# I wish Amtrak was more practical.



## Bob Miller (Apr 26, 2017)

I mean no disrespect and believe me, I'm rooting for a practical alternative to taking a plane.

As a Miami Beach resident, I often travel to Tampa, Orlando, Atlanta and New York City. I have lost count how many times I have looked up a train to, lets say New York City and the result is 28 to 32! hours. As much as I would love to "stop in a dozen interesting places" I can't understand why there isn't at least once a week, a direct, "as fast as the train can go" express to and from Miami.

Unless there is an infrastructure issue that isn't apparent to the casual observer such as not enough tracks, trains, etc to accommodate such a service, I don't understand why it doesn't exist. Maybe they tried it once 20 years ago and it didn't work? Well guess what? 20 years ago planes weren't the stinking cesspools they are now!

Why, with the recent worldwide bad publicity that all air travel is getting isn't Amtrak advertising a 16 hour non-stop (assuming that's a realistic time) from Miami to NYC and back? Do you have any idea how many New Yorkers would welcome something like that? Leave Friday Morning and get home Monday night! With the current trip time taking longer or as long as just getting in my car and driving and losing two or more days in the process, I'm never going to have the time to take a train until I'm retired. And then I'll have one of those motor homes.

This soapbox speech comes because I just checked to see if we could take the train to Tampa instead of driving... 9 hours. Over double the drive time. Come on now Amtrak!


----------



## VAtrainfan (Apr 26, 2017)

Outside of the Northeast Corridor (Washington-Philadelphia-New York-Boston) Amtrak must use freight tracks and is therefore limited to 79 MPH.

As to the 16 hour number, the Auto Train goes from Lorton, VA to Sanford, FL nonstop. The trip takes 17 hours. So, no, your hypothetical 16-hour Miami-NYC nonstop is not realistic.


----------



## CCC1007 (Apr 26, 2017)

The simple answer is $$$ as the current infrastructure and equipment pools and crew and station facilities simply can't provide that type of service! While it would be great to have that type of setup, it will take at minimum a decade before any similar network can be put in service. If the funding came available tomorrow, and I were in charge of where it would go, there is already some work that I have done to prepare for some system such as that. My estimate of the cost of it for a 125 MPH nationwide network of new passenger only tracks is ~$30 Billion.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 26, 2017)

An express train wouldn't actually save a meaningful amount of time.

There is also no conceivable way that you can safely drive from Miami to NY in 28 hours without team driving around the clock.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 26, 2017)

CCC1007 said:


> The simple answer is $$$ as the current infrastructure and equipment pools and crew and station facilities simply can't provide that type of service! While it would be great to have that type of setup, it will take at minimum a decade before any similar network can be put in service. If the funding came available tomorrow, and I were in charge of where it would go, there is already some work that I have done to prepare for some system such as that. My estimate of the cost of it for a 125 MPH nationwide network of new passenger only tracks is ~$30 Billion.


That doesn't seem like that much considering Amtrak's stimulus per year is about $1.4 billion. So that's a little over 20 years subsidies (not considering inflation). Of course a lot of the subsidies will be required to maintain current service but if Amtrak can get the $30 billion and have a full network in 30 years (assuming $1B/year of the subsidy per year goes into building these tracks) then Amtrak should be able to pay for itself by then (no renting from host railroads and faster more frequent service). Build off the NEC and Harrisburg lines to both Chicago and Florida and you'd have fast service between NYP/PHL-CHI and NYP/PHL-WAS-Florida and that might be doable for half the money and half the time. Of course getting Congress to agree on the high startup cost is a huge mountain to climb.


----------



## CCC1007 (Apr 26, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > The simple answer is $$$ as the current infrastructure and equipment pools and crew and station facilities simply can't provide that type of service! While it would be great to have that type of setup, it will take at minimum a decade before any similar network can be put in service. If the funding came available tomorrow, and I were in charge of where it would go, there is already some work that I have done to prepare for some system such as that. My estimate of the cost of it for a 125 MPH nationwide network of new passenger only tracks is ~$30 Billion.
> ...


If you want to learn more, let me know and I will try to make a visit to those of you that want to get together and discuss this proposal in much more detail.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 26, 2017)

For fast and non stop long distance travel, flying really is the most realistic answer to the general public.

The Railroad can't compete with Air on speed, but has advantages of being able to bring riders right into city centers and connect to other transportation options much more seamlessly and, being able to make multiple stops and serve different sets of customers with one train set. We should work with that instead of trying to compete on things rails naturally cannot do as well.

