# Why is Amtrak coach more expensive than flying?



## Guest

With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.

My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.


----------



## the_traveler

In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!


----------



## Guest

the_traveler said:


> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!


I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change  Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Guest said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change  Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.
Click to expand...

the train should be a vacation. its fun and relaxing. i refuse to fly. amtrak is cheaper and more fun. i may only have a week vacation but i spend it on a nice train ride.


----------



## RTOlson

That's funny because I'm sure I can find some Amtrak tickets that are cheaper than flying. For example, I can walk four blocks to the depot and hop a train to the Bay Area for less than flying. I can do the same thing for a trip to San Diego (although that depends on when you book).

For any mode of transportation, there are several advantages and disadvantages. Many depend on personal preferences. For the case of trains, I'm enjoying seeing things from a different perspective at a reasonably affordable price (at around coach plane prices or less).

Besides, no one has ever said that people have to commit to one mode of transportation over another. I'm sure many train riders use air travel as part of their travel plans (I know I will this summer). I believe it's true that the journey is part of the adventure.


----------



## jackal

I have tried to pressure Kayak, Sidestep (now owned by Kayak), and some of the online travel agencies like Travelocity, etc., to include Amtrak routings in their ticket search results. Travel agencies can sell Amtrak tickets, I believe, so Amtrak city pairs and fares are published to GDS systems. Therefore, it shouldn't be too difficult for some of these sites to add Amtrak to their results.

I believe that if Amtrak travel were more visible to the general public, people might be more likely to book it--especially if the fare is less! (Most of our population probably doesn't even know Amtrak exists!)

I've also written Amtrak and asked them to share their data with Google Transit--I imagine a day where I can search for directions from the Queen Mary in Long Beach to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in DC and receive a seamless set of directions across multiple transit systems from start to finish!

I think both of these options would help increase train travel immensely...


----------



## Walt

The airlines that fly out from here to Orlando, advertise $80 one way. Well, what I have found out, is that there is about 4 seats at that price (in Amtrak speak, "bucket"). Most of the rest of the seats are $150 one way.

So, for my kid and I to fly, it would be around $600 *coach* round trip.

Amtrak charges me $700 for a round trip. That's for a roomette. Basically, *first class*.

With that, I really need to compare waiting in not one, but two very long lines at the airport. One for checkin and one for security. For Amtrak, no lines but instead a pleasant stay in the Acela Lounge and an elevator which takes me directly to my train. 

So, yea, Amtrak is $100 more. Well worth it!


----------



## frj1983

Guest said:


> With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.
> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.


Ah yes,

and at the ridiculously low prices that the airlines charge they are of course making tons of money right? NOT. They are as badly in debt as Amtrak is and had to be propped up by the Federal Government after 911 and continues to do so even now. Amtrak charges closer to what it costs to move their passengers and the airlines do not...which is why so many are in financial trouble (as well as not being prepared for the fuel price boom). When the airline problems shake themselves out over the next few years, you will see the end to "cheap" airfare.

Except for speed, there is nothing else good about the airline "experience!" :blink:


----------



## Larry H.

Guest said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change  Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.
Click to expand...


Not to much sympathy here for that cheaper idea I find. In fact many think that no matter what amtrak charges as long as someone will pay then they can again raise the price even higher! I am a realist however and it is true that the cost of sending passengers overnight is probably greater in labor and equipment and track cost than an airplane pays. But I have also felt there is some sense to the idea that if you were running full trains at maximum consist length, then a more reasonable price might actually be better in overall income to amtrak in the long run. But then there is the problem. income to amtrak.. Its supposed to be a government run passenger system, but it has always been one in which the politicians have felt it should pay its own way, no such thing when dolling out highway funds!


----------



## AmtrakWPK

The cost of the ticket can be a small part of the cost of the trip. More considerations: (1) Parking cost; If you go on a week's trip, and park your car at the Orlando airport, it will cost more than your airline ticket did to bail out your car when you return. (2) For me, the train station is actually a lot closer than the airport, the train station has free parking, and I park my car within about 75 feet from the tracks. That beats the roughly 2 mile distance between where you park and where you actually get on the airplane at the airport. (3) And you don't have to get to the train station more than 2 hours prior to the train leaving. And baggage pickup from the train is perhaps a 50 foot walk from the train, and 75 feet or less from there to my car.

So if I need to catch a plane, it means leaving the house 3 hours before the flight is scheduled. More than that if I want to use one of the cheaper satellite parking operations. On the other hand, I can leave the house 15-20 minutes before the train is expected to arrive at the station and have a few minutes of slack when I get to the station before the train arrives.

There is a LOT more to taking a trip than just the cost of the ticket.


----------



## da40flyer

Guest said:


> With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.
> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.


When I planned my vacation to Oregon, I chose Amtrak because the price was 1/3 of the cost of flying. It was just over $300 round trip for 3 of us on the train, it was close to $1000 to fly. And to another posters point, I'm on vacation, and the train is part of the vacation. If you're going on business and have a time constraint, I can totally understand if the price is close to the same, take the plane. But if time isn't a factor, I think that changes the equation a little.


----------



## had8ley

AmtrakWPK said:


> The cost of the ticket can be a small part of the cost of the trip. More considerations: (1) Parking cost; If you go on a week's trip, and park your car at the Orlando airport, it will cost more than your airline ticket did to bail out your car when you return. (2) For me, the train station is actually a lot closer than the airport, the train station has free parking, and I park my car within about 75 feet from the tracks. That beats the roughly 2 mile distance between where you park and where you actually get on the airplane at the airport. (3) And you don't have to get to the train station more than 2 hours prior to the train leaving. And baggage pickup from the train is perhaps a 50 foot walk from the train, and 75 feet or less from there to my car.So if I need to catch a plane, it means leaving the house 3 hours before the flight is scheduled. More than that if I want to use one of the cheaper satellite parking operations. On the other hand, I can leave the house 15-20 minutes before the train is expected to arrive at the station and have a few minutes of slack when I get to the station before the train arrives.
> 
> There is a LOT more to taking a trip than just the cost of the ticket.


I have to agree wholeheartedly with AmtrakWPK but only want to add just wait until you see the airplane fares by the end of the year. You won't be able to get a low bucket Amtrak ticket too often next year.


----------



## AlanB

Larry H. said:


> But I have also felt there is some sense to the idea that if you were running full trains at maximum consist length, then a more reasonable price might actually be better in overall income to amtrak in the long run.


Actually for the past several years Amtrak has seemed to be more interested in maximizing revenue per seat, keeping trains shorter on the NEC just to keep the prices for the seats higher. Lately however it seems that they are starting to see the folly of that idea. Now, they are again putting longer trains back on the NEC and I hear even adding an extra car to a train that sells out (when one is available), since it doesn't cost that much more to add another car and so much more revenue can be had from that extra car.


----------



## RRrich

da40flyer said:


> When I planned my vacation to Oregon, I chose Amtrak because the price was 1/3 of the cost of flying. It was just over $300 round trip for 3 of us on the train, it was close to $1000 to fly. And to another posters point, I'm on vacation, and the train is part of the vacation. If you're going on business and have a time constraint, I can totally understand if the price is close to the same, take the plane. But if time isn't a factor, I think that changes the equation a little.


With Amtrak if you buy early, you get good prices, but as the low price buckets fill, prices go up and the plane seems to be more competitive.

I also consider the train trip as part of the vacation - when I was younger, someone used the slogan _Getting there is half the fun _ I don't think it was Amtrak, but now it should be


----------



## da40flyer

RRrich said:


> da40flyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I planned my vacation to Oregon, I chose Amtrak because the price was 1/3 of the cost of flying. It was just over $300 round trip for 3 of us on the train, it was close to $1000 to fly. And to another posters point, I'm on vacation, and the train is part of the vacation. If you're going on business and have a time constraint, I can totally understand if the price is close to the same, take the plane. But if time isn't a factor, I think that changes the equation a little.
> 
> 
> 
> With Amtrak if you buy early, you get good prices, but as the low price buckets fill, prices go up and the plane seems to be more competitive.
> 
> I also consider the train trip as part of the vacation - when I was younger, someone used the slogan _Getting there is half the fun _ I don't think it was Amtrak, but now it should be
Click to expand...

Very true, but even at this late date (we leave in 2 weeks), the price is still 1/2 of flying. So in this case, even the higher buckets are cheaper.


----------



## ourlouisiana

Irregardless, some would rather take the train !!!

Last year for our son's wedding in New Jersey, Donna took the van up so that we could have a vehicle. I - AKA the train freak - opted from day one to take the train. Initially I was going alone by sleeper, as a mini-vacation. Wound up bringing the whole family and going coach - which I'm not sure we'll do again (either the entire family - or coach).

Earlier this year, Donna was going back up for Easter week. The train trip from NOL to PHL - by coach, was the same as the US Air flight from NOL to PHL Told her I'd rather go by train, but I wasn't going only her. She opted for the flight.

It's a personal thing. I'd rather take the train, even it it did take 2 days, and eat in the diner, and be rocked to sleep, than fly.

Donna n Paul Scott, La. BNSFmp149.1 Lafayette Subdivision

Operation Lifesaver Louisiana


----------



## saxman

Airlines may be cheaper in some markets. Some of you are only looking at major city pairs, Orlando to NYC, Chicago to DC, or LAX to Seattle. But it's a different story when you look at smaller cities that may be served by only a few regionals. Almost everytime Amtrak will be cheaper. I use to live in Grand Forks, ND which is only served by Northwest Airlines only with flight to MSP. A flight to there would be at least $200 or $300. Even more when you connected somewhere else. Amtrak OTOH was about $80 round trip. So consider the smaller city pairs too, something the airlines can't compete with. Havre to Seattle. Minot to Milwaukee, Lincoln to Cleveland. Flagstaff to LA.

Also keep in mind airfares aren't going to be cheap anymore. I believe gone are the days of $99 fares from Chicago to LAX. Thats even if you take Southwest. I read some city pairs have gone up 4 times since last year. The article said the going rate for Houston to Providence is $749 verse $350 a year ago. Thats on the extreme side though. I think we'll see more people combine train and plane trips. We just need to make our infrastructure more intermodal.


----------



## colobok

Guest said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change  Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.
Click to expand...

I agree. In Ukraine where I am from almost all trains are "sleepers". It's not luxury, it's just the way trains should be. The standard room is for 4 adults (4 beds). So even if you travel for 2 hours you get a bed. The size of the room is approx. size of Amtrak "bedroom". You may also buy "luxury" room for 2 adults with the same size. No toilet or shower in the room, only a public restroom in the car. No meal included, you may go to the dinner car and buy meals yourself. This way one car takes 52 passengers, passengers get more room than in Amtrak roomettes, they pay for travel only, not for meals, shower, etc. and tickets for overnight trip are as low as $10-20. This is the way it should be. Price of $950 for one night in bedroom on Florida trains that I see very often is nonsense. I took it once (for points, not for cash!) and it was not any special from any Ukrainian trains for $10-20.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Personally, I think you are ignoring the costs of taking the plane too much. Plane travel is painful, undignified, annoying, unpleasant, and extremely dehumanizing. The most unpleasantness you get on Amtrak is boredom, and the occasional slightly surly employee. And that is if you don't like taking the train. I'm never bored on the train.

I don't get the pains in my ears. I don't get the very limited or non-existent food service. I don't get crammed into a seat barely bigger than one in a pre-school classroom. I don't get patted down by security guards, I don't go through massive metal detectors, I don't have people rummaging through my luggage. I don't get executed if I forgot to take my 1.5 inch swiss army knife off my keychain and my Swisscard out of my wallet. You know those knives are dangerous weapons. You can kill someone because they'll laugh too much when you brandish it at them.

I hate going by plane. If I, for some god forsaken reason, need to get to LAX tomorrow because someone is dying and I need to say good bye, I'll fly, sure. Otherwise, I'm taking the train or the boat. I enjoy riding trains. I enjoy going by ship. Its FUN. If I have no emergency, and I mean EMERGENCY, you couldn't PAY me enough to fly, let alone charge me any amount, even if Amtrak is more.


----------



## BillyJo

I'm probably not qualified to comment, since I've never taken a LD train before.

However, the fly/train issue does come up from time to time if I need to go to Washington for work. In order to fly, I'd have to go from central NJ to get to Queens to take the plane. I'd have to arrive an hour early, leave myself about 1.5 hours to get to the airport, and then, I'd have to take a long cab ride from the Airport in to DC. It is far cheaper, and takes far less time overall, to simply get to Metropark and take the Acela to and from DC.

Obviously, if I have to go to Chicago for work, I'm taking the plane. I can't justify all the extra time that it would take for the train to get in. However, based on what I've seen, the train from NYP to CHI is far less than the cost of airline tickets.

I'll be going on my first LD trip in August, so perhaps I won't be such a train fan after that. However, I am really looking forward to it, and consider it to be a very unique way to spend part of our vacation. Oh, it's a great conversation piece, too!


----------



## the_traveler

BillyJo said:


> I'll be going on my first LD trip in August, so perhaps I won't be such a train fan after that. However, I am really looking forward to it, and consider it to be a very unique way to spend part of our vacation. Oh, it's a great conversation piece, too!


I thin it will be just the opposite - you *WILL* be a train fan!  If all you have known are Regionals, you will be very satisfied with a LD train! (They don't even compare!)


