Last April, a company called Dreamstar Lines announced plans for an overnight service between Los Angeles and San Francisco, in effect, restoring Southern Pacific's Lark service, the overnight equivalent of the more famous Coast Daylight, which ceased service in 1968.What we know:>the train would run between Los Angeles Union Station and San Francisco's 4th & King Street Caltrain station>rolling stock will consist of streamliner cars built in the 1940s and 1950s>actual train consist would be a locomotive, 5-6 sleeper cars, and a lounge car serving drinks and "tavern food" (idk what that would entail)>the train would run on a ten-and-a-half hour schedule, departing around 10pm and arrive at its final destination at 8:30am>Tickets will be in the $300-$1000 (the minimum is slightly higher than the current price for a private room on Los Angeles-Oakland on Amtrak's Coast Starlight at $284)>there will be no coach service, sleeper class only>the company hopes to begin operations by Summer, 2024>the project is far enough along that negotiations with Metrolink and Union Pacific for right of way have already startedThe most detailed sources I could findhttps://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/la-sf-night-train-proposal-dreamstar-17891587.phphttps://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2023/04/21/new-rail-operator-dreamstar-lines-to-run-luxury-night-trains-in-california/?gdpr=accepthttps://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/dreamstar-lines-back-to-the-future/The company's websitehttps://dreamstarlines.com/What do you /n/iggers think? Is the LARK finally back? Or is this all just a big LARP?
>>1974491>ten-and-a-half hour scheduleThat's a lot of sitting in sidings. I guess they figure they can make money by trackage rights but not necessarily priority on the mainline. Sounds like it is essentially the same priority as a regular manifest train. That's interesting if true. I presume they'd use the freight railroad's engineers and their own cabin crew.No one's going to pay for a luxury overnight sleeper train, I think they're misreading the market entirely. Offering a basic service with low fares seems more feasible, or a multi-class arrangement like airlines and many regular passenger trains had or have. Another problem is equipment - why do they want to use antique rolling stock in daily service? Even if they source enough vintage equipment it'll be such a mish-mash from various predecessor fleets that they'll spend a fortune and use a lot of man-hours restoring and modifying it to be fit for revenue service. A lot of the old stuff is still set up to flush toilets & dump grey waste onto the tracks, for example... it's just not permissible anymore. If they were serious, they'd be considering acquiring new or more modern used equipment that is compatible with Amtrak's fleet, at the least.I don't think there's a market, I think their plan is flawed, and it's never going to get past the "This would be cool can we have your money?" stage.
>>1974496>That's a lot of sitting in sidingsNah, that's pretty par for the course on the Coast Daylight, which is unironically even longer (close to 12 hours, comparatively little of which is actually spent stopped).>No one's going to pay for a luxury overnight sleeper train, I think they're misreading the market entirely. Offering a basic service with low fares seems more feasible, or a multi-class arrangement like airlines and many regular passenger trains had or have.Honestly $300 doesn't sound that bad for the minimum ticket price. It's high enough to keep junkies and nigs off the train, but still within the spending limits of most professionals (lawyers, doctors, professors, etc.) or wagies who save up their money. Compare that to tourist companies on that usually charge $3,000+ for rides on private railcars.>Another problem is equipment - why do they want to use antique rolling stock in daily service?Well where the Hell are they gonna get new rolling stock? Literally no one in America makes it anymore. Pullman went under over 50 years ago and all of the European manufacturers with American customers like Bombardier, Alstom, and Stadler almost exclusively build commuter trains.Acquiring retired Amtrak rolling stock is similarly ill-advised for three reasons.1. It's been used and overused. The average Superliner car isn't that much younger than the Streamliners and has quite literally millions of miles to it.2. A lot of Amtrak rolling stock is going to be in poor condition owing to aforementioned overuse, budget constraints that led to maintenance work being postponed or skipped entirely, and neglect on the part of Amtrak.
