posted
The last I heard the proposed high-speed route from LAX-LVS had been delayed due to protests from environmentalists, and was then caught up in Amtrak's funding crisis and put on hold indefinitely. However, I have just picked up two travel guides which state that the service is up and running and even gives the departure times and fares!!!!
OK, I understand that these things have to go to print months before they are published and they probably took a guess and got it wrong, but does anybody know if/when there is any possibility of the service starting up?
jp1822 Member # 2596
posted
Where did you read this at or what publication were you looking at? The route used to be outlined on the map in the 2002 Amtrak Vacation Planner, but so were other routes that never made reality. Last I heard, they were going to try and utilize Talgo train sets on this route - but it has been on hold indefinitely. I don't understand the environmentalist concern - aren't they trying to utilize existing right-of-way between LA and Las Vegas? Didn't the Desert Wind once traverse a similar route and don't a number of freight trains operate through there? If they are going for a separate right-of-way, perhaps high speed electric motive power - than this is more environmentally friendly than the Genesis or Talgo units.
Geoff Mayo Member # 153
posted
I believe the environment protests were because UP wanted to widen the trackbed to 2 tracks. That apparently would have disturbed some turtles or something.
UP also cite traffic density on the line as a problem already (hence the widening).
Geoff M.
cajon Member # 40
posted
IF ( & that's a big if) Amtrak starts up Los Angeles to Las Vegas service, it will be w/ Surfliners & not Talgos. UP doesn't want Talgos because they are articulated so if one unit goes BO then the whole train gets setout. If it happens out in the middle of the desert you can imagine what the busing problem would be like-Omaha Highway or not! The critters of concern are the desert tortise, not turtles. The double tracking needed would be on Cima Hill a major train movement problem on the UP out there.
jp1822 Member # 2596
posted
This is about the fourth time this week alone I have heard about turtles holding up a project for environmental reasons. I have a love for nature, but give me a break with some of this stuff.
Italiancanuck89 Member # 1873
posted
I happened to be in Vegas at the end of june and saw the line that i assumed Amtrak would use. It goes right into the city. With a night time or even a sunset arrival into Vegas it would create quite a cite to see. I don't understand why this route isn't being pursed more avidly. It seems like it would be a popular destination.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Folks,
Go study history.
UP, in the Fifties, tried HARD!!! to make a go of a LA-LV run.
It lost money. It lost so much money they dumped the run.
Folks prefer to fly or drive over. Sad but simple explanation.
John
------------------ The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations
ozarksjoe Member # 2200
posted
There has been enormous population growth in Vegas, the LA basin is 'choking' with traffic. The road to Vegas for decades has been known as quite dangerous at times.
A Vegas to L.A. train would provide a bus/train link from and to Utah.
MPALMER Member # 125
posted
For folks who are not in a hurry, the LA to LV train would work. It takes a couple hours longer than driving, as the route is less direct (Cajon Pass, Afton Canyon, plus the twists and turns near the Nevada line).
Much of the route is single track and heavily used by freights.
The second track would be on Cima Hill. I don't think UP cared one way or the other, but insisted that the second track be built if they would be expected to maintain some type of schedule for the trains. The tortoise issue also impacted some other activities (Ft. Irwin Army exercises? not sure) but I think it was resolved. But Amtrak or someone would need to come up with the $90M for capital improvements.
A lot of folks had high expectations on the line coming back in 2000, or 2001, or 2002. Auto Club re-drew the line on its maps, and added an "Amtrak station" in Las Vegas. (Many Auto Club maps now only show rail lines with passenger service, not all rail lines like they did in the good ol' days).
The Talgo trainset visited Fullerton at one point.
I'm still waiting for the trains to return...in the meantime you can ride the rails to Barstow and take a bus from there (I know that doesn't cut it for railfans. I have not even tried that myself).
MP
Southwest Chief Member # 1227
posted
I'm interested in cajon's reply. Surfliners would be, I think, a much better choice for rolling stock. But this is the first I've heard that UP wants them vs. Talgos.
Where did you hear this cajon? Rail Travel News or a similar publication? I'd be interested if this line is ever reborn, what paint scheme the cars will carry. I guess only time, and most likely a l o n g time, will tell.
Almost forgot, is the proposed line still going to bypass Fullerton? Something I think is a big mistake.
[This message has been edited by Southwest Chief (edited 08-17-2003).]
MPALMER Member # 125
posted
I had heard the line would be "UP all the way" and would bypass Fullerton.
cajon Member # 40
posted
Bypassing FUL on San Gabriel Sub not UP. At least that's the way they went on the time trials.
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted UP, in the Fifties, tried HARD!!! to make a go of a LA-LV run
How hard? Did they put in sufficient signaling to allow high speeds? Or did they try to get away with 79-mph running.
Besides, this ain't the 50s anymore, but the 21st Century.
Folks prefer to fly or drive over. Sad but simple explanation
Can't tell that for sure now since there's no train. And post-1950, UP would not have bothered with a high-speed run to LV. Simple explanation.
[This message has been edited by irishchieftain (edited 08-19-2003).]
[This message has been edited by irishchieftain (edited 09-02-2003).]
royaltrain Member # 622
posted
Some on this board may remember that into the mid 1960's UP would hook a pullman sleeper onto a late-night Los Angeles to Omaha mail train (I think they were trains 5 and 6). The sleeper was put on in L.A. and taken off in Las Vegas so that Southern Californians had a very convenient overnight sleeping car service. I think it might have been more popular if UP had done any advertising, but it seemed that only rail fans knew of it.