----------



## VentureForth

My beef isn't comparing airlines to Amtrak - it's comparing driving to Amtrak. Let's face it, the time commitment is much more fair. Sure - for one person driving, it makes a lot of sense to take Amtrak over driving. For instance, if I wanted to go to DC, it would cost between $86 and $192 one way. Gas in my Camry would be around $110. Throw in the wear and tear on my car, my solid attention for 9 hours and it would be a no brainer to take the train. Add a wife and three screaming kids, the car is still $110. I get a relief driver and don't need to rent a car when I get there. My family on the train is triple the cost - in coach. Can't even consider getting THREE roomettes.

So really, for the solo trip, Amtrak is the way to go. But as soon as we start thinking family, cost, vacation, etc., the train can't compete with driving.


----------



## Rail Freak

ourlouisiana said:


> I - AKA the train freak -





Am I wearing someone elses jersy?


----------



## AmtrakWPK

Parking your car at MCO (Orlando international) will run you from $10 per day at the satellite lot to $17 per day in regular terminal parking to $23 per day for valet parking. So for a two-week vacation, that cheap airline ticket cost just jumped by $140, $238, or $322 !!!!!

Parking at WPK is free, even long term, and we've used it for up to three weeks at a time. And if you get to WPK with an hour to spare, there are several nice but not expensive (and some nice AND expensive) places to eat within two or three blocks of the station. Food costs in most airline terminals are on a par with food costs at movie theatres nowadays ($7.50 for a box of popcorn?!??!?! Yikes!!!)


----------



## meatpuff

Guest said:


> With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.
> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.


Hmm. When I tried Kayak.com for D.C. to Chicago for February 2009, I couldn't find any one-way air fares below $102 (including all taxes and fees). Amtrak is $78 (there are no additional fees or taxes). So air travel is already >30% more costly.

Two notes: also depends on where you're going. If you're going from somewhere in MD, and renting a car in Chicago to drive to Rockford, IL, take the plane: it'll be easier. Amtrak service is downtown to downtown. So if you happen to be going downtown D.C. to downtown Chicago, well, you walk out of the train station and you're already there. In this case taking the train could save you as much as $80 in cab fares to and from the airport.

Also, trips over 500 miles are not really Amtrak's core market, and they darn well know this. They price the end-to-end overnight trips to be competitive with flying but they have little interest in grabbing market share from the airlines. Amtrak knows their core compentency (and bread and butter) is, say, D.C. to Lancaster. Or Chicago to Elkhart. Or Pittsburgh to Cleveland. Not, heavens, NYC to LA.

Finally, I second (or third) that air fares are going to rise sharply, the signs are clear. The big carriers are losing money hand over fist, the small budget carriers are dropping out of the race, and now finally the big guys are cutting routes by 10-20%.


----------



## p&sr

Guest said:


> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.


On the other hand, a trip from Emeryville, CA to Chicago, IL might cost $130 (with AAA discount). Figuring that the price includes NOT ONLY your Transportation, but also two nights lodging (in coach) AND three days of Entertainment... where else can you get such a deal?


----------



## Walt

saxman66 said:


> Airlines may be cheaper in some markets.


Also, don't just compare the airlines "advertised" fare. I have found for my local airlines, there are like only 4 seats available at that very low, teaser, ticket price. For me, that is the difference between their advertised $80 fare, vs their realistic $150 fare which is the actual fare on like 90% of their plane seats. And one needs to add into any of those airline fares, all those little extra fees they tack on, like the fee they charge you for the privilege of waiting in the security line, or the fee they charge to possibly loose just one bag.

Plus, if you have kids, on Amtrak kids between 2 and 15 pay only *1/2 fares*. I don't think any airline has kids' fares anymore.


----------



## Loui1

Guest said:


> I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change  Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.


I'm with you man....still miffed why they dont figure this one out.

I think there's more pain associated with sitting in a coach train seat for 20+ hours than being squeezed on a plane for 3.....they need to provide more incentive to the market.


----------



## Eris

Loui1 said:


> I think there's more pain associated with sitting in a coach train seat for 20+ hours than being squeezed on a plane for 3.....they need to provide more incentive to the market.


Here's the thing, though- have you _tried_ it?

I haven't, quite, since we haven't done long-distance in coach, but I've done a 35hr trip in a roomette with two small kids, and I've taken a 3 hour airplane trip with those same two small kids. You can _think_ there'd be more pain associated with the 35hr train trip, but at least in my case, you would be absolutely wrong- the train is SO much better, for all three of us.


----------



## jackal

Eris said:


> Loui1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's more pain associated with sitting in a coach train seat for 20+ hours than being squeezed on a plane for 3.....they need to provide more incentive to the market.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, though- have you _tried_ it?
> 
> I haven't, quite, since we haven't done long-distance in coach, but I've done a 35hr trip in a roomette with two small kids, and I've taken a 3 hour airplane trip with those same two small kids. You can _think_ there'd be more pain associated with the 35hr train trip, but at least in my case, you would be absolutely wrong- the train is SO much better, for all three of us.
Click to expand...

Thank you Eris!

If you just sit in your seat in coach for 20 or 35 hours, then yes, it could quite possibly be a painful experience (personally, I would enjoy it, but that's just because I'm part of that railfan cult), since sitting is boring and uncomfotable no matter how big your seat is (even plushy First Class seats get old after awhile). But taking the train isn't about sitting in your coach seat for 35 hours. It's about getting up, moving around, enjoying the view from the lounge (especially the Sightseer Lounge--make sure your first long-distance trip is west of Chicago!), meeting people, eating train food and interacting with the people across the table from you in the diner, and watching the never-ending movie playing just outside of your window. What makes train travel enjoyable isn't the nicer, bigger-than-airplane seat--it's the total experience of being on the train. It's almost magical. It's a time warp, too--when you're enjoying yourself, the time flies--16 hours between Denver and Salt Lake felt quicker to me than a cross-country flight!

Before you slam it, you really should try it!


----------



## rogers55

I can fly for FREE!!!

But we take the train because it is incredibly more comfortable and has none of the hassle associated with air travel today.

I drive about a mile to the VNC station, leave my car for as long as I want at no charge, and am on my way. Traveling by rail gives me a feeling of freedom, flying does not.

It is not that I don't like flying, most of my life was spent in the aviation industry. I just don't want to work that hard to travel.

Regards,

Roger


----------



## Loui1

Eris said:


> Loui1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's more pain associated with sitting in a coach train seat for 20+ hours than being squeezed on a plane for 3.....they need to provide more incentive to the market.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, though- have you _tried_ it?
Click to expand...

In fact, yes I just took a 6 hour TGV ride in first class and I was ready to jump off the train by the end.....all the swaying back and forth, people continuously walking around, no movies playing, etc. No amount of reading or walking up and down the train could occupy my time. Also took an 8 hour ride up to Boston two years ago....again, yuck. I travel to get places and meeting people is ok but would never be a reason to subject myself to 20+ hours of being cooped up. It must REALLY depend on the person.


----------



## puck71

Loui1 said:


> I travel to get places


I think that's the difference - the difference between traveling to get places and traveling to travel. If your main goal is just getting to your destination as fast as possible, then the train would (I imagine) be torturous. For me it's a delicate balance. I don't want to waste my time, but I also don't want to rush from place to place, slave to the time and the fear of "missing" something.

Also, I think you have to make your own entertainment. They don't play movies on the seat backs (although they do play movies in some cars on some trains, I guess) but you can bring a DVD player and watch as many movies as you want. Do some work on your laptop, play cards, look out the window, plan your trip, etc. But the bottom line is it's personal preference and priorities, plain and simple.


----------



## p&sr

Loui1 said:


> In fact, yes I just took a 6 hour TGV ride in first class and I was ready to jump off the train by the end.....all the swaying back and forth, people continuously walking around, no movies playing, etc. No amount of reading or walking up and down the train could occupy my time.


Thank you for this honest observation. What you mean to say, is that you do not happen to like Train Travel itself, as an experience. This has Nothing to do with Economics, nothing to do with scheduling convenience, and nothing to do with how much time it takes. You just don't happen to like the experience.

Thank goodness for an analysis that finally gets beyond Economics. The single biggest error made by Karl Marx was that Economics is the full and proper description of human existence and activity.

Have you ever enjoyed a Walk through the Park? Sat on a Bench there to watch the clouds blow past, and the Flowers waving in the Breeze, and the Kids playing?

Some people like it, some probably don't. But I don't think an Economics-based approach is going to be very helpful in appreciating the difference.


----------



## Gingee

How about this? I am paying $576 for four people to take the train (coach) from Chicago to NYC. I booked last fall and got AAA discounts. We do have to drive to Chicago but if we were flying out of Chicago, the same applies.


----------



## jackal

Loui1 said:


> Eris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loui1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's more pain associated with sitting in a coach train seat for 20+ hours than being squeezed on a plane for 3.....they need to provide more incentive to the market.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, though- have you _tried_ it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, yes I just took a 6 hour TGV ride in first class and I was ready to jump off the train by the end.....all the swaying back and forth, people continuously walking around, no movies playing, etc. No amount of reading or walking up and down the train could occupy my time. Also took an 8 hour ride up to Boston two years ago....again, yuck. I travel to get places and meeting people is ok but would never be a reason to subject myself to 20+ hours of being cooped up. It must REALLY depend on the person.
Click to expand...

Those aren't train rides, they're commuter runs. You really need to try a western long-distance train, like the Coast Starlight up the coast or the California Zephyr through the Rockies. And if you are planning to "subject [your]self to 20+ hours of being cooped up"--well, that's your own fault! On a train, you _should not be cooped up!_ If you coop yourself up in your seat, that's your choice, but you're missing 90% of the fun and benefit of the train!


----------



## Gingee

No movies on the train? Bring your own little tv.


----------



## p&sr

jackal said:


> Loui1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, yes I just took a 6 hour TGV ride in first class and I was ready to jump off the train by the end...
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't train rides, they're commuter runs.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. I took the TGV from Lyons to Paris, and the only positive thing about it was that it went to Paris. Too fast to see any scenery, and all open country (flat cropland) with nothing to see anyway.

Far more memorable was the three-day slow train from Istanbul to Budapest, with no food service on board. After our groceries (from a shop in Thessaloniki) went bad, we survived on chocolate-stuffed crescent rolls purchased on the Black Market from a Bulgarian Sleeping Car Steward.

Remember, adventure is where you find it!


----------



## Ispolkom

p&sr said:


> Far more memorable was the three-day slow train from Istanbul to Budapest, with no food service on board. After our groceries (from a shop in Thessaloniki) went bad, we survived on chocolate-stuffed crescent rolls purchased on the Black Market from a Bulgarian Sleeping Car Steward.


Ah, the good old days. In 1991 I took the Moscow-London express. It turned out to be one sleeper car, that was attached to a series of trains (Moscow-Brest, Brest-Warsaw, Warsaw-Berlin, Berlin-Ostend, I guess. I got off in Brussels). It was the nicest Soviet train I ever took, with 2 person compartments, but once in the West they locked the doors to keep us from visiting the rest of the train, and we rolled through Poland, Germany, and the Low Countries in a little bit of the Soviet Union, complete with coal-fired samovar, filthy toilets, sullen conductoress, and fellow passengers who started drinking shots of vodka at 7 a.m. I was sad that I couldn't get off at Brest and watch them change the wheels of the carriage for European gauge.

WRT the original post, flying is probably most cost-effective if you are traveling alone. Looking at traveling from St. Paul to Washington DC at Christmas, I find these three options:

Flying $880

Train (coach to Chicago, roomette to DC) $830

Bus/Train (Megabus to Chicago, roomette to DC) $635.

Given that Northwest now charges for every checked bag (won't *that* make boarding fun!), I am always happy to stop over in Chicago (my wife insists, though that there are other places to eat other than Giordano's), the only question is whether we'll trust the bus in December.


----------



## p&sr

Ispolkom said:


> WRT the original post, flying is probably most cost-effective if you are traveling alone. Looking at traveling from St. Paul to Washington DC at Christmas, I find these three options:
> Flying $880
> 
> Train (coach to Chicago, roomette to DC) $830
> 
> Bus/Train (Megabus to Chicago, roomette to DC) $635.


But Amtrak coach fare MSP to WAS is $272 Round-Trip (AAA), with a few pleasant hours in Chicago each way!

(for selected travel dates 12-21 and 12-29... these are not even the low-bucket fares.)


----------



## Rail Freak

p&sr said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, a trip from Emeryville, CA to Chicago, IL might cost $130 (with AAA discount). Figuring that the price includes NOT ONLY your Transportation, but also two nights lodging (in coach) AND three days of Entertainment... where else can you get such a deal?
Click to expand...

I made my reservation on my 11 day (1st trip) in Feb for my Sept trip. As a newbie, I asked the agent " You mean we stop at all these places along the way?" He said " Hey, AmtraK doesn't make it's money off of travelers like you, its the shorter routes. I sat there scratching my head, but now I have a little AU education under my belt!!!


----------



## Ispolkom

p&sr said:


> But Amtrak coach fare MSP to WAS is $272 Round-Trip (AAA), with a few pleasant hours in Chicago each way!(for selected travel dates 12-21 and 12-29... these are not even the low-bucket fares.)