>>1974499cont. 3. SOVL, unironically. Streamliner cars harken back to an age of mystique, beauty, and luxury that's basically UNKNOWN TECHNOLOGY (БЛЯTЬ)-tier compared to modern public transportation, and that brings in money. Tourists and railfans will pay out the ass to get to ride on a Pullman sleeper, I know because I've literally done it. Buying a bunch of retired Amtrak shitboxes whose hideous appearance was alone arguably a major contributing factor in the near-total collapse in the popularity of passenger rail travel post-1971 simply doesn't have that appeal.
>>1974499>Honestly $300 doesn't sound that bad for the minimum ticket price.Yeah, but that's one way. $600 (min) and almost 24 hours of travel time round trip. Who really wants this?>Well where the Hell are they gonna get new rolling stock?They have more options than Amtrak because they aren't limited to having them assembled and finished in the US. They could license a foreign design built in a foreign location and bring it into the US (so long as it meets FRA requirements).>Streamliner cars harken back to an age of mystique, beauty, and luxuryYeah and this company would gut the interiors of every single streamliner car they got their hands on
Lol, this is DOA. What equipment is being used? As in, which specific varnish is being purchased? Ex-Iowa Pacific shit?
>>1974603>What equipment is being used? As in, which specific varnish is being purchased? Ex-Iowa Pacific shit?I looked through some of OP’s sources and apparently they’re negotiating leasing private passenger cars from their owners.Each range would be around six cars so in order to run a two-way service, they would need at least 12 cars at minimum, optimally more than 20 so that spares are available when cars are out of service for maintenance or during the holidays when trains are likely to be overbooked.Keep in mind, the number of private rail cars in service today is around 100 so that would represent a significant portion of the remaining fleet.
>>1974499>Where the hell are they gonna get new rolling stockGood question but doesn’t the Rocky Mountaineer use like 30 year old luxury rolling stock? Where did they buy it from?
>>1976754Rocky Mountaineer's original rolling stock was built by Canadian Car and Foundry for VIA Rail's Canadian Rockies by Daylight service and was heavily subsidized so that's probably not an option for any startup hoping to start a private sleeper service unless they're being co-financed by an outside source.
I'm thinking of emailing these guys directly and (likely futilely) getting some straight answers from them, what questions do you guys want me to ask?
>>1974491This whole scheme sounds retarded desu
This sounds dumb. What's the point of an overnight sleeper just for the sake of having a sleeper. Going on a multiple day long distance train would be worth it, but just 10 hours is pretty pointless. The crowd who would actually use this for actual transit might as well just take a coach for the 10 hours it takes instead
they've been talking about this for years and it's not gonna happen because union pacific is so awful regarding schedulingdon't worry though, between the caltrain salinas extension and santa cruz being forced to unfuck their tracks it's likely usable coast daylight service will exist soon
>>1978601>it's likely usable coast daylight service will exist soonIt literally takes more time to go from from Oakland to LA by rail now on the Coast Starlight than it the Coast Daylight did from SF to LA with steam engines 80 FUCKING YEARS AGO. Amtrak service is also unambiguously utter garbage and their trains have about as much visual appeal as CWC so it's not even worth it for luxury experience.
>>1974496>No one's going to pay for a luxury overnight sleeper train, Why not? There’s plenty of those in Europe. Hell, there’s even a couple in Africa.
>>1982114>Why not?Interstate 5 and low cost airlines
>>1976944You have an extra "nigger" in that address.
>>1982119Neither of those is LUXURIOUS though, which is the main advantage of sleeper trains. The experience itself is a treat.
>>1974491Honestly this scheme would only stand a chance of working if it was operated as a subsidiary of Nightjet or something.I'm kinda surprised no one has tried bringing Nightjet or a service like it to the US yet.
They'd have to use a paint scheme like this to attract ridership.
>>1983796Agreed, the utterly garbage paint schemes and general appearance of the their trains is one of the major reasons Amtrak consistently fails to turn anything resembling a profit. Their trains are soulless metal shitboxes on top of being unreliable, frequently late, and suffering from stale service.
>>1983770The big problem with Nightjet is that's part of the Austrian national carrier so they can give their trains priority whereas private railroads seem to go out of their way to screw passenger services here.
>>1974496>No one's going to pay for a luxury overnight sleeper trainI mean, they already do though.