However I do agree with the OP on fast corridors such as Miami to Orlando and maybe onto Jacksonville, Miami to Tampa, Boston to DC, etc. Imho, there is a sweet spot in distance for high speed intercity rails and it is up to maybe 800 miles. Under which, rails are superior to air travel, imho, but once you go over 1,000 miles, rails lose advantages fast, even with the best current HSR technology.

Maybe one day.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Apr 26, 2017)

Bob Miller said:


> I mean no disrespect and believe me, I'm rooting for a practical alternative to taking a plane.
> 
> As a Miami Beach resident, I often travel to Tampa, Orlando, Atlanta and New York City. I have lost count how many times I have looked up a train to, lets say New York City and the result is 28 to 32! hours. As much as I would love to "stop in a dozen interesting places" I can't understand why there isn't at least once a week, a direct, "as fast as the train can go" express to and from Miami.
> 
> ...


You stated the reason right in there in the bolded part. Plus, can you fill a train with enough pax from NYC who want to travel to Miami and vice-versa once a week?


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2017)

Ryan said:


> An express train wouldn't actually save a meaningful amount of time.
> 
> There is also no conceivable way that you can safely drive from Miami to NY in 28 hours without team driving around the clock.


You must have been channeling the ferret part and not the fact-checker because I have personally driven from Miami Beach to Woodside, New York (that's in Queens) in under 22 hours, alone. Granted it was a ball buster only stopping to pee and gas up, but it's very do-able.



AmtrakBlue said:


> Bob Miller said:
> 
> 
> > I mean no disrespect and believe me, I'm rooting for a practical alternative to taking a plane.
> ...


Thanks! That's the part I have no idea about. I figured it was something like that. As far as having enough people willing to take the trip, without doing some real market research it's hard to say, but my gut tells me absolutely yes. A couple of years ago, I did the AVE bullet train from Madrid to Barcelona and I simply did not want to get off. And that train was packed. A similar trip to new york from miami on an AVE (I'm going from memory here) at the speeds that thing was going, often more than 300 km per hour, would take between 5 to 6 hours non stop (10 is more realistic with stops and a lower average speed than the ridiculous top speeds we saw).

I guess for now Amtrak will have to be good for a lucky few and those that really, really have a lot of time to get where they are going.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 26, 2017)

I very deliberately said that it couldn't be done *safely*, not that it couldn't be done.


----------



## ehbowen (Apr 26, 2017)

Bob Miller said:


> I mean no disrespect and believe me, I'm rooting for a practical alternative to taking a plane.
> 
> As a Miami Beach resident, I often travel to Tampa, Orlando, Atlanta and New York City. I have lost count how many times I have looked up a train to, lets say New York City and the result is 28 to 32! hours. As much as I would love to "stop in a dozen interesting places" I can't understand why there isn't at least once a week, a direct, "as fast as the train can go" express to and from Miami.
> 
> ...


The best rail schedule that I personally know of (I haven't checked every single one...) between New York City and Miami was the pre-World War II winter-season-only _Orange Blossom Special_, which was time-carded at exactly 24 hours from Penn Station in New York to Miami. This in an era where premium passenger trains were literally "given the railroad" and there was no enforcement of speed limits whatsoever...in fact, most steam locomotives were not even equipped with speedometers. [ETA: Although, the _OBS_ by this time was already Diesel-powered.]

I'm not retired and I have plenty of time to take the train. I'm taking Amtrak from Houston (well, Longview...thruway bus) to St. Louis next month for a conference. I leave Houston at lunchtime Wednesday and arrive St. Louis in the early morning Thursday. True, I could drive it faster...but only if I drove straight through, and if I did I'd be wiped out when I got there and would need to find a hotel and rest. With an Amtrak roomette and meals included, I should arrive in pretty good shape.



Bob Miller said:


> This soapbox speech comes because I just checked to see if we could take the train to Tampa instead of driving... 9 hours. Over double the drive time. Come on now Amtrak!


If you want to build high-speed tracks between Miami and Tampa and the State of Florida is willing to subsidize it, I'm sure Amtrak will be willing to operate it.


----------



## caravanman (Apr 27, 2017)

Sadly, this is one of those items where folk who don't realise just how poor the rail travel options are, wake up one day and say "Hey, maybe we could go by train..." Well, yes, it could all be improved, but not until everyone wants it to be, and maybe pay a little tax towards it ...

Ed.


----------



## KmH (Apr 27, 2017)

Bob Miller said:


> I wish Amtrak was more practical.