Oh, sure, but I am quite happy to pay the upgrade for a sleeper -- for me it's well worth it on a longer trip with several meals, especially traveling at a busy time of the year, when the coach cars can be crowded. YMMV.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Rail Freak said:


> p&sr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, a trip from Emeryville, CA to Chicago, IL might cost $130 (with AAA discount). Figuring that the price includes NOT ONLY your Transportation, but also two nights lodging (in coach) AND three days of Entertainment... where else can you get such a deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made my reservation on my 11 day (1st trip) in Feb for my Sept trip. As a newbie, I asked the agent " You mean we stop at all these places along the way?" He said " Hey, AmtraK doesn't make it's money off of travelers like you, its the shorter routes. I sat there scratching my head, but now I have a little AU education under my belt!!!
Click to expand...

RF, Amtrak doesn't make money of anyone.


----------



## Amtrak Watcher

The price of tickets, air or rail, do not typically reflect their costs; witness the chronic debt Amtrak suffers, the immense highway subsidies, and the continuing turmoil in the airlines. Our entire society has begun a series of changes which, in due course, will alter the costs and, eventually the ticket prices. Fuel prices are already driving big cars out of the market. Home prices are collapsing in the suburbs (down 7 percent) while they are falling less dramatically in the city-centers near public transport (down 2 percent in Boston) and actually increasing in many markets (up 2 percent in Dallas, Atlanta and Denver). Our auto and air systems and our suburbs and shopping centers constitute a complex of systems that assumes very low energy costs. The complex will not survive. If and when Israel attacks the nuclear facilities in Iran (probably later this year while Bush is in office) oil will go to 220 dollars per barrel ($7.60 a gallon), which will drive a bit more than half of the U.S. airlines out of business. The sometimes low prices of air tickets are a temporary phenomenon, and they come at a cost: baggage charges, fee for food, delays, jammed planes, filthy planes, lost bags, reduced schedules, and angry staff. Logical reactions to high fuel prices will bring the sector back to a sustainable model, which will be very different from what we see today: fewer carriers, fewer routes, and much higher prices, perhaps three times what they are today. Meanwhile, Amtrak will continue its heavily subsidized business, sustained by the government at a level far below what it should be. The question then moves to the political realm: will the new administration recognize the fundamental changes in the country and shift transportation subsidies away from highways, cars and air (where they have been since 1954) and toward rail, which is inherently more efficient in its use of energy?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

One would hope so but remains cynical.


----------



## Guest

I see nothing to disagree with you above, but would like your calculation of the $7.60 and how you arrived at that.

I believe that we need a leadership with the same laser focus on alternatives for energy that we had to get Apollo to the moon. It might be time to scrutinize and mimic the best of Europe's system of transportation since high gas prices have been the norm for a long time (by comparison to the US).


----------



## travelerpaul

Guest said:


> With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.
> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.


I keep reading posts from people that want to compare airline prices to Amtrak prices. The thing is, you have to factor in the price of getting to and from the airport.

Last October, my wife and I flew from JFK to SFO. It cost me $200 to get to and from the airports! Amtrak goes from downtown to downtown, so there's little or no extra cost involved.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I too question the math of 7.60. ($4/$140)*$220= $6.28.


----------



## Guest

travelerpaul said:


> I keep reading posts from people that want to compare airline prices to Amtrak prices. The thing is, you have to factor in the price of getting to and from the airport.Last October, my wife and I flew from JFK to SFO. It cost me $200 to get to and from the airports! Amtrak goes from downtown to downtown, so there's little or no extra cost involved.


BART from downtown San Francisco to SFO is $5.35, Airtrain and subway from JFK to downtown New York is $7. The fact that an Amtrak customer would even consider taking a taxi when such alternatives exists shows how far Amtrak is from being a budget option.

A number of people have been extolling the more pleasant and relaxing environment of train travel. While I agree that train travel is indeed more enjoyable, the government does not subsidize Amtrak to run some sort of land cruise business. The government subsidizes Amtrak to provide passenger transportation. When fares are so high that people have to treat Amtrak as an entertainment provider to justify them, it suggests that Amtrak is failing at its primary purpose of providing passenger transportation for the general public. Amtrak should either increase the number of coaches per train (using commuter-style equipment if necessary) until it can offer coach fares competitive with budget airlines and Greyhound/Megabus, or give up its federal subsidy and become like GrandLuxe.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I love train riding, dude. I do take rail cruises, because I love riding trains. I also use Amtrak as transportation.

Its not fair to judge that based on people here. We're railfans, damnit. I want to ride a train for my vacation because I feel there is no better place to spend my time. But that doesn't mean that I don't consider Amtrak a reasonable and affordable transportation company. That is, primarily, what I use them for.


----------



## George Harris

Guest said:


> travelerpaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, you have to factor in the price of getting to and from the airport.Last October, my wife and I flew from JFK to SFO. It cost me $200 to get to and from the airports! Amtrak goes from downtown to downtown, so there's little or no extra cost involved.
> 
> 
> 
> BART from downtown San Francisco to SFO is $5.35, Airtrain and subway from JFK to downtown New York is $7. The fact that an Amtrak customer would even consider taking a taxi when such alternatives exists shows how far Amtrak is from being a budget option.
Click to expand...

What you are looking at here is people to whom normal everyday public transport is invisible. They would not think about BART on the SFO end or the Airtrain/subway on the JFK end. I also have no idea where the $200 number came from unless it is $160 on the New York end, because downtown San Francisco to SFO is around $40 with tip.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Guest said:


> A number of people have been extolling the more pleasant and relaxing environment of train travel. While I agree that train travel is indeed more enjoyable, the government does not subsidize Amtrak to run some sort of land cruise business. The government subsidizes Amtrak to provide passenger transportation. When fares are so high that people have to treat Amtrak as an entertainment provider to justify them, it suggests that Amtrak is failing at its primary purpose of providing passenger transportation for the general public. Amtrak should either increase the number of coaches per train (using commuter-style equipment if necessary) until it can offer coach fares competitive with budget airlines and Greyhound/Megabus, or give up its federal subsidy and become like GrandLuxe.


Congress certainly should give Amtrak money to buy more equipment to make more low bucket seats available.

I don't think Amtrak needs to offer $1 fares, however.

I suspect that Amtrak's low bucket fares for coach seats are pretty competitive with Greyhound, but when I try to ask Greyhound's website what it would cost me to get from Boston to Chicago next month, it says



> An Error Occurred
> There was a problem opening /home/Default.aspx.
> 
> Invalid postback or callback argument. Event validation is enabled using in configuration or <%@ Page EnableEventValidation="true" %> in a page. For security purposes, this feature verifies that arguments to postback or callback events originate from the server control that originally rendered them. If the data is valid and expected, use the ClientScriptManager.RegisterForEventValidation method in order to register the postback or callback data for validation.
> 
> You could go back and try again, or perhaps return to the Home Page.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Guest said:


> BART from downtown San Francisco to SFO is $5.35, Airtrain and subway from JFK to downtown New York is $7. The fact that an Amtrak customer would even consider taking a taxi when such alternatives exists shows how far Amtrak is from being a budget option.


There's an incredible diversity of Amtrak passengers. I've paid for a roomette on the Lake Shore Limited, and I take a taxi less than once a year; I generally prefer to take the subway or perhaps a local bus. If you're going to jump to conclusions like that, I don't see why I wouldn't be proof that taxis are insanely expensive and sleepers are a budget option.


----------



## MZBKA

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Congress certainly should give Amtrak money to buy more equipment to make more low bucket seats available.
> I don't think Amtrak needs to offer $1 fares, however.
> 
> I suspect that Amtrak's low bucket fares for coach seats are pretty competitive with Greyhound, but when I try to ask Greyhound's website what it would cost me to get from Boston to Chicago next month, it says


Congress just gave Amtrak a bunch of money. What does Amtrak plan to do with all of the extra money they'll receive.


----------



## jackal

MZBKA said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress certainly should give Amtrak money to buy more equipment to make more low bucket seats available.
> I don't think Amtrak needs to offer $1 fares, however.
> 
> I suspect that Amtrak's low bucket fares for coach seats are pretty competitive with Greyhound, but when I try to ask Greyhound's website what it would cost me to get from Boston to Chicago next month, it says
> 
> 
> 
> Congress just gave Amtrak a bunch of money. What does Amtrak plan to do with all of the extra money they'll receive.
Click to expand...

:blink: Where is all this extra money that Amtrak supposedly received?

In this year's appropriation, Congress just barely gave Amtrak enough money to maintain status quo (the original budget as submitted by President Bush would have resulted in massive cuts).

But maybe you know something I don't!

(Seriously, if this is what the general uninformed public thinks of when they see the news of Amtrak's appropriation, then we have some serious PR work to do...)


----------



## PRR 60

jackal said:


> MZBKA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress certainly should give Amtrak money to buy more equipment to make more low bucket seats available.
> I don't think Amtrak needs to offer $1 fares, however.
> 
> I suspect that Amtrak's low bucket fares for coach seats are pretty competitive with Greyhound, but when I try to ask Greyhound's website what it would cost me to get from Boston to Chicago next month, it says
> 
> 
> 
> Congress just gave Amtrak a bunch of money. What does Amtrak plan to do with all of the extra money they'll receive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :blink: Where is all this extra money that Amtrak supposedly received?
> 
> In this year's appropriation, Congress just barely gave Amtrak enough money to maintain status quo (the original budget as submitted by President Bush would have resulted in massive cuts).
> 
> But maybe you know something I don't!
> 
> (Seriously, if this is what the general uninformed public thinks of when they see the news of Amtrak's appropriation, then we have some serious PR work to do...)
Click to expand...

Of course, the measure of what Amtrak needs in funding is what Amtrak says it needs. Do they really need that much? Who knows.

Amtrak has been around for 37 years. In all that time I think they have figured out how the game is played. Amtrak actually needs X Federal dollars. So they ask for X+Y and claim that is absolutely essential.  Then after lots of haggling, Congress and the President cut the X+Y back to X. Amtrak reluctantly accepts X and says they will do the best they can with it. Seems to work.

Just because Amtrak says they need a certain amount of funding, does not make it a fact. They are, after all, a vested interest.


----------



## jackal

PRR 60 said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MZBKA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress certainly should give Amtrak money to buy more equipment to make more low bucket seats available.
> I don't think Amtrak needs to offer $1 fares, however.
> 
> I suspect that Amtrak's low bucket fares for coach seats are pretty competitive with Greyhound, but when I try to ask Greyhound's website what it would cost me to get from Boston to Chicago next month, it says
> 
> 
> 
> Congress just gave Amtrak a bunch of money. What does Amtrak plan to do with all of the extra money they'll receive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :blink: Where is all this extra money that Amtrak supposedly received?
> 
> In this year's appropriation, Congress just barely gave Amtrak enough money to maintain status quo (the original budget as submitted by President Bush would have resulted in massive cuts).
> 
> But maybe you know something I don't!
> 
> (Seriously, if this is what the general uninformed public thinks of when they see the news of Amtrak's appropriation, then we have some serious PR work to do...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, the measure of what Amtrak needs in funding is what Amtrak says it needs. Do they really need that much? Who knows.
> 
> Amtrak has been around for 37 years. In all that time I think they have figured out how the game is played. Amtrak actually needs X Federal dollars. So they ask for X+Y and claim that is absolutely essential. Then after lots of haggling, Congress and the President cut the X+Y back to X. Amtrak reluctantly accepts X and says they will do the best they can with it. Seems to work.
> 
> Just because Amtrak says they need a certain amount of funding, does not make it a fact. They are, after all, a vested interest.
Click to expand...

I think that's how every federal agency works. Maybe it's even how budgeting in the private sector works. (I don't know--I've never worked at a high-enough level in a big-enough company where big budgeting processes take place.)

However, one thing that also happens in government agencies (and maybe private companies, too)--if too much money gets budgeted and it's not spent, the next year will come around and the big cheese will determine that the division or agency doesn't need as much money the next year, since they weren't able to use it all the previous year. Since no agency or division wants that to happen, they find ways to spend the money, even if it's not really necessary. I'm sure that happens at Amtrak.

What's the solution to this problem? The libertarian in me says that it should be to cut all unnecessary government spending, since government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient. Of course, that conflicts with my desire for Amtrak to be fully supported and funded (so I guess I'm only a weak libertarian...), since privatization won't work (or at least would result in the demise of Amtrak as we know it). What are alternate solutions?


----------



## puck71

George Harris said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> travelerpaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, you have to factor in the price of getting to and from the airport.Last October, my wife and I flew from JFK to SFO. It cost me $200 to get to and from the airports! Amtrak goes from downtown to downtown, so there's little or no extra cost involved.
> 
> 
> 
> BART from downtown San Francisco to SFO is $5.35, Airtrain and subway from JFK to downtown New York is $7. The fact that an Amtrak customer would even consider taking a taxi when such alternatives exists shows how far Amtrak is from being a budget option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are looking at here is people to whom normal everyday public transport is invisible. They would not think about BART on the SFO end or the Airtrain/subway on the JFK end. I also have no idea where the $200 number came from unless it is $160 on the New York end, because downtown San Francisco to SFO is around $40 with tip.
Click to expand...

They said $200 to and from the airports, so that sounds like four trips. I've never taken a taxi in either city, but that could approach $200 I guess.


----------



## p&sr

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I suspect that Amtrak's low bucket fares for coach seats are pretty competitive with Greyhound, but when I try to ask Greyhound's website what it would cost me to get from Boston to Chicago next month, it says: "An Error Occurred"


It seems to be working better today. For travel on July 20th, Greyhound quotes $164 (refundable) or $123 (non-refundable), for a 22hr trip.

