Thanks---that is awesome.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty195: Thanks---that is awesome.
You're welcome! Best part is it's free. Besides an interest in trains, I have been a cruise ship buff for around 40 years. Also love building models. My best one was of the Queen Mary 2 which I spent about 1500 man hours building. The devil was in the details.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
I never quite understood why San Francisco doesn't have direct Amtrak service. I didn't particulary care care for the transfer bus, not that there was a problem, just getting stuck in a load of traffic and hitting the various drop-off points before getting to mine. Time consuming.
Posted by amtrak92 (Member # 14343) on :
I don't get why they don't have direct service either
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
Does this make San Francisco the largest city in the US without direct Amtrak service? I thought I saw a list here on this board once of the Top 10 largest US cities without direct service. That would be interesting.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I forget what the specific reason is as to why SF does not have direct Amtrak service. But I believe it has something to do with the physical layout of things, and the lack of tracks connecting everything all together. SP ran their trains to SF, but I don't think they continued north from there---I believe they terminated there? It would probably take a few hours to divert a train off the Coast Line and run up the Peninsula, then either back-track to continue north or do some other round-about routing.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
I vaguely remember something about they used to ferry the trains across the water to S F which seemed to be quite a problem. GBN I am sure knows the answer to this one and hopefully we shall too shortly
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
Seems like it wouldn't have been too difficult to run a tunnel when BART was built to accomodate a direct line. Then I guess they could now use the same line CALTRAIN uses to San Jose. CALTRAIN has great service SF-San Jose including now a 'highspeed' version with limited stops. The eastbay just seems disconnected.
Posted by a meyer (Member # 4954) on :
dmwnc1959, I believe Phoenix takes "the prize" for largest city without direct Amtrak service.
Most online sources have Phoenix as 5th largest city by population and San Francisco anywhere from 12th-14th, which I believe would make it second on the list.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
quote:Originally posted by a meyer: dmwnc1959, I believe Phoenix takes "the prize" for largest city without direct Amtrak service.
Most online sources have Phoenix as 5th largest city by population and San Francisco anywhere from 12th-14th, which I believe would make it second on the list.
THANKS. I pictured San Francisco bigger for some reason. Odd.
More webcams grabs as one of our 'rail friends' enjoys a non-rail vacation on the Millennium:
Posted by a meyer (Member # 4954) on :
The photos are great!!!
I am interested on why Amtrak didn't connect into San Fran.??
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
San Francisco is a dead end. Folks who've been around a few mornings will remember that SP 98-99, the Coast Daylight, ran LA-SF, as did (Hark, hark) the Lark, as did the Coaster, and as did Sad Sam, the mail train.
The Starlight cobbled together the Daylight to San Francisco, the Oakland extension of the Lark, and the Cascades into a single entity.
Here ends todays history lesson.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by a meyer: The photos are great!!!
I am interested on why Amtrak didn't connect into San Fran.??
It would require a railroad equivalent to the Bay Bridge to make it practical to run trains from the east or north into San Francisco. The only wan to do so now would be to go to San Jose and back up 47 miles.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Only in a 1946 book titled "A Railroad for Tomorrow" by Edward Hungerford is there direct service from the East via a bridge paralleling the Bay Bridge. That book also envisioned a rail line to Alaska - all with plenty of passenger trains.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
Like I mentioned before, what kept them from building a parallel tunnel with the Bart construction? They could've run them under the bay like the NYC line runs under the Hudson.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. DMW, during the '60's when BART's Trans Bay tunnel was constructed, railroad passenger transportation had lost any relevance in the region. This even included potential Corridors such as San Fran-LA and San Fran-Sacramento.
Furthermore the Southern Pacific, while in my estimation did an adequate job of running the trains they were required in the then regulated environment, was fiercely anti-passenger train and would have "killed 'em all in a heartbeat" if such was their prerogative.
The only hope of Amtrak ever serving San Francisco with a train would be if the existing Starlight were truncated into a Cascade and a Daylight. Pasengers from The Cascade (name of a former SP train operating Portland-Oakland) could still have a same day connection with the San Joaquins at Martinez.
There "has been talk" of establishing an SF-LA train that would roundly "chase the markers" of the existing Starlight. However, I hold such a proposal would be an imprudent use of public funds.
But alas, there is the California HSR initiative, in which Amtrak involvement would likely be no more than holding a contract to provide Operating Employees...but that is many MANY moons down the ROW...if ever.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
What a wonderful history lesson! I knew that SF was on an isolating peninsula (I lived there for a while and have been back several times to vacation) but it didnt quite explain why they just didnt build a rail bridge. Now I know. THANKS! Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by dmwnc1959: Like I mentioned before, what kept them from building a parallel tunnel with the Bart construction? They could've run them under the bay like the NYC line runs under the Hudson.
San Francisco Bay is MUCH wider than the Hudson River, so a transbay tunnel would be much longer than a trans Hudson tube.
