What happened to LAUPT?

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

FormerOBS

Conductor
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
1,272
Location
Maryland, but a native of Ohio
Maybe this has been discussed before. Today I read an item here which referred to the Los Angeles Amtrak station as Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS). The traditional name was Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT). When did the name change, and why? I guess I'm just an old fogey traditionalist, but I prefer the old name.

Tom
 

rickycourtney

Conductor
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
1,849
Location
Fresno, CA
Maybe this has been discussed before. Today I read an item here which referred to the Los Angeles Amtrak station as Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS). The traditional name was Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT). When did the name change, and why? I guess I'm just an old fogey traditionalist, but I prefer the old name.

Tom
You know it's funny... only railfans call it Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal. Most native Angelos call it simply "Union Station."
I'm not sure when it was officially renamed, heck I'm not sure if there was an official renaming. I do know that when Metrolink started service in 1992... it was referred to as Union Station.

I think Union Station is a more fitting name considering its new role as a hub for several modes of transportation... not just the end of the line for long-distance trains.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

zephyr17

Conductor
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,130
Location
Washington State
It has always been called "Union Station" right from the day it opened, that's even what the sign says, but it's official name was Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal, LAUPT. I am not sure exactly when they changed it to LAUS, but I do know the reason. After some of the San Diegans/Pacific Surfliners began running through to Santa Barbara (and eventually SLO), it was no longer a "terminal" serving as the origin and final destination of all trains, it was now just a station (well, technically a depot). Someone noticed the terminology and changed it.

Up until the San Diegans began running through only one train ever ran through Union Station, the Sunset Limited from the station's opening on May 4,1939 until early 1942. The Sunset Limited originated in San Francisco, it was cut back to Los Angeles as a wartime measure. The SF-LA portion of the Sunset got deemed a redundant service and the equipment used for "essential services".
 

Devil's Advocate

Sarcastic Misanthrope
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
12,264
Location
Texas
I think "Union Station" sounds fine and is far more accurate. Try telling a taxi driver you want to go to "Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal" and he'll give you a double take with off kilter eyebrows. LA's Union Station should be the gold standard for the rest of the network. The only thing I'd change are the ugly platform covers which have aged horribly and seem to have no intentional connection to the rest of the design.
 

zephyr17

Conductor
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,130
Location
Washington State
Even when its official name was LA Union Passenger Terminal, that really only appeared on things like LAUPT Employee Timetables, it was always known to the public as Union Station right from the start, and that is what all the signage has always said. Calling it "LAUPT" was always something of a railfan affectation. I am fine with Union Station, LAUPT, LAUS. Just don't call it LAX, that is a place name and not just a code, and Union Station is not that place.

I like the platform umbrella sheds, but wish they'd sandblast them or something. They've been horribly rusty for as long as I can remember, which goes back to the early 1960s. They did try to paint them, but they appear to not to have prepped them and just painted over the rust and now they look as bad as ever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Paulus

Conductor
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
1,469
It has always been called "Union Station" right from the day it opened, that's even what the sign says, but it's official name was Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal, LAUPT. I am not sure exactly when they changed it to LAUS, but I do know the reason. After some of the San Diegans/Pacific Surfliners began running through to Santa Barbara (and eventually SLO), it was no longer a "terminal" serving as the origin and final destination of all trains, it was now just a station (well, technically a depot). Someone noticed the terminology and changed it.

Up until the San Diegans began running through only one train ever ran through Union Station, the Sunset Limited from the station's opening on May 4,1939 until early 1942. The Sunset Limited originated in San Francisco, it was cut back to Los Angeles as a wartime measure. The SF-LA portion of the Sunset got deemed a redundant service and the equipment used for "essential services".
Two trains actually

 

FormerOBS

Conductor
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
1,272
Location
Maryland, but a native of Ohio
Thanks, All. I guess that answers it. Maybe I like the LAUPT name just because it's different.

I had not realized the Sunset actually started in San Francisco at one time. That was new and very interesting info. Interesting thought: If Amtrak were to extend the Sunset westward to San Francisco, passengers could actually board the train in downtown San Fran instead of having to cross the bay. I have no idea whether this would be practical or advisable. The present downtown station may not have track availability, or ready access to support facilities. Such an extension would also require adding cars to the assigned Sunset Limited pool, and Amtrak may not have the equipment. Would there be any need for a second LD train on the LA-SF route? Since they are talking about building a high-speed system on this very route, I would imagine so. I wonder whether Amtrak's Marketing Dept. has ever looked into this.

I guess this should be considered on another thread if the discussion moves on to this idea.

Tom
 

PRae_Train

Service Attendant
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
136
Location
Massachusetts
I am fine with Union Station, LAUPT, LAUS. Just don't call it LAX, that is a place name and not just a code, and Union Station is not that place.
I laugh when I see the TV add where they draw in the sand, "I [heart] my LAX" and they are talking about a laxative.
 

rickycourtney

Conductor
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
1,849
Location
Fresno, CA
The debate somewhat reminds me of the situation in New York. The station is "Grand Central Terminal" but it is almost universally called Grand Central Station.
 

Paulus

Conductor
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
1,469
Thanks, All. I guess that answers it. Maybe I like the LAUPT name just because it's different.

I had not realized the Sunset actually started in San Francisco at one time. That was new and very interesting info. Interesting thought: If Amtrak were to extend the Sunset westward to San Francisco, passengers could actually board the train in downtown San Fran instead of having to cross the bay. I have no idea whether this would be practical or advisable. The present downtown station may not have track availability, or ready access to support facilities. Such an extension would also require adding cars to the assigned Sunset Limited pool, and Amtrak may not have the equipment. Would there be any need for a second LD train on the LA-SF route? Since they are talking about building a high-speed system on this very route, I would imagine so. I wonder whether Amtrak's Marketing Dept. has ever looked into this.