Amtrak quotes $126 (refundable) or $113 (AAA - refundable) for a 22hr trip.

The only advantage of the Bus is more choice in the time of your departure and arrival.

Sounds pretty "competitive" to me!


----------



## p&sr

Green Maned Lion said:


> I love train riding, dude. I do take rail cruises, because I love riding trains. I also use Amtrak as transportation.


I've done that too, a few times. In particular between my home in Northern California and occasional business in Southern California, requiring my physical presence but not for very long.

Using the San Joaquin Trains and their connecting Busses, I can leave home in the Morning and arrive in L.A. by mid-afternoon to attend to business. Then after a free evening in town, I can catch the 1:25 AM Bus out of Union Station for the 4:55 AM Train out of Bakersfield, and be home before noon the next morning.

I wouldn't wish to try for such a quick turn-around by driving! (425 miles each way...)


----------



## MZBKA

jackal said:


> MZBKA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress certainly should give Amtrak money to buy more equipment to make more low bucket seats available.
> I don't think Amtrak needs to offer $1 fares, however.
> 
> I suspect that Amtrak's low bucket fares for coach seats are pretty competitive with Greyhound, but when I try to ask Greyhound's website what it would cost me to get from Boston to Chicago next month, it says
> 
> 
> 
> Congress just gave Amtrak a bunch of money. What does Amtrak plan to do with all of the extra money they'll receive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :blink: Where is all this extra money that Amtrak supposedly received?
> 
> In this year's appropriation, Congress just barely gave Amtrak enough money to maintain status quo (the original budget as submitted by President Bush would have resulted in massive cuts).
> 
> But maybe you know something I don't!
> 
> (Seriously, if this is what the general uninformed public thinks of when they see the news of Amtrak's appropriation, then we have some serious PR work to do...)
Click to expand...

Well, given the way Amtrak simply decided to pay replace concrete tiles in the NE corridor that broke 40 year too early (rather than having the company that built them replace them as was guaranteed), the labor contract Amtrak is in the process of signing, that Amtrak is scheduled to receive .5 billion dollars more from the federal government than they have received in past years, and that ridership is at an all time high, I'd say that Amtrak, with better management, should be swimming in money.


----------



## travelerpaul

George Harris said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> travelerpaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, you have to factor in the price of getting to and from the airport.Last October, my wife and I flew from JFK to SFO. It cost me $200 to get to and from the airports! Amtrak goes from downtown to downtown, so there's little or no extra cost involved.
> 
> 
> 
> BART from downtown San Francisco to SFO is $5.35, Airtrain and subway from JFK to downtown New York is $7. The fact that an Amtrak customer would even consider taking a taxi when such alternatives exists shows how far Amtrak is from being a budget option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are looking at here is people to whom normal everyday public transport is invisible. They would not think about BART on the SFO end or the Airtrain/subway on the JFK end. I also have no idea where the $200 number came from unless it is $160 on the New York end, because downtown San Francisco to SFO is around $40 with tip.
Click to expand...

Here's how the $200 breaks down:from my apartment in Brooklyn to JFK using a car service $30. At the other end, SFO to Petaluma, the only option is the Airport bus. $30 per person, one-way. Coming back, that's $60 to SFo, and at JFK, we have to take a yellow cab, which is metered. That's another $50. Add it up, that's $200. There's no cheaper way.


----------



## G

..just in case anyone doubts the taxi fare in a large city... those outside the Atlanta Amtrak wanted to charge me $50 to take me about 12 miles... 90% interstate- not during rush hours. I would have rather walked it than paid that $50 for about a 20 minute or less ride (the way they drive, anyway :lol: ).


----------



## George Harris

MZBKA said:


> Well, given the way Amtrak simply decided to pay replace concrete tiles in the NE corridor that broke 40 year too early (rather than having the company that built them replace them as was guaranteed),


The situation here is not near as simple as you make it sound.


> the labor contract Amtrak is in the process of signing, that Amtrak is scheduled to receive .5 billion dollars more from the federal government than they have received in past years, and that ridership is at an all time high, I'd say that Amtrak, with better management, should be swimming in money.


not very likely.


----------



## SUTTONK11

I believe that the comparison of airline fares to train fares is illconcieved - Amtrak's major competition and an industry they should be studying is that of cruising. The train is a form of vacation to many, many people and could be for many more with a little better promotion in that area - a cruise offers a way to see places you want to see while always having a place to eat and sleep. Many people want to see more of the US and Canada or even Mexico for that matter and are willing to pay for first-class service which Amtrak does not offer. I just completed traveling cross country first class by train to board a cruiseship for a week and then returned home by first class train and the difference is staggaring while the cost is similar on a per diem basis. First class on a train means you have a bed, mediocore food and nothing else - you can't even get preferential treatment when it comes to a seat in the observation car. The cruise industry has developed many ways to add revenue i.e. photos, gambling, bingo, excursions at different stops, etc., etc.; Amtrak needs to do the same or raise prices. Given some of the numbers I have seen on this site it looks as though first class passengers are the most profitable so why not first class only trains? The Coast Starlight with the first class only lounge car with movie theater and couples dining is close but they need to upgrade the rooms slightly.

First class only trains once or twice a month with planned itineraries ( like cruises ) would succeed. How about a train on which you stay and eat that stops for a day at Niagara Falls, departs that night for 2 days in NYC ( play tickets included ) or the Grand Canyon............... Where do I sign up!!


----------



## gswager

SUTTONK11 said:


> I believe that the comparison of airline fares to train fares is illconcieved - Amtrak's major competition and an industry they should be studying is that of cruising. The train is a form of vacation to many, many people and could be for many more with a little better promotion in that area - a cruise offers a way to see places you want to see while always having a place to eat and sleep. Many people want to see more of the US and Canada or even Mexico for that matter and are willing to pay for first-class service which Amtrak does not offer. I just completed traveling cross country first class by train to board a cruiseship for a week and then returned home by first class train and the difference is staggaring while the cost is similar on a per diem basis. First class on a train means you have a bed, mediocore food and nothing else - you can't even get preferential treatment when it comes to a seat in the observation car. The cruise industry has developed many ways to add revenue i.e. photos, gambling, bingo, excursions at different stops, etc., etc.; Amtrak needs to do the same or raise prices. Given some of the numbers I have seen on this site it looks as though first class passengers are the most profitable so why not first class only trains? The Coast Starlight with the first class only lounge car with movie theater and couples dining is close but they need to upgrade the rooms slightly. First class only trains once or twice a month with planned itineraries ( like cruises ) would succeed. How about a train on which you stay and eat that stops for a day at Niagara Falls, departs that night for 2 days in NYC ( play tickets included ) or the Grand Canyon............... Where do I sign up!!


Yes, there is. It's GrandLuxe Rail Journeys


----------



## Guest

travelerpaul said:


> Here's how the $200 breaks down:from my apartment in Brooklyn to JFK using a car service $30. At the other end, SFO to Petaluma, the only option is the Airport bus. $30 per person, one-way. Coming back, that's $60 to SFo, and at JFK, we have to take a yellow cab, which is metered. That's another $50. Add it up, that's $200. There's no cheaper way.


There is certainly a cheaper way than car services/taxis on the JFK end, as was already noted. In fact, if you take a bus from JFK to the subway instead of taking the Airtrain, the JFK end is only $2 per person. As for the SFO end, Amtrak would not get you to downtown Petaluma either, so to be fair you should add the cost of travel from Petaluma to an Amtrak station when comparing air vs rail fare. At any rate, you can take BART for $5.35 (or a samtrans bus for $4) from SFO to downtown San Francisco, and then change to a Golden Gate Transit bus for $7.60 to Petaluma. The total roundtrip cost per person, including both the JFK and SFO ends, would be only about $27.



SUTTONK11 said:


> First class only trains once or twice a month with planned itineraries ( like cruises ) would succeed. How about a train on which you stay and eat that stops for a day at Niagara Falls, departs that night for 2 days in NYC ( play tickets included ) or the Grand Canyon............... Where do I sign up!!


You can sign up for such journeys at http://www.americanorientexpress.com/ . However, it would be absolutely ridiculous for the federal government to subsidize cruises for rich people, while general public transport in the US continues to languish.

While occasionally on particular days or routes Amtrak is of comparable cost to flying, this is not generally the case in my experience. For long routes it is rarely competitive with budget airlines (LAX-CHI is $143 on Amtrak booked in advance, while Frontier makes the same trip for $123). Much worse, however, are corridor routes, where Amtrak charges much higher fares than bus operators on the same route ($59 for NYP-BOS booked in advance, which is $15 walkup on a Chinatown bus and $1 in advance on Megabus). High Amtrak pricing on such routes seems to be an attempt to price people off trains and reduce crowding, but since the purpose of Amtrak is to provide transportation rather than to make money, it should be running as many trains with as much space as possible, with fares low enough to fill them.


----------



## travelerpaul

Guest said:


> travelerpaul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how the $200 breaks down:from my apartment in Brooklyn to JFK using a car service $30. At the other end, SFO to Petaluma, the only option is the Airport bus. $30 per person, one-way. Coming back, that's $60 to SFo, and at JFK, we have to take a yellow cab, which is metered. That's another $50. Add it up, that's $200. There's no cheaper way.
> 
> 
> 
> There is certainly a cheaper way than car services/taxis on the JFK end, as was already noted. In fact, if you take a bus from JFK to the subway instead of taking the Airtrain, the JFK end is only $2 per person. As for the SFO end, Amtrak would not get you to downtown Petaluma either, so to be fair you should add the cost of travel from Petaluma to an Amtrak station when comparing air vs rail fare. At any rate, you can take BART for $5.35 (or a samtrans bus for $4) from SFO to downtown San Francisco, and then change to a Golden Gate Transit bus for $7.60 to Petaluma. The total roundtrip cost per person, including both the JFK and SFO ends, would be only about $27.
> 
> 
> 
> SUTTONK11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First class only trains once or twice a month with planned itineraries ( like cruises ) would succeed. How about a train on which you stay and eat that stops for a day at Niagara Falls, departs that night for 2 days in NYC ( play tickets included ) or the Grand Canyon............... Where do I sign up!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can sign up for such journeys at http://www.americanorientexpress.com/ . However, it would be absolutely ridiculous for the federal government to subsidize cruises for rich people, while general public transport in the US continues to languish.
> 
> While occasionally on particular days or routes Amtrak is of comparable cost to flying, this is not generally the case in my experience. For long routes it is rarely competitive with budget airlines (LAX-CHI is $143 on Amtrak booked in advance, while Frontier makes the same trip for $123). Much worse, however, are corridor routes, where Amtrak charges much higher fares than bus operators on the same route ($59 for NYP-BOS booked in advance, which is $15 walkup on a Chinatown bus and $1 in advance on Megabus). High Amtrak pricing on such routes seems to be an attempt to price people off trains and reduce crowding, but since the purpose of Amtrak is to provide transportation rather than to make money, it should be running as many trains with as much space as possible, with fares low enough to fill them.
Click to expand...

On the New York end, it's a time/money equation; the bus/subway trip would be about 2 hours vs. 20 minutes. At the other end, I looked into Bart/Golden Gate Transit deal. It's not as cut and dried as you think. Not all of Golden Gate Transit's buses allow baggage. They weren't designed for that.


----------



## loveTrains

Guest said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change  Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.
Click to expand...

Taking the Train is now for the Rich....like taking the train use to be for the people that could not afford to fly...but now there has been a reversal...the "HERDS"..."Greyhound"...Cheap folks take to the air....as a Flight Attendant my self...I wish I worked for Amtrak....I would prolly get ALOT HIGHER quality of passengers on-board!!


----------



## SUTTONK11

You can sign up for such journeys at http://www.americanorientexpress.com/ . However, it would be absolutely ridiculous for the federal government to subsidize cruises for rich people, while general public transport in the US continues to languish.

It might be ridiculous but they are doing it and have been doing it for years - all I am saying is do it better to further increase the sale of higher priced tickets. How many people in firstclass are trying to get from point A to point B in a timely, inexpensive manner? Based on my recent trip around the country and the informal surveys I took on the Empire Builder, Capitol Limited, Coast Starlight, Southwest Chief and the Cardinal, about 14% and every sleeper was occupied for pretty much the whole trip. I had meals with couples from Germany, Australia, Norway and Austria who wanted to see our country and were willing to pay the extra. Sometimes we have to get over our jealousies and realize that, in many cases, making something more attractive to those with more money is inturn helping those with less by raising profits and thereby providing a better service for all.

The Grand Luxe and Orient Express are for the rich same as the Queen Mary is in cruising but the cruise industry also has Carnival and Princess for those that can't afford the former. Why can't Amtrak offer that option in rail travel?