I wish I didn't have to drive 2 hours to get to the Amtrak station closest to my home.

But, such is the way things are.

My neighbor was wanting to ride the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle.

He and his wife wanted to get off the train each evening, stay in a hotel for the night, and then get back on the train _in the morning_ so he and his wife would not miss any of the scenery on the route.

I explained to him it didn't work that way, which pretty much killed their desire to ride the train.

If the powers in charge back when the notion of a partially government funded, yet operated and managed as a for-profit corporation needed to take over passenger rail in the US had had their way we wouldn't have any Amtrak today.

If the powers in charge now have their way we won't have any long distance Amtrak tomorrow.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 27, 2017)

Unfortunately, it will take lots of money and lots of time to change today's rail system. Most of the tracks would have to be upgraded to heavier steel and concrete ties just to get 125 mph capability, before the equipment, capable of such speeds could be ordered. In addition, grade crossings would need to be eliminated with over or under passes or just closing the crossing. Will Congress put together a multiple year plan with funding to do this? NO! Congress likes the path of least resistance, status quo.


----------



## jis (Apr 27, 2017)

Lonestar648 said:


> Unfortunately, it will take lots of money and lots of time to change today's rail system. Most of the tracks would have to be upgraded to heavier steel and concrete ties just to get 125 mph capability, before the equipment, capable of such speeds could be ordered. In addition, grade crossings would need to be eliminated with over or under passes or just closing the crossing. Will Congress put together a multiple year plan with funding to do this? NO! Congress likes the path of least resistance, status quo.


Actually the problem is not that Congress will not put together a multi year plan. It actually has. It is called the FAST Act. And the plan is far from status quo though we would like it to be an order of magnitude more. The problem is lack of follow through on the plan in terms of actual appropriations. Yeah, the current plan is not for 125mph and what not. But to claim that there is no plan is somewhat misleading.

heck we built the entire interstate highway system using these mechanisms, so it is not like it cannot be done if there is political will.


----------



## seat38a (Apr 27, 2017)

jis said:


> Lonestar648 said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, it will take lots of money and lots of time to change today's rail system. Most of the tracks would have to be upgraded to heavier steel and concrete ties just to get 125 mph capability, before the equipment, capable of such speeds could be ordered. In addition, grade crossings would need to be eliminated with over or under passes or just closing the crossing. Will Congress put together a multiple year plan with funding to do this? NO! Congress likes the path of least resistance, status quo.
> ...


People forget that the interstate system got funding by justifying the need for Defense and sucking lots of the money out from the Defense Budget. Another justification for it was linking up all of the remote Air Force bases by road to defend them. If one really wants the rail system in this country to be stellar and in a short period of time, you have to convince the Defense Department on the importance of railroads to national security and watch the money flow in.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Apr 29, 2017)

CCC1007 said:


> My estimate of the cost of it for a 125 MPH nationwide network of new passenger only tracks is ~$30 Billion.


If that estimate is even vaguely accurate, let's put that in perspective- the annual defense budget for fiscal year 2018 is *$574 billion. *Considering that the United States is not under any military threat from either of its neighbors, if we can just stop poking nose into random countries and reduce that by just 10%, that would give us $57.4 billion that can comfortably fund a nationwide passenger rail network even after accounting for price increases and some money lost in corruption.


----------



## Happy Camper (May 3, 2017)

Actually another thing that would really help is to have safe parking at the stations. Like cruise ships you can drive to the port and park in secure lots. For the train with many stations in not so nice parts of town you have to have someone drop you off and if this is a hired car it adds a lot to the cost.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 3, 2017)

Trying to find safe parking can be a challenge even for some airports. When I lived in Chicago, our company forbid anyone to park at Midway or O'Hare, so we had to use a multi-ride limo service. It would be nice to have totally safe parking available, though the cost for this to the user would probably have us questioning whether to use the parking.


----------



## Palmetto (May 3, 2017)

""I wish I didn't have to drive 2 hours to get to the Amtrak station closest to my home.
But, such is the way things are.""

I wish I didn't have to drive 3 hours and 45 minutes to get to the closest Amtrak station. Texas is very anti-passenger rail. Even against privately funded, higher speed rail.


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (May 5, 2017)

CCC1007 said:


> The simple answer is $$$ as the current infrastructure and equipment pools and crew and station facilities simply can't provide that type of service! While it would be great to have that type of setup, it will take at minimum a decade before any similar network can be put in service. If the funding came available tomorrow, and I were in charge of where it would go, there is already some work that I have done to prepare for some system such as that. My estimate of the cost of it for a 125 MPH nationwide network of new passenger only tracks is ~$30 Billion.