What kept them from building a parallel tunnel? Money. Other factors even if they money was there: The grades into and out of the BART tunnel are realtively steep which may be beyond the pracitcal railroad limit. Also, the BART tunnel is not a simply down, stay low, and go up. There is a crest in grade UNDER the Bay due to the nature of the bottom profile and the underlying ground.
Despite the money being spetn on the HSR, there is no Bay Bridge or tunnel in the plan. Climb Tehachapi at 200 mph, yes, a long tunnel with sevral shorter ones under Pacheco Pass, yes, but a crossing San Francisco Bay, not happening.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
A quick look as our friend from Santa Barbara leaves out from San Francisco:
Posted by Railroad Bob (Member # 3508) on :
IF rails ever went under the Golden Gate, or over on a dedicated rail bridge (not gonna happen as GH and GBN have clearly described) there would be other myriad problems; such as NIMBYs in the expensive real estate districts of Marin and Sonoma counties. There IS the old ROW of the Northwestern Pacific RR- which came down by a town called Schellville, on which trains, even psgr., used to go north, but the NWP had its own set of never-ending operating problems including unstable geology near the north end. But probably most important was the NWP did not join the SP or any other major RR at it's northern terminus near Eureka, CA. But there were the good SP tracks over in the East Bay that kept on trundling north; that's the main reason why Amtrak and its predecessors kept the through passenger trains over on the east side-- San Jose, Oakland, Martinez, Sac'to and onward. When I used to work the Starlights, there were days when we only had 10-15 transfers to San Francisco-- for that amount, the bus over the Bay Bridge made a lot of sense. You can still ride the Cal Trains into San Fran- that's always been a very nice commuter operation in my experience w/ friendly crews and a loyal rider base.
Posted by wayne72145 (Member # 4503) on :
Last Thursday my sister and I rode down from Sacramento to Emeryville and transfered by Thruway to San Francisco to see the Giants last home game. It was wonderful. No driving. No parking. Very relaxing. I fought the Bay Area freeways most of my life and found the bus trip to and from San Francisco a breeze even in commute traffic. The problem is not getting over the bridge, IT'S GETTING ON THE BRIDGE. These days they have bus lanes making this no problem.
Posted by cubzo (Member # 4700) on :
Was that the fan appreciation if it was then I was at that game as well, the wife and I were camping in Petaluma and took the Giants ferry from Larkspur. Too bad the Cubbies lost though.
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
A quick howdy and thanks for all of the interest and for the GREAT pictures of our departure from San Francisco! The weather was awesome all the way down the coast and we are now doing lazy eights after leaving Avalon on Catalina Island for Los Angeles. If you remember the song it's 26 miles but we are not going to be there until tomorrow morning. I'm sure we'll be far enough out to sea so that the Casino and shops can stay open.
More when I'm off the expensive ship's internet!
Frank on "Marvelous Millennium"
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
Glad you liked the webcam grabs!
Worse than lazy eights, the Millennium went on a side trip south, this taken around 10:15pm PST. I had to re-confirm she was actually going to LA and not San Diego!
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
Also thought you mind find this interesting, taken around 10:30pm PST, a traffic jam of inbound and outbound cruise ships (indicated by the blue arrows):
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
Frank's 12hr track on Millennium after leaving Catalina, now on the home stretch followed by 2 others:
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
Awesome! When I woke up around 6:30AM we were already docked stern to stern with Norwegian Star. Sapphire Princess was around the corner. Imagine 6,000 passengers trying to get off ships at about the same time. Actually, it went fairly smoothly. Our disembarkation was delayed about 30 minutes but we were on a bus to LAX in under an hour after leaving the ship.
I'll get a report posted soon on the rail portion of our trip including the Talgo from Seattle to Vancouver and several trolley rides and two cable car rides in San Francisco (NEVER "San Fran" or worse, "Frisco"!)
Frank in cool and, they say, soon to be wet SBA
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
That last image above was obtained around 5am PST, assuming Millennium departed Avalon around 5pm the afternoon before, hence the '12hr track'. I was surprised she entered the breakwater so early (roughly 5:20am) but I guess they had to get all three ships in as quick as possible.
As far as the '6,000 passengers', wait until Oasis of the Seas comes out. That will be her all by herself (6,296 including third and fourth berths), much more on weekends in FLL when her and 4 other ships will be dismebarking/embarking roughly 28,000 passengers in a single day. THAT is going to be a mess. And on Dec. 20th FLL will see 8 ships in port at the same time. No thanks.
Look forward to your review and any pictures of the Cascades. I really loved the few times I rode from Portland and Seattle to Vancouver.
Also any cruise review you may post on other sites, pls give me a heads up, would love to read all about your Wine Cruise journey!
Welcome back! And thanks to everybody else for indulging this slightly sometimes off the rails topic.
P.S. Here's a link from 'another' board of cruise ships in San Francisco including the Millennium from your visit.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