----------



## Rail Freak

SUTTONK11 said:


> I believe that the comparison of airline fares to train fares is illconcieved - Amtrak's major competition and an industry they should be studying is that of cruising. The train is a form of vacation to many, many people and could be for many more with a little better promotion in that area - a cruise offers a way to see places you want to see while always having a place to eat and sleep. Many people want to see more of the US and Canada or even Mexico for that matter and are willing to pay for first-class service which Amtrak does not offer. I just completed traveling cross country first class by train to board a cruiseship for a week and then returned home by first class train and the difference is staggaring while the cost is similar on a per diem basis. First class on a train means you have a bed, mediocore food and nothing else - you can't even get preferential treatment when it comes to a seat in the observation car. The cruise industry has developed many ways to add revenue i.e. photos, gambling, bingo, excursions at different stops, etc., etc.; Amtrak needs to do the same or raise prices. Given some of the numbers I have seen on this site it looks as though first class passengers are the most profitable so why not first class only trains? The Coast Starlight with the first class only lounge car with movie theater and couples dining is close but they need to upgrade the rooms slightly. First class only trains once or twice a month with planned itineraries ( like cruises ) would succeed. How about a train on which you stay and eat that stops for a day at Niagara Falls, departs that night for 2 days in NYC ( play tickets included ) or the Grand Canyon............... Where do I sign up!!


Who's tracks are the Williams - Grand Canyon? Private?

:unsure:


----------



## MrFSS

Rail Freak said:


> SUTTONK11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the comparison of airline fares to train fares is illconcieved - Amtrak's major competition and an industry they should be studying is that of cruising. The train is a form of vacation to many, many people and could be for many more with a little better promotion in that area - a cruise offers a way to see places you want to see while always having a place to eat and sleep. Many people want to see more of the US and Canada or even Mexico for that matter and are willing to pay for first-class service which Amtrak does not offer. I just completed traveling cross country first class by train to board a cruiseship for a week and then returned home by first class train and the difference is staggaring while the cost is similar on a per diem basis. First class on a train means you have a bed, mediocore food and nothing else - you can't even get preferential treatment when it comes to a seat in the observation car. The cruise industry has developed many ways to add revenue i.e. photos, gambling, bingo, excursions at different stops, etc., etc.; Amtrak needs to do the same or raise prices. Given some of the numbers I have seen on this site it looks as though first class passengers are the most profitable so why not first class only trains? The Coast Starlight with the first class only lounge car with movie theater and couples dining is close but they need to upgrade the rooms slightly. First class only trains once or twice a month with planned itineraries ( like cruises ) would succeed. How about a train on which you stay and eat that stops for a day at Niagara Falls, departs that night for 2 days in NYC ( play tickets included ) or the Grand Canyon............... Where do I sign up!!
> 
> 
> 
> Who's tracks are the Williams - Grand Canyon? Private?
> 
> :unsure:
Click to expand...

Grand Canyon Tourist Railroad owns them.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

MZBKA said:


> Well, given the way Amtrak simply decided to pay replace concrete tiles in the NE corridor that broke 40 year too early (rather than having the company that built them replace them as was guaranteed), the labor contract Amtrak is in the process of signing, that Amtrak is scheduled to receive .5 billion dollars more from the federal government than they have received in past years, and that ridership is at an all time high, I'd say that Amtrak, with better management, should be swimming in money.


There are a whole slew of reasons for them paying for the labor to replace the concrete ties to go into. But suffice to say, its not as stupid as you make it out to be.

Next, Amtrak is about $3 *b*illion in debt. They are not swimming in money. The reason for that debt is that the government attempted to force them to become profitable in the infamous "Glidepath to Self Sufficiency". Didn't work, couldn't work. No railroad in the world operates without government subsidy in some form or another. Actually, no mass transit industry does so, period, be they direct (Amtrak) or indirect (airlines, busses, etc)

Amtrak is operating on other peoples tracks. They are operating a set of tracks built by several railroads over a hundred years ago. They need constant work to just be usable. They are dealing with rolling stock, some of which are 60 years old, and most of it is 30+ years old. This stuff needs repair, and in many cases, they really need replacement. They need more equipment. While leaving pricing levels at they are, Amtrak could probably invest $10 billion and waste less of it than any other government agency.



SUTTONK11 said:


> I believe that the comparison of airline fares to train fares is illconcieved - Amtrak's major competition and an industry they should be studying is that of cruising. The train is a form of vacation to many, many people and could be for many more with a little better promotion in that area - a cruise offers a way to see places you want to see while always having a place to eat and sleep. Many people want to see more of the US and Canada or even Mexico for that matter and are willing to pay for first-class service which Amtrak does not offer. I just completed traveling cross country first class by train to board a cruiseship for a week and then returned home by first class train and the difference is staggaring while the cost is similar on a per diem basis. First class on a train means you have a bed, mediocore food and nothing else - you can't even get preferential treatment when it comes to a seat in the observation car. The cruise industry has developed many ways to add revenue i.e. photos, gambling, bingo, excursions at different stops, etc., etc.; Amtrak needs to do the same or raise prices. Given some of the numbers I have seen on this site it looks as though first class passengers are the most profitable so why not first class only trains? The Coast Starlight with the first class only lounge car with movie theater and couples dining is close but they need to upgrade the rooms slightly. First class only trains once or twice a month with planned itineraries ( like cruises ) would succeed. How about a train on which you stay and eat that stops for a day at Niagara Falls, departs that night for 2 days in NYC ( play tickets included ) or the Grand Canyon............... Where do I sign up!!


I just got finished saying that they do not provide simply rail cruises. If you happen to think this, you are wrong. Passengers traveling, for instance, on the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle, or from on the CZ from Chicago to SF, or similar itineraries, are possibly taking rail cruises. Most are not. You fail to recognize the nature of turn over on these routes.

Take the _City of New Orleans_. The CONL runs one and a half sleeping cars, or more specifically, one sleeping car and a crew dorm. That sleeping car is rarely full. Very few people ride this train CHI-NOL. What the CONL does, more so, is function as a patch work of local trains, ferrying many people between short distance jaunts along the local stops of its line. It just happens to run the whole route. A few people use it for such. If you look at their trains, you'll notice the vast majority of people riding the long distance trains do so between shorter points.

And yes, overnight travelers do use it for transportation, as well. For example, the CL is used by business travelers to Chicago. The California Zephyr transports so many people between Chicago and Denver that a couple of sleepers act as a ferry between those stops, picked up by one train in Chicago, left in Denver, and taken back by the trains opposite number. Amtrak provides serious transportation, just like any other company. Some people use it simply for pleasure, just like I occasionally do with commuter rail.



Guest said:


> While occasionally on particular days or routes Amtrak is of comparable cost to flying, this is not generally the case in my experience. For long routes it is rarely competitive with budget airlines (LAX-CHI is $143 on Amtrak booked in advance, while Frontier makes the same trip for $123). Much worse, however, are corridor routes, where Amtrak charges much higher fares than bus operators on the same route ($59 for NYP-BOS booked in advance, which is $15 walkup on a Chinatown bus and $1 in advance on Megabus). High Amtrak pricing on such routes seems to be an attempt to price people off trains and reduce crowding, but since the purpose of Amtrak is to provide transportation rather than to make money, it should be running as many trains with as much space as possible, with fares low enough to fill them.


I don't know where you got the impression that Amtrak isn't supposed to make money. They don't make money, but they are supposed to try to. It is a cardinal flaw in the Amtrak law. Amtrak's job should be to transport as many people as they can in reasonable comfort for the best value possible. Their actual job is to make money, preferably by transporting passengers.

Amtrak has limited capacity. They manage to do a pretty good job filling their trains at current prices. They'd be idiots to charge less than the market will bear.


----------



## SUTTONK11

Green Maned Lion said:


> MZBKA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, given the way Amtrak simply decided to pay replace concrete tiles in the NE corridor that broke 40 year too early (rather than having the company that built them replace them as was guaranteed), the labor contract Amtrak is in the process of signing, that Amtrak is scheduled to receive .5 billion dollars more from the federal government than they have received in past years, and that ridership is at an all time high, I'd say that Amtrak, with better management, should be swimming in money.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a whole slew of reasons for them paying for the labor to replace the concrete ties to go into. But suffice to say, its not as stupid as you make it out to be.
> 
> Next, Amtrak is about $3 *b*illion in debt. They are not swimming in money. The reason for that debt is that the government attempted to force them to become profitable in the infamous "Glidepath to Self Sufficiency". Didn't work, couldn't work. No railroad in the world operates without government subsidy in some form or another. Actually, no mass transit industry does so, period, be they direct (Amtrak) or indirect (airlines, busses, etc)
> 
> Amtrak is operating on other peoples tracks. They are operating a set of tracks built by several railroads over a hundred years ago. They need constant work to just be usable. They are dealing with rolling stock, some of which are 60 years old, and most of it is 30+ years old. This stuff needs repair, and in many cases, they really need replacement. They need more equipment. While leaving pricing levels at they are, Amtrak could probably invest $10 billion and waste less of it than any other government agency.
> 
> 
> 
> SUTTONK11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the comparison of airline fares to train fares is illconcieved - Amtrak's major competition and an industry they should be studying is that of cruising. The train is a form of vacation to many, many people and could be for many more with a little better promotion in that area - a cruise offers a way to see places you want to see while always having a place to eat and sleep. Many people want to see more of the US and Canada or even Mexico for that matter and are willing to pay for first-class service which Amtrak does not offer. I just completed traveling cross country first class by train to board a cruiseship for a week and then returned home by first class train and the difference is staggaring while the cost is similar on a per diem basis. First class on a train means you have a bed, mediocore food and nothing else - you can't even get preferential treatment when it comes to a seat in the observation car. The cruise industry has developed many ways to add revenue i.e. photos, gambling, bingo, excursions at different stops, etc., etc.; Amtrak needs to do the same or raise prices. Given some of the numbers I have seen on this site it looks as though first class passengers are the most profitable so why not first class only trains? The Coast Starlight with the first class only lounge car with movie theater and couples dining is close but they need to upgrade the rooms slightly. First class only trains once or twice a month with planned itineraries ( like cruises ) would succeed. How about a train on which you stay and eat that stops for a day at Niagara Falls, departs that night for 2 days in NYC ( play tickets included ) or the Grand Canyon............... Where do I sign up!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just got finished saying that they do not provide simply rail cruises. If you happen to think this, you are wrong. Passengers traveling, for instance, on the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle, or from on the CZ from Chicago to SF, or similar itineraries, are possibly taking rail cruises. Most are not. You fail to recognize the nature of turn over on these routes.
> 
> Take the _City of New Orleans_. The CONL runs one and a half sleeping cars, or more specifically, one sleeping car and a crew dorm. That sleeping car is rarely full. Very few people ride this train CHI-NOL. What the CONL does, more so, is function as a patch work of local trains, ferrying many people between short distance jaunts along the local stops of its line. It just happens to run the whole route. A few people use it for such. If you look at their trains, you'll notice the vast majority of people riding the long distance trains do so between shorter points.
> 
> And yes, overnight travelers do use it for transportation, as well. For example, the CL is used by business travelers to Chicago. The California Zephyr transports so many people between Chicago and Denver that a couple of sleepers act as a ferry between those stops, picked up by one train in Chicago, left in Denver, and taken back by the trains opposite number. Amtrak provides serious transportation, just like any other company. Some people use it simply for pleasure, just like I occasionally do with commuter rail.
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> While occasionally on particular days or routes Amtrak is of comparable cost to flying, this is not generally the case in my experience. For long routes it is rarely competitive with budget airlines (LAX-CHI is $143 on Amtrak booked in advance, while Frontier makes the same trip for $123). Much worse, however, are corridor routes, where Amtrak charges much higher fares than bus operators on the same route ($59 for NYP-BOS booked in advance, which is $15 walkup on a Chinatown bus and $1 in advance on Megabus). High Amtrak pricing on such routes seems to be an attempt to price people off trains and reduce crowding, but since the purpose of Amtrak is to provide transportation rather than to make money, it should be running as many trains with as much space as possible, with fares low enough to fill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you got the impression that Amtrak isn't supposed to make money. They don't make money, but they are supposed to try to. It is a cardinal flaw in the Amtrak law. Amtrak's job should be to transport as many people as they can in reasonable comfort for the best value possible. Their actual job is to make money, preferably by transporting passengers.
> 
> Amtrak has limited capacity. They manage to do a pretty good job filling their trains at current prices. They'd be idiots to charge less than the market will bear.
Click to expand...

I don't know who said that Amtrak just provided rail cruises which, I agree, is wrong. However, they do provide rail cruises wheather intended or not (obviously intended given connection with Amtrak Vacations), these type travelers are the most profitable and there are many of them that could be attracted with little effort. Failing to understand turnover from a business standpoint is not one of my problems - if I am providing a service and have the choice of one customer paying a high price over a long period of time and many different customers paying a lower price for the same seat over the same period of time, the choice is the high paying customer.

I realize the original purpose of passenger railroad which should remain its main goal but times have changed and the railroad needs to change with them - Amtrak does not have to be all or nothing one way or the other. What is wrong with trying to attract more high profit passengers and attempting to make Amtrak financially feasible so it can continue to serve pleasure and business. If they don't do something in the near future, they may not be around to serve anyone much longer.


----------



## Amtrak Watcher

Out of popular demand, a gas price tutorial follows.