How did you calculate that estimate, if I'm correct Brightline in Florida is costing a few billion just for 125 MPH service for only a few miles, with most of it being 110 MPH and 79 for a portion. I would love if it only cost 30 billion, it could be financed completely by some of the rich folks like Warren Buffet if he was willing to put forward 30 billion dollars. But I think it would cost more than that, mostly due to the legal fees and controversy.


----------



## CCC1007 (May 6, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > The simple answer is $$$ as the current infrastructure and equipment pools and crew and station facilities simply can't provide that type of service! While it would be great to have that type of setup, it will take at minimum a decade before any similar network can be put in service. If the funding came available tomorrow, and I were in charge of where it would go, there is already some work that I have done to prepare for some system such as that. My estimate of the cost of it for a 125 MPH nationwide network of new passenger only tracks is ~$30 Billion.
> ...


It is much easier to explain in person, maybe sometime this summer we could get together somewhere... PM me if interested...


----------



## daybeers (May 6, 2017)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > The simple answer is $$$ as the current infrastructure and equipment pools and crew and station facilities simply can't provide that type of service! While it would be great to have that type of setup, it will take at minimum a decade before any similar network can be put in service. If the funding came available tomorrow, and I were in charge of where it would go, there is already some work that I have done to prepare for some system such as that. My estimate of the cost of it for a 125 MPH nationwide network of new passenger only tracks is ~$30 Billion.
> ...


Yeah I don't understand this either. How did you get that figure?


----------



## dlagrua (May 7, 2017)

Amtrak is "practical" for transportation. In most cases you may be able to drive faster but where I reside an Amtrak trip to DC is 1 1/2 hour shorter than driving and at least two hours shorter than going by air.

If we consider a Chicago trip, its an overnight from PHL to CHI. Its about 20 hours by rail but about half the time you are sleeping, dining, sightseeing, reading or watching movies in your room. You could travel to Chicago by air in 4 hours, that is if you don't mind traveling like an animal. Drive time to CHI from here is about 12 hours, a long haul and that trip can be really tiring. When taking the train we arrive feeling refreshed and rested.

Like most on this forum, we don't travel by train to save time, as in many cases it is a longer trip than flying. We travel by rail for comfort, relaxation and to get a view of the America that we do not live in. That is how we define "practical".

When nearly all of the Amtrak passenger trains use the freight tracks of the private railroads, don't expect travel times to make huge improvements in the future but there is talk that the freight industry is looking to upgrade some track corridors to move freight trains faster. That could help Amtrak.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 7, 2017)

dlagrua said:


> When nearly all of the Amtrak passenger trains use the freight tracks of the private railroads, don't expect travel times to make huge improvements in the future but there is talk that the freight industry is looking to upgrade some track corridors to move freight trains faster. That could help Amtrak.


Do you know any specific cases of interest of any of the major host railroads wishing to upgrade service? The CHI-STL corridor is certainly being upgraded but any others?


----------



## CCC1007 (May 8, 2017)

daybeers said:


> norfolkwesternhenry said:
> 
> 
> > CCC1007 said:
> ...


Ok, ~10000 miles of track built to the high speed standards that France uses costs approximately $3 million per mile, therefore the track itself could cost as little as $30 billion.


----------



## jis (May 8, 2017)

All these numbers that are being bandied about is using dollars from which year? Can France actually build a new mile of double track LGV for $3 million today or even $6 million for that matter, specially when cost of real estate is factored in? I doubt it very much. So I consider the $30 billion number as wishful thinking, until I am convinced otherwise of course.


----------



## Lonestar648 (May 8, 2017)

When you see how little mileage the main Freight Railroads get for their billion dollar investments and they are not having to purchase ROW, I just don't see $1M per mile. Labor is a huge expense to get the steel and concrete installed to replace the existing lower grade steel and wood ties.


----------



## dlagrua (May 8, 2017)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > When nearly all of the Amtrak passenger trains use the freight tracks of the private railroads, don't expect travel times to make huge improvements in the future but there is talk that the freight industry is looking to upgrade some track corridors to move freight trains faster. That could help Amtrak.
> ...


The key is that there is '' talk" about upgrading some freight corridors. My remarks came from a Trains Magazine article of a month or two ago. I'll try to find it and pass on details but it would seem logical that freight service moving faster allows for more tonnage to be shipped.


----------