JAChooChoo Member # 723
posted
quote:Originally posted by royaltrain: Some on this board may remember that into the mid 1960's UP would hook a pullman sleeper onto a late-night Los Angeles to Omaha mail train (I think they were trains 5 and 6). The sleeper was put on in L.A. and taken off in Las Vegas so that Southern Californians had a very convenient overnight sleeping car service. I think it might have been more popular if UP had done any advertising, but it seemed that only rail fans knew of it.
[B] In 1959, 5 left Vegas at at 2000 arrived LA 0530. 6 left LA at 2230 arrived Vegas at 0700. The trains had 13 scheduled stops and 44 flag stops!
[This message has been edited by JAChooChoo (edited 08-21-2003).]
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Reality Check:
As late as 1957 there were four movements per day on the UP:
City of LA
Challenger Domeliner
City of Saint Louis
Mail & Express 5&6 (did have coaches and Pullmans on it)
City of Las Vegas
The last pre Amtrak passenger train was the "City of Everywhere" holding COLAs numbers (103-104) passing through WB late May 1, 1971, and EB late April 30, 1971.
UP did work to make a go of it. Current road (Cajor and Cima) requires major work to get above 35MPH max speeds on substantial grades.
Whither the $$,$$$,$$$ per construction mile?
How are you going to make LA-LV convenient when I can jump from Burbank, Ontario, John Wayne, LAX, ad infinitum at virtually any hour of the day? OBTW, where are the Destination hotels relative to the old UP station on Frontier?? $20 taxi ride away, that'w where. Have the capital for a new station?
Right now a rail passenger has to get from an outlying point (let's use Canoga Park or Palmdale as examples), INTO a station along the line ... which means UP LA - COmmerce - San Berdoo. ONCE A DAY??
Whither the railcars to support this? Amtrak is stressed already and cannot support all services with Superliner that are supposed to have them. Whither the $$,$$$,$$$ for new trainsets?
I hate to pour water on the parade, but this is a major investment ... and it seems to me the Peeple's Republik of Kalifornia has a bigger economic house on fire right now than new rail service.
John Calvert St Elementary, LACSD, 1968 Parkman Jr High, LAUSD, 1971 Taft High, LAUSD, 1974 BA UC Santa Barbara, 1978
[This message has been edited by PullmanCo (edited 09-02-2003).]
[This message has been edited by PullmanCo (edited 09-02-2003).]
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted As late as 1957 there were four movements per day on the UP
I don't care if there were twenty movements per day. Average speed? Top speed? WELL??? And continue to neglect mentioning the ICC edict of 1950, which slows trains down to 79 mph, a non-competitive speed.
How are you going to make LA-LV convenient when I can jump from Burbank, Ontario, John Wayne, LAX, ad infinitum at virtually any hour of the day?
Do us a favor and stop posting on here. You obviously hate varnish more than Crazy Nip does.
[This message has been edited by irishchieftain (edited 09-02-2003).]
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Mr Irish Chieftain,
GBN forwarded me a note on the loss of your father. My personal condolences.
Truth in advertising time: I am a stockholder of UP. I want nothing that dilutes the value of that position.
You want a run from Los Angeles to Las Vegas?
OK.
First, get an interstate compact between Nevada and California. Allow Nevada Gaming Control Board to regulate gambling on the train. Create a rolling casino. Now you have an advantage over the airlines and the buses; you have the gamblers in play. Contract the casino side to one of the major houses. Take a profit fee that can be used to buy roadbed improvements.
Second, make I-15 a car/bus toll road. Charge 16 cents per mile (half the IRS standard for fear wear and tear per mile). 280 miles x .16 = 45 rounded dollars. Now you have a disincentive to automobile.
Do the same as a surtax for air. Take the operating cost per engine hour on a 737. Pro rate that across the actual occupancy. Tack that on to the passenger's fare. There's an air disincentive.
I don't think there is a better path over Cajon to Barstow. As bad as LAUPT to San Berdoo can be, over Cajon is just plain slow. Maybe you can use the money from the car tolls and the air tolls to help finance a new and lower path. Remember that Ralph Budd tunneled on the GN to lower its grade across the Cascades. You're not going to get below three hours transit, maybe 4. You may end up losing those savings if you branch cars out to other megalopolis destinations.
Last, find the equipment to do two-three RT per day, especially Friday morning to Monday night (heck maybe even Thursday morning).
Consider using the old PE lines in LA from downtown out towards LAX. Ditto Glendale. I don't know Orange County so well, there has to be a near-airport stop besides Fullerton. For that matter, if you can split "gambler's special" cars to San Diego and Santa Barbara...
Here's your d/o/g for the hunt: Sell the California Assembly/Senate and the Nevada Legislature.
Good luck with the political climate out there ...
John
------------------ The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations
[This message has been edited by PullmanCo (edited 09-02-2003).]
amsnoop Member # 2745
posted
Let's get the"Turtles and Enviornmentalists" issue straight concerning the Las Vegas service. The Planing and Conservation League has been accused of stalling the project with enviornment protests. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The PCL has and continues to support all rail transportation and specifically the Las Vegas service. Federal Law requires any party that wants to build on protected lands to file enviornmental reports about the project. In this case it was up to Union Pacific to file the necessary reports in a timely manner which they did not do. This is what has has delayed the project.
posted