If oil goes $200 a barrel, which is the upper end of Goldman Sach’s predictions for prices over the next two years, then the price of gasoline relative to oil changes dramatically; the two do not track each other linearly. At $200 a barrel, crude alone costs $4.77 a gallon. Add on the usual costs of refining and distributing and taxes, and pump prices rise to a range of $6 to $7 a gallon. The uncertainty comes from political and social elements. Oil supplies have traditionally increased by 1.5% a year in the past, but the past eight year show that the "find" rate is slowing at 4.5% a year, accelerating downward at 3.3% of that rate yearly. China and India are, together, removing 13.3% percent of that new oil each year, growing at 0.8% a year. Now, none of these are independent variables, but to avoid differential equations and graph paper, we assume they are, and work out this third-order relationship at $220 a barrel for oil, to get something between $6.56 and $7.60 a gallon for gas. Since the prediction includes time (December 2008, just before Bush leaves office), and a significant political factor (Israel bombs Iran), you favor the high-side, $7.60 a gallon, since the second factor is quite negative. But since China has an energy policy (the U.S incredibly does not, not a big surprise since we don't have transportation policy either) which is currently raising gas prices by almost 24%, we may have to assume a reduction of the China-India loss rate of 13.3% to, say, 5%, which would drive the price of oil down from $220 to $188 an barrel, which, if you assume the same processing, delivery and taxes, gas falls by the same amount, to get almost $6.80 a gallon under the same circumstances: unlikely, since the Chinese are growing their managed economy at an enormous rate.

That mass transit is nice, but is not often used for rides to and from the airport or train station is a consequence of the way it is conceived in this country; as a kind of transport of last resort note. People have hope that growth will make it better, but even growth requires taxpayer subsidies and subsidies guarantees a marginal system. In the eastern part of the U.S the much greater impaction of things, and the dense, huge populations of criminal elements in the cities, doom mass transit ever to the public dole out of your pocket and mine. Buses even in Philadelphia run empty most of the time. In Trenton, it is even a greater joke. As the criminal classes become more and more aggressive, that is, as Liberalism continues to undermine work motivation, the situation will get worse, especially in the East. Denver is different from Trenton; the new trains are clean and filling up, since the western portion of the U.S is somewhat shielded from all this, for now. But the federal influence, which is an eastern rite, will keep mass transit far from what it could be for the same money.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The answer is a system similar to Englands Benefit In Kind tax, London's Congestion charging, fair toll pricing for roadways, and a 2-300% gas tax directing a designated mass transit fund.

The problem to the answer is that Democracy, by its very nature, must support the current wants of the under-educated, relatively unintelligent masses, rather than the long-term needs of society. Nobody wants to pay $15.00 a gallon, nor do they want to put 10% of their cars new purchase price into a tax each year, nor do they want to pay fair toll prices for roads. So we are stuck in a trap of our own creation.


----------



## jis

MZBKA said:


> Well, given the way Amtrak simply decided to pay replace concrete tiles in the NE corridor that broke 40 year too early (rather than having the company that built them replace them as was guaranteed),


Could you enlighten us on how you get a bankrupt/non-existent company to replace ties? Ever bothered to check into what actually happened?


----------



## acelafan

jis said:


> MZBKA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, given the way Amtrak simply decided to pay replace concrete tiles in the NE corridor that broke 40 year too early (rather than having the company that built them replace them as was guaranteed),
> 
> 
> 
> Could you enlighten us on how you get a bankrupt/non-existent company to replace ties? Ever bothered to check into what actually happened?
Click to expand...

JIS is correct. The tie manufacturer provided new ties but Amtrak is installing them using their own workforce, according to the previous Amtrak IG.


----------



## MrFSS

You guys realize this original thread is over a year old. Some guest re-opened it with a snide remark.


----------



## jmbgeg

Guest said:


> With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.
> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.


If the government subsidizes Amtrak now, how would you to expect them to operate with a 50% reduction in coach revenues, especially when a lot of routes have close to full trains?

I have not typically seen Amtrak coach fares higher than airline coach. YMMV.

I have seen long distance Amtrak deluxe bedroom fares equal to or higher than first class airfare on the same route, but that's not an apples and apples comparison, and I am willing to pay sleeper rates to enjoy long distance train experience instead of the rushed airline gauntlet.


----------



## the Other Mike

As a fat person, it's much cheaper to take the train !!!!!!


----------



## NETrainfan

Guest said:


> With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.
> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.



For us, air travel is not appealing and train travel has been very good with some excellent customer service during problematic times. We like the freedom of walking around the train, getting off to stretch, food choices etc. The trains are friendly and relaxing.

Two of my relatives recently had poor customer service by airlines. One was stranded in D.C. and the airline didn't even offer snacks or food for a 24 hour delay and they had to find their own hotel!!!! On the other hand, when Amtrak had a delay in April in D.C., we were called into a room, given instructions about the changes, and put on a bus to Baltimore and then put on the Acela to Boston at no extra cost. The customer service was so good that I wrote to my Congressman to tell him.

Also, some years back we had a long delay on Amtrak from Florida- got to Boston at midnight and Amtrak paid for a taxi for 4 of us to Portland, ME. We were very pleased.

We prefer trains and ships.


----------



## jis

Guest said:


> Much worse, however, are corridor routes, where Amtrak charges much higher fares than bus operators on the same route ($59 for NYP-BOS booked in advance, which is $15 walkup on a Chinatown bus and $1 in advance on Megabus). High Amtrak pricing on such routes seems to be an attempt to price people off trains and reduce crowding, but since the purpose of Amtrak is to provide transportation rather than to make money, it should be running as many trains with as much space as possible, with fares low enough to fill them.


You seem to be making an implicit assumption that Amtrak is not already running as many trains as it can within the regulations that apply (e.g. there is a limiti on the number of trains it is allowed to run to Boston by agreement with the rich folks in Connecticut), and within the limits of the equipment that it has available. This may be a false assumption. Given that there is a limit that exists for whatever reason, the next logical thing for Amtrak to do is to figure out the fare level where these trains run as full as possible.

Admittedly one can argue that Amtrak may not be doing the best job there. Unfortunately even there, our usually blazingly brilliant legislature have hamstrung Amtrak by not giving it the freedom to reduce fares below certain levels. So go figure.

So the bottom line is given the equipment that Amtrak has and the limitations within which it operates, it is trying to maximize revenue as it has been instructed to do by the powers that be. And that has consequences in the form of the fares that you get.


----------



## Dan O

VentureForth said:


> My beef isn't comparing airlines to Amtrak - it's comparing driving to Amtrak. Let's face it, the time commitment is much more fair. Sure - for one person driving, it makes a lot of sense to take Amtrak over driving. For instance, if I wanted to go to DC, it would cost between $86 and $192 one way. Gas in my Camry would be around $110. Throw in the wear and tear on my car, my solid attention for 9 hours and it would be a no brainer to take the train. Add a wife and three screaming kids, the car is still $110. I get a relief driver and don't need to rent a car when I get there. My family on the train is triple the cost - in coach. Can't even consider getting THREE roomettes.
> So really, for the solo trip, Amtrak is the way to go. But as soon as we start thinking family, cost, vacation, etc., the train can't compete with driving.


Exactly. That's one reason we drove on this recent 5 week trip we took. Plus, my wife is afraid of tunnels and easier to avoid those in a car than in a train. I love the trains and when there are only two of us I hope we can travel that way, as long as I can find some tunnel free routes.

Dan


----------



## Bob Dylan

Thats what the SL is for,lots of desert with miles and miles and miles of flat nothing, Texas to California!LOL


----------



## NETrainfan

jackal said:


> Eris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loui1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's more pain associated with sitting in a coach train seat for 20+ hours than being squeezed on a plane for 3.....they need to provide more incentive to the market.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, though- have you _tried_ it?
> 
> I haven't, quite, since we haven't done long-distance in coach, but I've done a 35hr trip in a roomette with two small kids, and I've taken a 3 hour airplane trip with those same two small kids. You can _think_ there'd be more pain associated with the 35hr train trip, but at least in my case, you would be absolutely wrong- the train is SO much better, for all three of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you Eris!
> 
> If you just sit in your seat in coach for 20 or 35 hours, then yes, it could quite possibly be a painful experience (personally, I would enjoy it, but that's just because I'm part of that railfan cult), since sitting is boring and uncomfotable no matter how big your seat is (even plushy First Class seats get old after awhile). But taking the train isn't about sitting in your coach seat for 35 hours. It's about getting up, moving around, enjoying the view from the lounge (especially the Sightseer Lounge--make sure your first long-distance trip is west of Chicago!), meeting people, eating train food and interacting with the people across the table from you in the diner, and watching the never-ending movie playing just outside of your window. What makes train travel enjoyable isn't the nicer, bigger-than-airplane seat--it's the total experience of being on the train. It's almost magical. It's a time warp, too--when you're enjoying yourself, the time flies--16 hours between Denver and Salt Lake felt quicker to me than a cross-country flight!
> 
> Before you slam it, you really should try it!
Click to expand...


You said the above so well. It IS the total experience of the train that captures many of us. We are so pleased that we have seen a good portion of this country from an Amtrak train. The visual memories are often majestic.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

yeah how often can you get off the plane during a layover at a airport on a multy stop plane to get off and stretch before getting back on. uh you can't. with amtrak you can get off (stay next to the train) stretch your legs smoke then get back on. can't do that with a airplane. you can walk to other coaches. a train is allot better then flying. unfortunately there are people who are convinced that flying is the best way to travel and nothing will change there mind. there like eww a train. you must be poor then huh.


----------



## Amtrak839

NETrainfan said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loui1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's more pain associated with sitting in a coach train seat for 20+ hours than being squeezed on a plane for 3.....they need to provide more incentive to the market.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, though- have you _tried_ it?
> 
> I haven't, quite, since we haven't done long-distance in coach, but I've done a 35hr trip in a roomette with two small kids, and I've taken a 3 hour airplane trip with those same two small kids. You can _think_ there'd be more pain associated with the 35hr train trip, but at least in my case, you would be absolutely wrong- the train is SO much better, for all three of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you Eris!
> 
> If you just sit in your seat in coach for 20 or 35 hours, then yes, it could quite possibly be a painful experience (personally, I would enjoy it, but that's just because I'm part of that railfan cult), since sitting is boring and uncomfotable no matter how big your seat is (even plushy First Class seats get old after awhile). But taking the train isn't about sitting in your coach seat for 35 hours. It's about getting up, moving around, enjoying the view from the lounge (especially the Sightseer Lounge--make sure your first long-distance trip is west of Chicago!), meeting people, eating train food and interacting with the people across the table from you in the diner, and watching the never-ending movie playing just outside of your window. What makes train travel enjoyable isn't the nicer, bigger-than-airplane seat--it's the total experience of being on the train. It's almost magical. It's a time warp, too--when you're enjoying yourself, the time flies--16 hours between Denver and Salt Lake felt quicker to me than a cross-country flight!
> 
> Before you slam it, you really should try it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said the above so well. It IS the total experience of the train that captures many of us. We are so pleased that we have seen a good portion of this country from an Amtrak train. The visual memories are often majestic.
Click to expand...

Agreed, very well said. There really is no one thing that makes the train superior to other modes of travel. But the overall experience can't be beaten! As Amtrak used to say in their commercials - There's something about a train that's magic!



They use that line once or twice in there. My favorite line is "maybe they just like taking off, without leaving the ground. All aboard, all aboard, all aboard Amtrak!"


----------



## Nickrapak

PHL-LAX May 1-May 10, 2010:

Amtrak coach: $386 r/t

Northwest Airlines (Via sidestep.com): $406 r/t+taxes,fees,etc.

Outside of the NEC, I find Amtrak coach to be competitive with the airlines for travel, except to "special" destinations which the hotels subsidize airfares, e.g Orlando.


----------



## DET63

amtrakwolverine said:


> yeah how often can you get off the plane during a layover at a airport on a multy stop plane to get off and stretch before getting back on. uh you can't. with amtrak you can get off (stay next to the train) stretch your legs smoke then get back on. can't do that with a airplane. you can walk to other coaches. a train is allot better then flying. unfortunately there are people who are convinced that flying is the best way to travel and nothing will change there mind. there like eww a train. you must be poor then huh.


Either poor, or afraid of flying—and thus a bit mentally ill. Of course, one could question the mental faculties of someone who wants to be crammed in like a sardine in a tin can 35,000 feet up in the air for 3, 4, 5 or more hours, but one wouldn't want to be judgmental, now . . .


----------



## jackal

DET63 said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah how often can you get off the plane during a layover at a airport on a multy stop plane to get off and stretch before getting back on. uh you can't. with amtrak you can get off (stay next to the train) stretch your legs smoke then get back on. can't do that with a airplane. you can walk to other coaches. a train is allot better then flying. unfortunately there are people who are convinced that flying is the best way to travel and nothing will change there mind. there like eww a train. you must be poor then huh.
> 
> 
> 
> Either poor, or afraid of flying—and thus a bit mentally ill. Of course, one could question the mental faculties of someone who wants to be crammed in like a sardine in a tin can 35,000 feet up in the air for 3, 4, 5 or more hours, but one wouldn't want to be judgmental, now . . .
Click to expand...

Oh, come now--you've got to admit there's a certain adrenaline rush in air travel! Not even the fastest high-speed train pushes you back in your seat like a jet at take-off! 

And those of us who enjoy flying usually fly enough to achieve elite status (it's cheaper and easier than attaining Amtrak Select or Select Plus [unless you're Chuljin!  ]), which grants us free upgrades to the first-class cabin--hardly crammed in like sardines!

I like both forms of transportation almost equally (with a _very_ slight edge to rail), but when time is a constraining factor, it often makes more sense to cram yourself like a sardine leisurely enjoy a first-class seat for a four-hour cross-country flight (especially if you can take advantage of a mileage run-worthy airfare) than to spend your entire vacation time getting to the destination, leaving you no time to actually see the city.


