Spirit of California, which was cancelled after poor ridership.

That was also 30+ years ago. The demographics, and the demand for ground-based passenger service (rail and bus,) have changed considerably in that time frame. I would be willing to bet that, with proper handling, such a train would fair much differently today.

Edit: Additionally, the train was not axed because of low ridership. It was cut because newly-elected Republican governor George Deukmejian wielded a very large pair of veto scissors against a great deal of state spending (over $1 billion in 1983 dollars.) Even the San Joaquin and San Diegan routes were snipped, both barely surviving due to local outcry.

From what I recall reading, there was enough ridership that Amtrak actively tried saving the train (attempting to rework it slightly and get NV involved to pick up some slack from CA). The effort didn't succeed, but an effort was made.

 

[Paulus]

California tried an overnight train, The Spirit of California, which was cancelled after poor ridership.

That was also 30+ years ago. The demographics, and the demand for ground-based passenger service (rail and bus,) have changed considerably in that time frame. I would be willing to bet that, with proper handling, such a train would fair much differently today.

And there's also increased air service since then; I'm really doubtful that you would see much more ridership than existed previously.

Edit: Additionally, the train was not axed because of low ridership. It was cut because newly-elected Republican governor George Deukmejian wielded a very large pair of veto scissors against a great deal of state spending (over $1 billion in 1983 dollars.) Even the San Joaquin and San Diegan routes were snipped, both barely surviving due to local outcry.

Ridership in 1982 was 80,360

 

[Anderson]

California tried an overnight train, The Spirit of California, which was cancelled after poor ridership.

That was also 30+ years ago. The demographics, and the demand for ground-based passenger service (rail and bus,) have changed considerably in that time frame. I would be willing to bet that, with proper handling, such a train would fair much differently today.

And there's also increased air service since then; I'm really doubtful that you would see much more ridership than existed previously.

Edit: Additionally, the train was not axed because of low ridership. It was cut because newly-elected Republican governor George Deukmejian wielded a very large pair of veto scissors against a great deal of state spending (over $1 billion in 1983 dollars.) Even the San Joaquin and San Diegan routes were snipped, both barely surviving due to local outcry.

Ridership in 1982 was 80,360

Yes, though I'd like to see a comparison with the other LD trains of the era. I'm reminded of reading some ridership stats from the mid-70s and being genuinely shocked at how low ridership was on a number of trains compared with now, mainly due to the equipment available at the time. Heck, even some of the ridership numbers from the early 90s out west were stunningly low compared with what we're used to thinking of a daily western LD train having (i.e.250-500k).

In the same vein, what was ridership on the Surfliners/San Diegans, San Joaquins, and Coast Starlight like at the time? Again, I ask because you've got a lot of transit options at each end that didn't exist back in the early 80s (particularly on the LA end).

 

[Paulus]

Ridership in 1982 was 80,360

Yes, though I'd like to see a comparison with the other LD trains of the era. I'm reminded of reading some ridership stats from the mid-70s and being genuinely shocked at how low ridership was on a number of trains compared with now, mainly due to the equipment available at the time. Heck, even some of the ridership numbers from the early 90s out west were stunningly low compared with what we're used to thinking of a daily western LD train having (i.e.250-500k).In the same vein, what was ridership on the Surfliners/San Diegans, San Joaquins, and Coast Starlight like at the time?

About 450,000 for the Starlight, though that was a bad year and it usually averaged in the 600K range during the 1980s. For state Fiscal Year 1982-1983, San Joaquins had 186,121 riders with two daily frequencies between Oakland and Bakersfield and the San Diegans had 1,131,146 riders with 7 daily round trips between Los Angeles and San Diego.

 

[Blackwolf]

Hypothetically, a relaunch of the "Spirit of California" overnight train between LA <-> SF could be accomplished in the following fashion:

Once the new California Cars start rolling into service from Illinois;

• Repurpose the CalComets into a dedicated Spirit of California fleet.
• Retain the three Horizon cafes and F-40 NPCU's.
• Purchase five Viewliner sleepers off of the Amtrak order from CAF, as a negotiated exercising of the additional car option.