>>1982119>Interstate 5LA traffic makes it take nearly as long to drive down as go by rail and it's suicide-inducing.>low cost airlines>wait in line for two hours to get fondled by the TSA>to spend an additional three hours packed like sardines with non-whites>jk, your flight got cancelled so you're gonna be here for at least another six hours lol
Dreamstar's got a wikipedia page now so I guess it's happening (maybe)?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamstar_Lines
>>1994877Yay?
>>1994877>Dreamstar's trainsets would consist of restored, historic bi-level cars.
>>2000435It's supposed to use the ex Amtrak HiLevel fleet that has been sitting in Fort Worth for god knows how many years now, some dude bought them surplus from Amtrak, retrofitted them to comply with modern standards and went "surely someone will pay to use these on their private passenger rail service in the United States!"...
>>1974491Good idea, but idk how good execution. 300-1000 sounds way expensive. A trip like this that leaves late and arrives early could use euro style couchettes in shared rooms, or eastern euro style open bunk beds. In old movies I remember seeing train cars which had two levels of bunk beds length-wise on both sides of the car, fitted with curtains for privacy.I don't know how many people are actually willing to pay so much money for a trip that costs a few hundred by plane. A sleeper can be competitive with the plane on a trip like that so long as it's not significantly more expensive.
>>2000472>It's supposed to use the ex Amtrak HiLevel fleet that has been sitting in Fort Worth for god knows how many years now,Not the Coast Starlight ones that were retired just a few years ago?>some dude bought them surplus from Amtrak, retrofitted them to comply with modern standards and went "surely someone will pay to use these on their private passenger rail service in the United States!"Honestly I would. But only if they give the trains a nice paint job.We unironically need to RETVRN to tradition when it comes to paint schemes because everything since 1990 has been uninspired dogshit. It's gotten to the point where I unironically prefer Caltrain's aesthetic to Brightline.>>2000551>300-1000 sounds way expensive.Sleeper class on the Coast Starlight between Los Angeles and Oakland (comparable distance to San Francisco, which is just across the Bay Bridge) is around $383 during periods of low demand so $300 would actually be a steal.
>>2000551>A trip like this that leaves late and arrives earlyEh, I think their current proposed schedule (10PM-8:30AM) might be a bit too late. An 8 or 9PM departure would be better, would allow for dinner service and an earlier arrival (around 7AM) so people working 9-5 jobs could actually use it as an efficient means of commuting.Also make the food actually good and not the dogshit Amtrak serves, that way it encourages repeat customers.
>>2000472Honestly the HiLevels are probably in better shape than most of the Superliners simply because they haven't been worn down from an additional twenty years of overuse (most except for the Coast Starlight's Parlour Cars were retired in 2003).
>>1974491COME BACK TO ME ESPEE. I CANT LIVE WITHOUT YOU
>>2000675>Also make the food actually good and not the dogshit Amtrak serves, that way it encourages repeat customers.How bad is it?
>>2000675>...people working 9-5 jobs could actually use it as an efficient means of commuting.Are you high? Tickets starting from $300 one way and you think someone would do that for commuting? A someone who has a 9 to 5 job?
>>2007162>Tickets starting from $300 one way and you think someone would do that for commuting? A someone who has a 9 to 5 job?Professionals. Lawyers, doctors, businessmen, and the like.t. read the article
>>2009209>people that have access to private planes and consider their time to be very valuable.
>>2009212How many doctors do you know that have private planes?
>>2009209>>2011387>I am a doctor/lawyer and live in LA. Unfortunately, I somehow can't find employment here, so I commute to SF for $600 a pop.Yeah... can't wait to see it happening.
Any updates?
>>2013893Unfortunately not
>>2000472>the ex Amtrak HiLevel fleetAre there any even left?
>>2018996Apparently not, no wonder amtraks look so dinky now
I understand bumping your other threads but since this project will never happen and no one's interested just let it die
Local /n/(igg)erd breaks down why it's a bad ideahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLqP8gSTGWk
>>1992961>your foamerfic storyThat only happens on holidays.