----------



## Upstate

Nickrapak said:


> PHL-LAX May 1-May 10, 2010:
> Amtrak coach: $386 r/t
> 
> Northwest Airlines (Via sidestep.com): $406 r/t+taxes,fees,etc.
> 
> Outside of the NEC, I find Amtrak coach to be competitive with the airlines for travel, except to "special" destinations which the hotels subsidize airfares, e.g Orlando.


have fun spending three days trying to sleep in coach. I would take the sardine can for less than 1/3 of a day. Both are going to suck, but without a sleeper the airline is the lesser of two evils.

If you want to make a realistic comparison you have to ask yourself if you would be comfortable in the class of service for the duration of time. On a transcontinental flight I am fine in the economy section, but on the train I am only good for one night in coach. I think most people folks who like trains are not going to do 3 nights in coach.


----------



## AlanB

jackal said:


> Oh, come now--you've got to admit there's a certain adrenaline rush in air travel! Not even the fastest high-speed train pushes you back in your seat like a jet at take-off!


Acela could probably come close to emulating that push back into the seat, but they choose not to do that for passenger comfort.

Airlines of course have no choice in the matter, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing either.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now--you've got to admit there's a certain adrenaline rush in air travel! Not even the fastest high-speed train pushes you back in your seat like a jet at take-off!
> 
> 
> 
> Acela could probably come close to emulating that push back into the seat, but they choose not to do that for passenger comfort.
> 
> Airlines of course have no choice in the matter, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing either.
Click to expand...

Of course, there's no one up and walking around during a aircraft take-off. And, once Acela reaches speed, it does not rotate and lift off the rails (we hope).


----------



## Bob Dylan

Upstate said:


> Nickrapak said:
> 
> 
> 
> PHL-LAX May 1-May 10, 2010:
> Amtrak coach: $386 r/t
> 
> Northwest Airlines (Via sidestep.com): $406 r/t+taxes,fees,etc.
> 
> Outside of the NEC, I find Amtrak coach to be competitive with the airlines for travel, except to "special" destinations which the hotels subsidize airfares, e.g Orlando.
> 
> 
> 
> have fun spending three days trying to sleep in coach. I would take the sardine can for less than 1/3 of a day. Both are going to suck, but without a sleeper the airline is the lesser of two evils.
> 
> If you want to make a realistic comparison you have to ask yourself if you would be comfortable in the class of service for the duration of time. On a transcontinental flight I am fine in the economy section, but on the train I am only good for one night in coach. I think most people folks who like trains are not going to do 3 nights in coach.
Click to expand...

To each his own,however IMHO: as someone who Loves trains,not just likes(and thats most of us here)and when not traveling on business

or personal emergencies(ie funeral/no train connections,across the water :lol: etc.) I must say that Yes, I woulkd gladly spend three days

in coach compared to the "fun" of going to/through/from airports anywhere!Air travel used to be an adventure,and mostly first class,

but was for the more affluent!Of course I perfer riding in a sleeper,eating in the diner,waiting in the first class lounges etc. but as lots of folks have

said, the journey is thge thing, not just the destination!All things considered,its not an imposition to take the train and now days it is to fly

to/from most places!!I have flown millions of miles in my life and only ridden trains a few thousands but as John Kennedy said:

"..for I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep...",for me its a train leaving or going somewhere, as Bob Dylan said:

"..it can cure the soul, it can make it whole.."!!!!


----------



## stntylr

PRR 60 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now--you've got to admit there's a certain adrenaline rush in air travel! Not even the fastest high-speed train pushes you back in your seat like a jet at take-off!
> 
> 
> 
> Acela could probably come close to emulating that push back into the seat, but they choose not to do that for passenger comfort.
> 
> Airlines of course have no choice in the matter, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, there's no one up and walking around during a aircraft take-off. And, once Acela reaches speed, it does not rotate and lift off the rails (we hope).
Click to expand...


A Maglev does.


----------



## JSmith

You certainly can't generalize plane vs train fares in either direction. I was surprised to discover that it would actually be cheaper for a family of four to travel by train in sleepers from Buffalo to Halifax and back than to go by plane in economy class. I thought it would be an expensive luxury to go by train, but it turns out if I want to go visit my relatives there at all, I actually save money going first class by train!


----------



## Bigval109

the_traveler said:


> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!


That is why I always plan on two weeks or 16 days so I don't have to hurry but I can just relax and look out the window.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Bigval109 said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I always plan on two weeks or 16 days so I don't have to hurry but I can just relax and look out the window.
Click to expand...

Basics 101: Flying is NOT a VACATION!Its a means of getting to a destination,perhaps for a vacation!Being on a LD train IS a

VACATION, the journey is the thing as they say!Simple and oh so true in this age of third world conditons @ airports and on planes!


----------



## micmac99

jimhudson said:


> Bigval109 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I always plan on two weeks or 16 days so I don't have to hurry but I can just relax and look out the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basics 101: Flying is NOT a VACATION!Its a means of getting to a destination,perhaps for a vacation!Being on a LD train IS a
> 
> VACATION, the journey is the thing as they say!Simple and oh so true in this age of third world conditons @ airports and on planes!
Click to expand...

I would have to agree. Cost has traditionally been the biggest factor for me in LD travel, so I used to take Greyhound, Amtrak and the airlines pretty evenly. Nowadays, I am leery of flying, and largely because of the post 9/11 regulations. Greyhound is OK but if you think Amtrak coach for three days is bad, try traveling from Atlanta to Tucson on Greyhound. I've done it. Ouch.

I have also driven in a rental car from Phoenix to Austin, and man, I don't think I'll be doing that again. Boring and tiring. If I'm going to be bored, at least I'm conserving my energy sitting in a coach seat and not having to concentrate on my responsibility as a motorist.


----------



## rrdude

Train travel, PART of the vacation, not just a "means" of getting from Point-A to Point-B...

However, IF overnight travel is required, sleeper is a MUST, and that makes it a tad more expensive, but think of Amtrak like Italy or France's "slow-food" movement. Enjoy the hourney, NOT just getting there................


----------



## jackal

rrdude said:


> Train travel, PART of the vacation, not just a "means" of getting from Point-A to Point-B...
> However, IF overnight travel is required, sleeper is a MUST, and that makes it a tad more expensive, but think of Amtrak like Italy or France's "slow-food" movement. Enjoy the hourney, NOT just getting there................


Yes, and that has its place. But sometimes I'd like to actually visit a destination for my vacation. And if I can only get a week off, spending 6 of my 7 days in transit doesn't leave much time to actually see wherever it is I'm heading. So, there's a time and a place for flying, too, and it's not that painful if you manage to achieve even low-tier status on an airline.

And when cheap airfares get filed (far cheaper than even Amtrak coach), it's hard to pass those up to see a far-off, exotic location! (I _almost_ booked a $95 mistake business-class fare on Air Malaysia last week, but I had no idea how I would have cheaply gotten to LAX to connect to it, not to mention getting time off from work. And you can't get to Malaysia on a train! [Well, I'm sure *the_traveler* could figure out a way to do so... :lol: ]*)

*Actually, with some projects under consideration (but not likely to be finished in our lifetimes), it might be nearly possible someday. All we need is a thousand or so miles of track through Canada and then another 2,000 or so from Fairbanks, Alaska to Vladivostok, Russia, and then the entire Asian and European continents would be accessible by land-based transport! To get to Malaysia, though, there's still a gap to negotiate between Thailand and China or Vietnam--Laos and Cambodia are both missing rail systems


----------



## rrdude

I'm with you on that, I've prolly taken more train-air vacation/trips than I have train-train over the years. I'd be nice if Amtrak's OTP were higher for the LD trips, expecially when you convince a friend/neighbor to "try out Amtrak" for the first time. If the LD train is 3-4 hours late, there is no amount of explaining that can satisfy the newbie-traveler. And I've found that even with as much "prepping" as one can do ("enjoy the journey, meals, vistas, meeting new people", etc., etc.) first time travelers either LOVE IT or HATE IT.

My kids have grown up on trains, and are at the point now (12, 9, & 9) where train travel is considered the "norm" and if we don't take a train, it's "why"? (try to work in Ferry rides too....)


----------



## Bob Dylan

rrdude said:


> I'm with you on that, I've prolly taken more train-air vacation/trips than I have train-train over the years. I'd be nice if Amtrak's OTP were higher for the LD trips, expecially when you convince a friend/neighbor to "try out Amtrak" for the first time. If the LD train is 3-4 hours late, there is no amount of explaining that can satisfy the newbie-traveler. And I've found that even with as much "prepping" as one can do ("enjoy the journey, meals, vistas, meeting new people", etc., etc.) first time travelers either LOVE IT or HATE IT.
> My kids have grown up on trains, and are at the point now (12, 9, & 9) where train travel is considered the "norm" and if we don't take a train, it's "why"? (try to work in Ferry rides too....)


This is excellent,family,ferries and trains!YES!!!!!


----------



## Jillian

I am flying to Texas in June and decided to check Amtrak's website for cost comparison. I know that it would take more time for my son and I to take a train but I was unaware of the ridiculous expense. We are flying to Texas for $596.76. To take the Amtrak it would be $3,205.50 and we would only get a few days in Texas, not a week. I will fly!!!


----------



## Bob Dylan

Jillian said:


> I am flying to Texas in June and decided to check Amtrak's website for cost comparison. I know that it would take more time for my son and I to take a train but I was unaware of the ridiculous expense. We are flying to Texas for $596.76. To take the Amtrak it would be $3,205.50 and we would only get a few days in Texas, not a week. I will fly!!!


Something doesnt seem right with this picture? You dont indicate where you are coming from/to, what kind of accomadations etc. but this fare sounds way too high even @ high bucket prices! I could go all over the US for less for 30 days so if youll let us know what itenerary youd like Im sure we can help you come up with a better price for your trip, even rack up som AGR points etc. I live in Texas as do several other members on this forum and we are pretty familiar with the routes/fares/cities etc. to get here, so are our northern,southern and western brothers and sisters! Even northeasters MIGHT know? :lol: Please give us the chance to help, well do it for free and for fun!!  Flying is for the birds!


----------



## amtrakwolverine

coach is cheaper then flying depending on bucket. i can go to lax and back to roy for around $300 in coach. can't do that flying. go first class for around $800 in a low bucket roomette. first class on a plane would be more. i think this person either made up a price or there taking a whole lotta of trains to come up with that price. if they want to fly fine more room for those who LOVE to take the train.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Jillian said:


> I am flying to Texas in June and decided to check Amtrak's website for cost comparison. I know that it would take more time for my son and I to take a train but I was unaware of the ridiculous expense. We are flying to Texas for $596.76. To take the Amtrak it would be $3,205.50 and we would only get a few days in Texas, not a week. I will fly!!!


$3,205.50....

What are your dates and destination if you care to tell-- You must not be looking at coach class, this sounds like a transcontinental deluxe sleeper round trip in a high bucket.


----------



## Poindexter118

I agree flying is sometimes cheaper. But, my wife will not fly. We either drive or take the train. We find the train a relaxing way to go. It's nice to sit back and watch the scenery go by, while enjoying an adult beverage and or having a meal. :lol:


----------



## DET63

stntylr said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jackal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, come now--you've got to admit there's a certain adrenaline rush in air travel! Not even the fastest high-speed train pushes you back in your seat like a jet at take-off!
> 
> 
> 
> Acela could probably come close to emulating that push back into the seat, but they choose not to do that for passenger comfort.
> 
> Airlines of course have no choice in the matter, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, there's no one up and walking around during a aircraft take-off. And, once Acela reaches speed, it does not rotate and lift off the rails (we hope).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Maglev does.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Acela ain't no maglev.


----------



## jmbgeg

Guest said:


> With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.
> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.


Mr. Guest,

You make so many friends by calling train riders ignorant you should call a meeting of all of your train friends. :blink:

The tenor of your post does not warrant a substantive response. There are both substantive and lifesyle reasons to travel by train.


----------



## anir dendroica

It's $166 one way (low bucket coach) from south of Portland to Minneapolis, which is marginally cheaper than the cheapest flight. With a student discount, it is $284 round trip. Not that I couldn't find a flight for less than that if I really tried, but it wouldn't be much less.

Reasons I take the train whenever I make the trip:

1. I love the atmosphere and the experience, having spent many days watching freight trains in my youth.

2. I can check three bags and carry on two for free. For moving stuff between my parents' house and my home in Oregon, that saves big $$.

3. I get one day each way to relax, watch the countryside, and read a book in between the demands of grad school and the demands of family time.

4. The train uses less energy per passenger mile and contributes less to climate change than flying. (So what if buses are better - I only took Greyhound once and don't plan to repeat it.)

5. It is easier to convince friends to take me 15 miles to the train station than 100 miles to the airport, and I don't have to arrive two hours early, pack away my liquids, and watch TSA unpack my bag because my flute looked like a club on the X-ray machine (it happened).