Run the train as an overnight service with the northern terminus being San Francisco 4th & King station, the southern terminus being Los Angeles Union Station. Serve all stops between the two as is normal for the Coast Starlight.

If the service flops, selling the Viewliners back to Amtrak would mean little risk financially because you know they'd be hungry to use them if given the chance. Especially if they had a 50/50 ownership, where Amtrak could theoretically have the cost shared with California.

 

[Paulus]

Hypothetically, a relaunch of the "Spirit of California" overnight train between LA <-> SF could be accomplished in the following fashion:

Once the new California Cars start rolling into service from Illinois;

• Repurpose the CalComets into a dedicated Spirit of California fleet.
• Retain the three Horizon cafes and F-40 NPCU's.
• Purchase five Viewliner sleepers off of the Amtrak order from CAF, as a negotiated exercising of the additional car option.

Run the train as an overnight service with the northern terminus being San Francisco 4th & King station, the southern terminus being Los Angeles Union Station. Serve all stops between the two as is normal for the Coast Starlight.
If the service flops, selling the Viewliners back to Amtrak would mean little risk financially because you know they'd be hungry to use them if given the chance. Especially if they had a 50/50 ownership, where Amtrak could theoretically have the cost shared with California.

What would be the point though? Given priorities, you're competing against the Starlight, the Daylight, another daytime Surfliner frequency at San Luis Obispo, multiple Surfliners at Santa Barbara, and daytime direct rail trips to Los Angeles via San Joaquin and HSR. You're going to have next to no intermediate market and relying on SF to LA alone is a guaranteed failure.

 

[Anderson]

Interesting. I had not realized that the Starlight tended to have the larger amount of ridership of the two until the last decade (when it seems that the operational issues between '03 and '06 did a lasting number on the train). Of course, the fact that the Starlight was largely done in as the #1 LD train because of those disruptions does speak to the utility of an intrastate train. I will say that I would expect ridership on such a train, after an appropriate ramp-up period, to fall somewhere in the 120-150k range.

There's another point on such a train: It was run back in the 80s presumably using the same slots that would be used for a Daylight today. It might be a bit tricky for UP to fight against running a train that was run before using the same set of slots as before (and also tricky to argue for all sorts of improvements to do it). They can argue it, but the arguments get a bit thin at some point.

 

[Anderson]

Hypothetically, a relaunch of the "Spirit of California" overnight train between LA <-> SF could be accomplished in the following fashion:

Once the new California Cars start rolling into service from Illinois;

• Repurpose the CalComets into a dedicated Spirit of California fleet.
• Retain the three Horizon cafes and F-40 NPCU's.
• Purchase five Viewliner sleepers off of the Amtrak order from CAF, as a negotiated exercising of the additional car option.

Run the train as an overnight service with the northern terminus being San Francisco 4th & King station, the southern terminus being Los Angeles Union Station. Serve all stops between the two as is normal for the Coast Starlight.
If the service flops, selling the Viewliners back to Amtrak would mean little risk financially because you know they'd be hungry to use them if given the chance. Especially if they had a 50/50 ownership, where Amtrak could theoretically have the cost shared with California.

What would be the point though? Given priorities, you're competing against the Starlight, the Daylight, another daytime Surfliner frequency at San Luis Obispo, multiple Surfliners at Santa Barbara, and daytime direct rail trips to Los Angeles via San Joaquin and HSR. You're going to have next to no intermediate market and relying on SF to LA alone is a guaranteed failure.

Well, you might be "displacing" one of the Surfliners in such a scenario (768/785 correspond fairly closely to the Spirit of California's schedule), but even assuming you were adding a train on the old Spirit of California's schedule (depart LAX 2045 arrive San Jose 0720/depart San Jose 2300 arrive LAX 0830), you'd probably be ditching a bus that already operates in favor of a train, and there's a decent chance you could add some business on those corridors you'd be "competing with".

