Someone correct if this is wrong, Doesn’t this realignment mention that there will be some kind of temporary slow continuation to LAX Union station from Bakersfield along a present route ? If so then maybe it will be something like the UK does now. Probably couple a sprinter(s) on at BFD to go to LAX. It might even be some CAT installed at LAX to allow flexiability ?
No chance. The Bakersfield - LAX line through Tehachapi is not suitable for passenger service. Although SP ran them through back in the day, my 1962 Official Guide shows Bak - LAX took about 5 hours, so slow that Santa Fe bussed passengers on that segment. Plus today, that segment is saturated with freights. Any passenger service on that segment requires a new line on a different allignment.
The Santa Fe’s all-rail route San Francisco-Los Angeles was defintely not competitive with the Southern Pacific’s: 269 miles versus 179 miles, for the Santa Fe had to go to Barstow before heading to Los Angeles.
The public would never stand for user-fee for most roads.
Take the UP. Plant, property and equipment are carried on the books at around $49 billion. The quasi-government Railnet takes over maintenance, dispatching etc. Assume the various UPRR RoWs are valued at $40+ billion. If the UP could reinvest that, plus eliminate property taxes [I have no idea how large a bill they actually pay] in return for access to a user-fee national rail grid, I suspect they could make a bigger profit.
You must have looked at some segment of the trips. The actual SF to LAX miles, from the timetables in the Official Guide, are SP Coast Line 470, San J. 482, and Santa Fe 434.
(above)
Did the SF Golden Gates have bus connections on BOTH ends?
How good was the ridership?
When did these trains come off? Lasted to Amtrak day?
Sorry, but your distances are off. Consulting the Sante Fe 1940 TT the Golden Gate was 112 bus miles + 312.8 rail miles. LA to Oakland 8:50, SF 9:10. Compare that with SP’s 1971/1957 San Joaquin (valley) route: 477 miles, 11:50/12:45. The1938/1970 Coast Daylights: 471 miles, 9:45/9:50.
Schlimm, I gave the Santa Fe rail miles from Bakersfield to Barstow and then to Los Angeles; the SP rail miles go directly from Bakersfield to Los Angeles. Therefore, the Santa Fe’s rail distance is about one hundred miles greater than the SP’s for this part. The Santa Fe used the bus connection so that it would be more competitive. I was not comparing the total mileage.
Incidentally, the Santa Fe had overnight, all-rail, service between the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
Johnny: I totally misunderstood your post. Sorry. Prior to the Golden Gate (1936), the Sante Fe had an all-rail (via Barstow) train set called the Saint/Angel (1912-18), which took 16:45.
Later, I suppose someone could have taken a train to Barstow on the Santa Fe and then transferred to the SF Chief. But that seems highly unlikely.
And your point about using the existing rail route from Bakersfield to LA is well taken. A new, passenger route is essential.
The “Golden Gate” name lasted until 1968, though the fast, coach only trains were gone by 1965, with one direction combined with a mail train. Bus connections were between Oakland (actually 40th and San Pablo in Emeryville) and the Transbay Terminal at First and Mission in San Francisco. In 1958, the station in Emeryville was closed, and bus service ran from Richmond to San Francisco.
Offhand guess: SFe buses always ran to 44 4th St in SF. Anyone got a timetable showing them at the Transbay Terminal?
In response to J Bishop’s post (somehow, it does not appear in my Trains Passeenger forum, but did come in my email), I was looking at the rail distance between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. The total distance, by rail, from Oakland to Los Angeles via Barstow, was 596 miles. The Santa Fe knew that it could not really compete with the SP via the San Joaquin Valley if it did not utilize buses between Bakersfield and Los Angeles.
California does not have and never will have a Right to Work law, nor do we or will we ever have a law that says workers have to be unionized. Remember, this is California you’re talking about, they can hire anyone from anywhere they want, even bringing in out of state contractors and workers, which won’t cause an uproar like it is un Nevada with Telsa’s Gigafactory.
The applicable CA law might not necessarily require union membership but does it require a “prevaling wage”? Normally, if any federal money is involved the “prevailing wage” law [Davis-Bacon] applies and that is basically what top union wages are. Some states also have their own “prevailing wage” laws which are similar to the federal law.
My friend’s example that I quoted is under a mandated “prevailing wage” law that does not require him to be in a union but he must receives the equivalent of top union wages whenever he works on a government project that falls under “prevailing wage”. In PA the most common projects falling under “prevailing wage” are road construction or related and building of/major remodeling to/additions to both public buildings and public schools. NOTE: The “prevailing wage” public school requirement is a particularly tough one on the local communities as it adds approximately 20% to the total cost, which is mainly funded by the local school property tax, without any benefit to speak of. And now there’s been several studies that indicate that the few non-union companies that do manage to get a public school contract (which can occur in the less urban areas), all though they are required to pay "prevailing wage"under the prevailing wage laws, normally produce better quality work as measured by problems occurring in the years following the completion of the project.