I guess this should be considered on another thread if the discussion moves on to this idea.

Tom
California has been working on restoring the Coast Daylight for something like 20 years now.
 

leemell

Conductor
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
1,542
Location
Los Angeles, CA
After the MTA bought the station they officially changed the name to Los Angeles Union Station. That was about five years ago. The canopies over the tracks will all be refurbished when the Southern California Regional Interconnect (run-through to all you folks) is done. Two of them were redone when they reinstalled tracks 13 and 14. They are going to raise six of the tracks for the SCRIP and maybe all if the Master Plan is followed. The Coast Daylight is waiting two things, money (what else) and the Coast Rail Coordinating Council to complete negations with UP.
 

Michael061282

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
278
Location
Richmond, VA
Way back in the early days of Amtrak, the Starlight ran through to San Diego... I think that only lasted about 6 months though, if that.
 

tp49

Conductor
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
2,747
The debate somewhat reminds me of the situation in New York. The station is "Grand Central Terminal" but it is almost universally called Grand Central Station.
Most New Yorkers just call it "Grand Central" Grand Central Station is of course a post office.
 

Karl1459

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
461
Location
Oregon
Even when its official name was LA Union Passenger Terminal, that really only appeared on things like LAUPT Employee Timetables, it was always known to the public as Union Station right from the start, and that is what all the signage has always said. Calling it "LAUPT" was always something of a railfan affectation. I am fine with Union Station, LAUPT, LAUS. Just don't call it LAX, that is a place name and not just a code, and Union Station is not that place.

I like the platform umbrella sheds, but wish they'd sandblast them or something. They've been horribly rusty for as long as I can remember, which goes back to the early 1960s. They did try to paint them, but they appear to not to have prepped them and just painted over the rust and now they look as bad as ever.
My take is that LAUPT was the name of the corporation jointly owned by at (least) AT&SF, LA&SL, and SP. The "terminal" was much more than the station, it would include all the trackage, signals, coach yards, and other facilities that were needed for joint use. LAUPT could (speculation) still exist if some parts of the system were not purchased by MetroLink.
 

gwschenk

Train Attendant
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
82
I've always called it LAX. Probably not good since everyone then wants to take me to the airport.
 

jis

Conductor
AU Lifetime Supporter
Gathering Team Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
27,488
Location
Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
The debate somewhat reminds me of the situation in New York. The station is "Grand Central Terminal" but it is almost universally called Grand Central Station.
Funny! I lived in New Jersey for 30 years and rarely heard anyone call Grand Central Terminal Grand Central Station. They either just called it Grand Central or Grand Central Terminal, more the former than the latter. Of course woe be to anyone who utters Grand Central Station in front of a know it all railfan. :p they would be immediately a victim of a long lecture. ;)
 

Bob Dylan

Conductor
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
22,125
Location
Austin Texas
Well, its a Train Station for Commuters and a Restaurant Building( high end) The New Yorkers I known call it "Grand Central!"

Maybe Alan B ( the Queens Amtrak Guru) has a take that's different??
 

Bob Dylan

Conductor
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
22,125
Location
Austin Texas
Well, its a Train Station for Commuters and a Restaurant Building( high end) The New Yorkers I known call it "Grand Central!"

Maybe Alan B ( the Queens Amtrak Guru) has a take that's different??
 

zephyr17

Conductor
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,130
Location
Washington State
Even when its official name was LA Union Passenger Terminal, that really only appeared on things like LAUPT Employee Timetables, it was always known to the public as Union Station right from the start, and that is what all the signage has always said. Calling it "LAUPT" was always something of a railfan affectation. I am fine with Union Station, LAUPT, LAUS. Just don't call it LAX, that is a place name and not just a code, and Union Station is not that place.

I like the platform umbrella sheds, but wish they'd sandblast them or something. They've been horribly rusty for as long as I can remember, which goes back to the early 1960s. They did try to paint them, but they appear to not to have prepped them and just painted over the rust and now they look as bad as ever.
My take is that LAUPT was the name of the corporation jointly owned by at (least) AT&SF, LA&SL, and SP. The "terminal" was much more than the station, it would include all the trackage, signals, coach yards, and other facilities that were needed for joint use. LAUPT could (speculation) still exist if some parts of the system were not purchased by MetroLink.
Almost exactly right except for the coach yards. LAUPT was a railroad that controlled everything out to Mission Tower that was owned jointly by Santa Fe, SP and UP, although not equally IIRC. Catellus was the descendent of Santa Fe's old land subsidiary, and they got SP's portion of LAUPT when they tried the SP-SF merger and everything got merged except the SP railroad itself, which got booted out on its own without all the other subsidiaries when the ICC disapproved the merger. Not sure how Catellus got the UPs portion, but they did. UP probably didn't much want it.

LAUPT had its own employee timetables, rulebook, special instructions, etc. My understanding is that the ownership of the station and trackage was split for quite awhile, MTA acquired the tracks quite a bit before they got the station building and they control it and Metrolink dispatches it along with all their other owned and leased trackage such as the East Bank and West Bank and State Street lines. It is just all MTA/Metrolink now.

LAUPT did not own or control any coach yards. Those coach yards were owned by the railroads and they were all outside LAUPT limits. SP at "The Shops" across the river, Santa Fe at 9tjh Street, and Union Pacific at East Yard. The Amtrak coach yard is the former Santa Fe one and is owned by Amtrak, not MTA.
 
Top