Edit: Also, I think you put a bit too much emphasis on the trains competing with one another rather than complementing one another. Multiple trains on varied schedules serving different markets open up additional travel options, for example; if anything, the evidence seems to indicate that running multiple trains helps ridership on all the trains. Likewise, I'd point out that a Spirit of California heading into either San Francisco or Oakland/Sacramento would provide legal connections with the Zephyr both ways (which the Starlight does not), as well as with the Southwest Chief. It would also provide an option to get to San Diego sometime other than 1 AM with a single transfer (and not be stuck on a bus).

 

[Blackwolf]

Hypothetically, a relaunch of the "Spirit of California" overnight train between LA <-> SF could be accomplished in the following fashion:

Once the new California Cars start rolling into service from Illinois;

• Repurpose the CalComets into a dedicated Spirit of California fleet.
• Retain the three Horizon cafes and F-40 NPCU's.
• Purchase five Viewliner sleepers off of the Amtrak order from CAF, as a negotiated exercising of the additional car option.

Run the train as an overnight service with the northern terminus being San Francisco 4th & King station, the southern terminus being Los Angeles Union Station. Serve all stops between the two as is normal for the Coast Starlight.
If the service flops, selling the Viewliners back to Amtrak would mean little risk financially because you know they'd be hungry to use them if given the chance. Especially if they had a 50/50 ownership, where Amtrak could theoretically have the cost shared with California.

What would be the point though? Given priorities, you're competing against the Starlight, the Daylight, another daytime Surfliner frequency at San Luis Obispo, multiple Surfliners at Santa Barbara, and daytime direct rail trips to Los Angeles via San Joaquin and HSR. You're going to have next to no intermediate market and relying on SF to LA alone is a guaranteed failure.

Well, you might be "displacing" one of the Surfliners in such a scenario (768/785 correspond fairly closely to the Spirit of California's schedule), but even assuming you were adding a train on the old Spirit of California's schedule (depart LAX 2045 arrive San Jose 0720/depart San Jose 2300 arrive LAX 0830), you'd probably be ditching a bus that already operates in favor of a train, and there's a decent chance you could add some business on those corridors you'd be "competing with".

Edit: Also, I think you put a bit too much emphasis on the trains competing with one another rather than complementing one another. Multiple trains on varied schedules serving different markets open up additional travel options, for example; if anything, the evidence seems to indicate that running multiple trains helps ridership on all the trains. Likewise, I'd point out that a Spirit of California heading into either San Francisco or Oakland/Sacramento would provide legal connections with the Zephyr both ways (which the Starlight does not), as well as with the Southwest Chief. It would also provide an option to get to San Diego sometime other than 1 AM with a single transfer (and not be stuck on a bus).

Thank you, Cliff! You make the same points I would touch in support of such a train. There really would be no "displacement" as I can foresee, other than to fill the slot of an existing train @ Santa Barbra and eliminate what is now a less than ideal overnight bus route with no on-board amenities. In fact, perhaps the smart move would be to ditch the Daylight idea in favor of a Spirit of California relaunch. Running at night means minimal traffic conflicts on all lines involved (CalTrain, Union Pacific, Metrolink) and actually would mean inbound and outbound trains would flow with traffic at the end points instead of against it as a daytime train would mean.

It also gives a justifiable home for the CalComets which will become orphaned in only a few years time when the new bi-levels arrive. Make the train stand out as something of a "notch above the rest" with "accommodations suited for your comfortable overnight experience, both with full-service First Class sleeping cars and upgraded "long-distance style" coach seating." And heck, for the ney-sayers out there who would balk at a sleeping car being bought for a "state service" then maybe we strip out a limited number of the Comets again and install lie-flat airline FC seats?

One more idea... Since we've gotten so far off the original topic here, perhaps a new thread should be started that carries over the conversation?

 

[Anderson]

Alright, the thread has been split off.

Back to the topic at hand: Considering the amount of traffic CHI-DEN (which is an even longer overnight run, and which tends to get "blocked in" at peak season to allow for through traffic...I've seen Amtrak.com refuse to sell a DEN-CHI ticket while selling an SLC-CHI ticket), I do not think it is fair to say "overnight services do poorly". 66/67 may have some issues, but it also lacks a sleeper, curtailing ridership possibilities, and even then it runs reasonably full for a good portion of its run. To the extent that it runs empty towards the middle of the run, that's because Regional-style coach makes for a lousy overnight experience. In the meantime, you've got the Silvers more or less paying their dedicated costs (at least, when trackwork isn't making an utter mess of things down south), and you have the LSL not doing too badly, either...and those all operate with diners.

Moreover, if you run this train with a café instead of a full diner (you can probably stock an acceptable breakfast, after all), you've only got a sole OBS for food service instead of 4-5, so that's going to keep at least one set of costs in hand.

I'd also like to point out that if you assume it takes 8 hours to turn a train (with buffers), you could plausibly extend the train either to Sacramento and/or San Diego. The original Spirit of California ran SAC-LAX and had about 13 hours to turn.

Finally, as to low ridership on the Spirit of California, it only shows up in the timetables for October 25, 1981; April 25, 1982; October 31, 1982; and April 24, 1983. Wikipedia indicates it ran from October 25, 1981 to September 30, 1983. Thus, FY82 only had 11 months of service (at most) and the train never got a chance to ramp up ridership, only running for part of FY82 and the entirety of FY83. Based on how ramp-ups tend to work, the train was likely on course for somewhere around 180k riders. Likewise, based on the equipment it seems to have had (Heritage sleepers would imply Heritage or Amfleet coaches), I'm not even certain that the run-up projections of 300k that were put out there were even possible unless there were a lot of coaches.

(On a related note: The lower ridership in the early years on that chart from Oregon corresponds to the rollout of Superliners. The Builder didn't get its first Superliners until into FY80, for example, and I suspect the Starlight didn't get them until even later, as from what I can tell, delivery continued into FY82)

 

[henryj]

People aren't interested in locking them selves up in a tiny little room with a shower down the hall for 14 hours when they can be there in little more than an hour and get a nice room in a hotel with a hot bath and nice restaurant for the same price. Overnight trains for business people are dead. And it would be late half the time. The only people that would ride it would be the elderly, people with flying phobia, railfans and bus people in coach. Spend the money on building that high speed line.

 

[Nathanael]

The time for nearly any airplane trip is a minimum of three hours, including time wasted accessing the airports at either end and going through security. If you have to change planes, the minimum is five hours. The only exceptions are at really uncrowded airports like Omaha. This is for trips which take minimal time in the air, and for "reasonably" located airports (not the most outrageously out-of-town ones like Denver or O'Hare, though times are shorter for exceptionally well located airports like Chicago Midway).

Delays are common.

Is 3-5 hours still more popular than an overnight train? Probably, but I get tired of seeing overblown claims about "little more than an hour" on a plane.

There is evidence, both anecdotal and from numbers, that the business market for overnight train travel is alive from Buffalo, NY to Chicago, regardless of what it may be anywhere else. I think the niche is narrow but it exists.

 

[Paulus]

There is evidence, both anecdotal and from numbers, that the business market for overnight train travel is alive from Buffalo, NY to Chicago, regardless of what it may be anywhere else. I think the niche is narrow but it exists.

BUF sleeper ridership amounted to ~10% of its LSL ridership (4,696/46,107), about six passengers per train.

Finally, as to low ridership on the Spirit of California, it only shows up in the timetables for October 25, 1981; April 25, 1982; October 31, 1982; and April 24, 1983. Wikipedia indicates it ran from October 25, 1981 to September 30, 1983. Thus, FY82 only had 11 months of service (at most) and the train never got a chance to ramp up ridership, only running for part of FY82 and the entirety of FY83. Based on how ramp-ups tend to work, the train was likely on course for somewhere around 180k riders. Likewise, based on the equipment it seems to have had (Heritage sleepers would imply Heritage or Amfleet coaches), I'm not even certain that the run-up projections of 300k that were put out there were even possible unless there were a lot of coaches.

The numbers quoted were for calendar year 1982. For the relevant Amtrak Fiscal Year, 80,132 (incidentally, snippet view is a pain in the rear to quote from) and total ridership was apparently just north of 160,000. Quoth TrainOrders on the consist

1 F40 locomotive

1 70 foot baggage

1 22 psgr sleeper 10-6

1 22 psgr sleeper 10-6 (operates 4-days a week, except daily 12/16 thru 1/5)

1 23 psgr Amdinette

1 60 psgr Amcoach

1 60 psgr Amcoach

1 60 psgr Amcoach (operates 4-days a week, except daily 12/16 thru 1/5)

1 60 psgr Amcoach (operates daily 12/16 thru 1/5)

 

[Nathanael]

BUF sleeper ridership amounted to ~10% of its LSL ridership (4,696/46,107), about six passengers per train.

OK, where did you dig that number up from? I haven't been able to find per-station sleeper breakdowns anywhere.

 

[Paulus]

BUF sleeper ridership amounted to ~10% of its LSL ridership (4,696/46,107), about six passengers per train.

OK, where did you dig that number up from? I haven't been able to find per-station sleeper breakdowns anywhere.

From NARP's ridership stats that they released just before Christmas. Here's BUF.

 

[R30A]

Come to think of it, If you could scrounge up a single LD superliner set, you could run such a service, simply running the arriving Zephyr down to LA and back.

 

[UK Andy]

I do think extending the CZ from Emeryville to LAX is the way to do it personally, even from a tourist POV this would make far more sense then the current CS timings.

Ofcourse the other option would be to just change the timing of the CS so it leaves 12 hours later in each direction

 

[rrdude]

People aren't interested in locking them selves up in a tiny little room with a shower down the hall for 14 hours when they can be there in little more than an hour and get a nice room in a hotel with a hot bath and nice restaurant for the same price. Overnight trains for business people are dead. And it would be late half the time. The only people that would ride it would be the elderly, people with flying phobia, railfans and bus people in coach. Spend the money on building that high speed line.

So says you Henry. Yeah, I fall into "the elderly" category at 56, but I travel overnight via train WHENEVER I have an option. I'd much rather spend a night in a roomette, eat in the diner, and suck down a bottle of wine in the SSL than jet into some boring hotel, watching some stoopid TV station, waiting for room service.......

 

[Anderson]

UK Andy, on 07 Feb 2014 - 3:46 PM, said:
I do think extending the CZ from Emeryville to LAX is the way to do it personally, even from a tourist POV this would make far more sense then the current CS timings.

Ofcourse the other option would be to just change the timing of the CS so it leaves 12 hours later in each direction

I did think of this once before. While I like the idea (it would incidentally allow Amtrak to consolidate some stuff from EMY to LAX), the biggest issue I see is that the Zephyr in question would be running "too long" and delays would be exacerbated.

 

[NS VIA Fan]

VIA tried an overnight Montreal <> Toronto train beginning in January 2000……the “Enterprise” but it just never caught-on with travelers and lasted only about 5 years. VIA extensively marketed this one even providing coupons offering a special rate it you used VIA-1 (First) Class on a day train one-way and returned by Sleeper Class. But I rode several times and seldom was the car more than half-full. The coaches did pretty well especially on weekends. The afternoon train covered the 340 mile run in 3 hr. 59 min but the overnight run took 8 1/2 hours. The trains left Montreal and Toronto at 11:30pm. After stopping in Kingston, they sat motionless on a siding for nearly 3 hrs then became an early morning commuter run. The Kingston-Toronto portion of the run was always popular and still exists today.

The train was originally a Budd consist complete with a “Park Car” Dome Observation. A “Bar Car” at night....... then serving a continental breakfast in the Dome the next morning. In summer 2002 the Enterprise began using the new Renaissance equipment. The smoothest ride I ever experienced was in a new Ren Sleeper rolling down the corridor!

Overnight train travel just doesn’t seem to be in the mind-set today when a fast day train will get you there or back to your own bed at night.

 

[henryj]

Inspite of incurring the rath of 'foamers' on here, I maintain that overnight sleeper trains for business class passengers died in the 1960's, replaced by jet planes. People just aren't interested in confining themselves in tiny little rooms with no shower, when they can be at their destination in a little over an hour, check into a nice hotel and have a nice sit down dinner at a good restaurant, and awake refreshed for their business meeting the next day. In addition the few of these trains that are left are just unreliable as to time keeping and service. Yes, you have to go through security now and show up a little early. But the train station is still downtown, usually with no parking available and you have to get there early also. There are few if any advantages to taking an overnight train for business travelers and they make up the bread and butter of this type of travel. The existing LD trains are just cruise trains for vacationers with time on their hands and is part of their vacation. LD trains to the average traveler is a novelty with a little nostalgia and romanticism. None of this exists in the business market. Which is why trains like the Capitol and Lake Shore Ltd struggle to make it. The Florida trains seem to be holding up although even there traffic is way down from the great years. I guess there are still lots of elderly people that use them between NY and Florida. The Auto train does well because it's family and auto oriented. Even in Europe, the famous overnight trains are declining to just a precious few. Concentration there is on HSR between population centers. Of course there will always be coach passengers for which the train is a lot more comfortable than taking the bus, but these people are traveling as cheaply as they possibly can or they too would have flown.

 

[George Harris]

I do think extending the CZ from Emeryville to LAX is the way to do it personally, even from a tourist POV this would make far more sense then the current CS timings.

Ofcourse the other option would be to just change the timing of the CS so it leaves 12 hours later in each direction

This is the way I have thought it should be done but using the equipment, not as a continuation of the train number. This requires sufficient reliability of the CZ westbound so that reliability of the coast train could be on time. Make it as an Emeryville to Los Angeles train carrying its own train numbers. Yes, this makes for a long layover time at Emeryville southbound, but this would be beneficial to relaiblity. Northbound, reliability should be OK with a much shorter layover time. If southbound passengers out of Sacramento (or Davis or Martinez) would not like a long layover in Emeryville, they could leave on a Capital Corridor train and make a connection to the overnight portion at Emeryville.

Remember, there are lots of people in the Bay Area Blob outside San Francisco city, much as San Franciscans appear to be in denial about that reality. You could have a cross bay bus like is done for all trains now, and a connection to a Caltrain schedule should also be shown, and through tickets sold.

This sort of operation would require only one additional set of equipment. This would move servicing of the CZ equipment to LA from Oakland.

Ridership: It is also worth remembering that going through an airport is much more of a hassle now than it was in the early 1980's. The Capital Corridor services and multiple San Joaquin trains did not exist at that time. All the facilities at the stations are much nicer now than they were 30 yearss ago. Have wi-fi as is now the case on the California state supported trains. Working on your own laptop is now the thing to do, and when flying you lose too much otherwise usable time that you would have on the train.

I would not change the CS timings. It would raise issues throughout its entire route.

 

[jis]

People aren't interested in locking them selves up in a tiny little room with a shower down the hall for 14 hours when they can be there in little more than an hour and get a nice room in a hotel with a hot bath and nice restaurant for the same price. Overnight trains for business people are dead. And it would be late half the time. The only people that would ride it would be the elderly, people with flying phobia, railfans and bus people in coach. Spend the money on building that high speed line.

So says you Henry. Yeah, I fall into "the elderly" category at 56, but I travel overnight via train WHENEVER I have an option. I'd much rather spend a night in a roomette, eat in the diner, and suck down a bottle of wine in the SSL than jet into some boring hotel, watching some stoopid TV station, waiting for room service.......

You know, I do love traveling by train. But notwithstanding that, when a business meeting is involved, if I can help it, I do have a definite preference for a bed planted on terra-firma. In other words, given a choice between an overnight train to get to a business meeting, and a quick flight and a hotel room at the destination. I will always choose the latter.

 

[George Harris]

Worth noting that both the City of New Orleans and the Crescent are basically overnight trains with a daytime extension, the first Chicago-Memphis, and the second Washington-Atlanta. For both of these there is plenty of space always available on their daytime extension. No, it is not to the ridership of the 1950's early 1960's when there were multiple trains so that you had more than one departure and arrival times to choose between on these routes but there still is significant overnight ridership. Also, don't foget the extra Chicago Denver cars on the CZ. Given more equipment and some marketing, I would suspect the ridership on these routes would increase significantly.