Mark


----------



## jmbgeg

anir dendroica said:


> It's $166 one way (low bucket coach) from south of Portland to Minneapolis, which is marginally cheaper than the cheapest flight. With a student discount, it is $284 round trip. Not that I couldn't find a flight for less than that if I really tried, but it wouldn't be much less.
> Reasons I take the train whenever I make the trip:
> 
> 1. I love the atmosphere and the experience, having spent many days watching freight trains in my youth.
> 
> 2. I can check three bags and carry on two for free. For moving stuff between my parents' house and my home in Oregon, that saves big $$.
> 
> 3. I get one day each way to relax, watch the countryside, and read a book in between the demands of grad school and the demands of family time.
> 
> 4. The train uses less energy per passenger mile and contributes less to climate change than flying. (So what if buses are better - I only took Greyhound once and don't plan to repeat it.)
> 
> 5. It is easier to convince friends to take me 15 miles to the train station than 100 miles to the airport, and I don't have to arrive two hours early, pack away my liquids, and watch TSA unpack my bag because my flute looked like a club on the X-ray machine (it happened).
> 
> Mark


Bravo!


----------



## Tim_Metra

Flying is cheaper then the train?!? I do not think so; Bring tools and luggage $$, Change your ticket $$, Bring your kids $$, and Pay the new surcharge fees $$. Flying is cheaper then the train ONLY when they have special "teaser fares", but do not change your plans or bring anything!! I have been using the train for business travel and I have seen my travel expenses DECREASE!


----------



## MrFSS

Tim_Metra said:


> Flying is cheaper then the train?!? I do not think so; Bring tools and luggage $$, Change your ticket $$, Bring your kids $$, and Pay the new surcharge fees $$. Flying is cheaper then the train ONLY when they have special "teaser fares", but do not change your plans or bring anything!! I have been using the train for business travel and I have seen my travel expenses DECREASE!


What you say has merit, but what about folks who don't live near a rail connection? I traveled on business all over the country for almost 40 years before I retired. I never lived one place that had rail service, except IND with ungodly hours and frequency, so my only options were to fly or drive. I would have loved to have taken the train.

How does the business man get to Columbus, OH? To Phoenix? To anywhere in South Dakota? (Yes - I traveled there on business, too).

If we had a rail system that went everywhere more business people would use it, I'm sure.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Well Tom, technically Amtrak does go anywhere-- they just expect you to drive the rest of the way.


----------



## dlagrua

Train travel can be part of the fun of traveling. My wife and myself avoid the congested, unhealthy, filthy conditions at the airports when ever possible and take the train. Just take those rude neanderthals at airport security for starters. Then put all your personal objects, your laptop and your wifes handbag into a bin that holds thousands of dirty shoes and is never cleaned- yuucch! Finally sit in a tight seat that is about 18" wide ( and hope that the person in the center is thin) in a sealed environment where everyone is breathing the same air.

On passenger trains you can travel as ladies and gentleman. We relax and enjoy the view in our private room, eat a leisurely dinner ( with quality food) talk on our cell phones , watch a movie on our laptops and sleep in a bed at night. In most cases you pay more for a 1000+ mile journey but on 200-400 mile trips the train costs less and will get you there faster. On the NE corridor ( from Boston to Washington DC) Amtrak has the largest share of passenger traffic not the airlines. As a comparison I used to take the Acela to Washington DC on business. It was a 2 1/2 hour trip . In contrast the airline trip took about 4 hours. 1 hour to Newark Airport, 1 hour getting through secuity, a 1 hour trip and another 1/2- 1 hour travel from the airport to the city . This assumes that traffic was good and that the flight left on time which it never did. I'll take traveling on the ground any day.


----------



## rrdude

Going by rail when traveling on biz-ness requires a LOT of prep, and if I need to go to (from BWI) to Chicago, or the Twin Cities, or God Forbid Louisville, then it's just plain difficult. I have to factor in a roomette if going overnight, so the cost v. air is often no comparison.

Going to NOLA in Feb, about $250 from BWI to the Crescent City, ONE WAY in sleeper. RT airfare on SWA is just a bit less, (RT).

Luckily for me, a lot of my biz-ness travel is in the Northeast, where Amtrak does have an advantage.

Am at a dead end for a trip to Halifax thou........ Looks like Amtrak Regional ($48), Adirondack ($69), Nite-In-Hotel-In-Montreal ($100) and Via's Ocean in sleeper ($285) is about $500 give or take, not to mention meals. Then I still have to pay $200 to fly back. RT airfare is about $430.

So I'll end up paying about $300 more to take the train/air option...

I'm more than open to options.....and advice............


----------



## GregL

I am lucky, I live about 10 minutes away from a station on the CZ route and about 10 minutes away from another station on the SWC route. Also about 60 minutes away from Galesburg,IL, which has several other trains that has great connections to Chicago.

If we fly anywhere, it's at least a 2 1/2 hour ride to an airport, plus all the hassles that comes with flying. We have flown, but it's more of a time issue when we fly. I'm an uneasy flyer at best!

If at all possible we use rail.

GregL


----------



## Guest

rrdude said:


> Going by rail when traveling on biz-ness requires a LOT of prep, and if I need to go to (from BWI) to Chicago, or the Twin Cities, or God Forbid Louisville, then it's just plain difficult. I have to factor in a roomette if going overnight, so the cost v. air is often no comparison.
> Going to NOLA in Feb, about $250 from BWI to the Crescent City, ONE WAY in sleeper. RT airfare on SWA is just a bit less, (RT).
> 
> Luckily for me, a lot of my biz-ness travel is in the Northeast, where Amtrak does have an advantage.
> 
> Am at a dead end for a trip to Halifax thou........ Looks like Amtrak Regional ($48), Adirondack ($69), Nite-In-Hotel-In-Montreal ($100) and Via's Ocean in sleeper ($285) is about $500 give or take, not to mention meals. Then I still have to pay $200 to fly back. RT airfare is about $430.
> 
> So I'll end up paying about $300 more to take the train/air option...
> 
> I'm more than open to options.....and advice............


Well you can take the Cat ferry from Portland to Yarmouth. Amatrak will get you to Portland. Yarmouth to Halifax probably has a bus or you can rent a car.


----------



## volkris

Just to add a datapoint for people who doubt the claim that rail is more expensive, I travel interstate about once a month and am constantly comparing prices for rail and air. I find plane tickets to be around the same price or cheaper than Amtrak about 75% of the time, and that's been consistent over the last three years or so.

More specifically, I live in Virginia and generally travel to OH, NC, LA, and TX. YMMV, but my experience mirrors the claim.



Tim_Metra said:


> Flying is cheaper then the train?!? I do not think so; Bring tools and luggage $$, Change your ticket $$, Bring your kids $$, and Pay the new surcharge fees $$. Flying is cheaper then the train ONLY when they have special "teaser fares", but do not change your plans or bring anything!! I have been using the train for business travel and I have seen my travel expenses DECREASE!


In other words, flying is cheaper so long as you know how to work air travel. Change my ticket? Why? I got it right the first time. Check luggage? Without having to pack clothes for an extra day or two on the train I can travel light enough to carry it on easily.

Call them teaser fares, "conspiracy against Amtrak fares," or whatever else you want. Fact is, for whatever reason, flying is often cost competitive with rail.


----------



## TVRM610

volkris said:


> Just to add a datapoint for people who doubt the claim that rail is more expensive, I travel interstate about once a month and am constantly comparing prices for rail and air. I find plane tickets to be around the same price or cheaper than Amtrak about 75% of the time, and that's been consistent over the last three years or so.
> More specifically, I live in Virginia and generally travel to OH, NC, LA, and TX. YMMV, but my experience mirrors the claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Tim_Metra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flying is cheaper then the train?!? I do not think so; Bring tools and luggage $$, Change your ticket $$, Bring your kids $$, and Pay the new surcharge fees $$. Flying is cheaper then the train ONLY when they have special "teaser fares", but do not change your plans or bring anything!! I have been using the train for business travel and I have seen my travel expenses DECREASE!
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, flying is cheaper so long as you know how to work air travel. Change my ticket? Why? I got it right the first time. Check luggage? Without having to pack clothes for an extra day or two on the train I can travel light enough to carry it on easily.
> 
> Call them teaser fares, "conspiracy against Amtrak fares," or whatever else you want. Fact is, for whatever reason, flying is often cost competitive with rail.
Click to expand...

So then fly! I ain't gonna cry cause you take a plane instead of a train and neither is Amtrak. Amtrak is running many trains consistently at capacity so until they have new equipment they are hardly worried about attracting new business on LD trains.

I also don't understand the argument that amtrak should be cheaper... why? Amtrak does not exist to provide budget travel, they exist to provide rail travel and they do so at much cheaper prices then VIA Rail, at prices that people are obviously willing to pay. If amtrak brings down the price, great I'll save money too but I don't see a good reason for them to do so in most places on their system (obviously there may be some exceptions where lower fares may boost ridership and the extra capacity is already there, I'm saying system wide from what I have seen so far.).


----------



## saxman

It all just depends are where you go. My pilot buddy who knows I love trains asks me why Amtrak is more expensive. I tell him its not always. It just depends. Sure if you go NY to LA on the train, thats over $600 round trip on the train in coach. Sure you could find lots of cheaper airline tickets, but thats major hub city to another major hub city. Lots of airlines compete heavily on this major market, so prices are pretty reasonable. How about a ticket from NY to Grand Forks, ND? Or Meridian, MS to Raleigh, NC? I bet you'd have a hard time finding cheaper airline tickets in those smaller markets. Plus keep in mind that airlines probably have about 10 or 20 different fares between a city pair. The cheaper usually having many restrictions, such as which days you can travel on, one-way only or round trip rules, advance purchase rules, etc. In many cases a last minute trip, Amtrak will beat out the airlines.

I use to live in Grand Forks, ND where Northwest was the only carrier there. I never found a round trip flight there for under $300. Even just going to MSP was usually over $200. Amtrak, GFK to MSP starts at about $40 each way. A winner almost every time. I usually took the train to MSP and just flew to DFW from there. Much cheaper.

Another example I like is Dallas/Fort Worth to Austin. The very cheapest Southwest ticket is $49 one-way, plus taxes and fees. Plus you gotta buy that fare in advance, otherwise it goes to over $100. Amtrak starts $24 one-way including taxes and fees and that is usually available. The high bucket fare is $48, but I've almost never seen it that high.

So it all just depends where you go. Big city to big city, you'll probably find a good airfare. But I find that Amtrak usually takes the shorter markets, say 200 to 500 miles. Hopefully in the coming years more rail will be connected to airports so you can combine trips.


----------



## WorkinOnIt

Amtrak coach is NOT more expensive than flying. Even with about 1 month lead time for planning, I found airfare for our Houston to Kalamazoo trip to be DOUBLE the Amtrak fare.

We thought about driving it and considering we would have to overnight somewhere in a motel, we felt the Amtrak coach fare was very competitive if not cheaper than DRIVING! Straight-through driving I suppose is the rock-bottom cheapest (or sleep at a rest stop- ugh), but we are too old for that anymore. heh. Another option would have been to fly into a cheaper-market city like Grand Rapids and rent a car, but the car rental got us right back up to double the Amtrak fare, so for cost factor alone Amtrak won out for our trip.

Still, there are lots of factors to consider besides JUST the bottom line. The price of a trip is just one factor - a big factor of course, but just one. All transportation methods have pros and cons.

Just wanted to chime in here after seeing the thread header as I thought it was misleading and not representative for travel between smaller towns/cities. Sometimes I think big-city dwellers seem to forget not everyone lives in a big city.


----------



## AAARGH!

TVRM610 said:


> I also don't understand the argument that amtrak should be cheaper... why? Amtrak does not exist to provide budget travel, they exist to provide rail travel and they do so at much cheaper prices then VIA Rail, at prices that people are obviously willing to pay. If amtrak brings down the price, great I'll save money too but I don't see a good reason for them to do so in most places on their system (obviously there may be some exceptions where lower fares may boost ridership and the extra capacity is already there, I'm saying system wide from what I have seen so far.).


In a simplistic view: time = money. If it is going to take longer to get there, it should cost less. You pay a premium to get there fast. Of course when you start adding amenities such as food, sleepers, etc.... It will cost more to take a train. But when comparing coach (air) to coach (train), the trains should cost less because they take longer.

Whether we like it or not, for a large segment of the population Amtrak IS competing with the arilines.


----------



## TVRM610

This is not how the transportation system in this country works. The quickest flight is not always the most expensive. Many times I have seen Greyhound Bus fares more expensive then amtrak fares, and they take even longer most of the time (due to crazy scheduled layovers).

In some ways all transportation companies compete with each other. Heck the Amtrak trains compete with NJ Transit! For that matter the Silver Star competes with the Silver Meteor.. just because there are multiple ways to get there doesn't mean one has to have different prices. I respect your opinion but I do not think it is grounded in the reality of the world we live in. If time = money then why is fast food cheaper than a sit down meal? McDonalds delivers my burger alot faster then Ruby Tuesday so they should be charging a premium under your logic.


----------



## saxman

TVRM610 said:


> This is not how the transportation system in this country works. The quickest flight is not always the most expensive. Many times I have seen Greyhound Bus fares more expensive then amtrak fares, and they take even longer most of the time (due to crazy scheduled layovers).
> In some ways all transportation companies compete with each other. Heck the Amtrak trains compete with NJ Transit! For that matter the Silver Star competes with the Silver Meteor.. just because there are multiple ways to get there doesn't mean one has to have different prices. I respect your opinion but I do not think it is grounded in the reality of the world we live in. If time = money then why is fast food cheaper than a sit down meal? McDonalds delivers my burger alot faster then Ruby Tuesday so they should be charging a premium under your logic.


He was talking about in general, time equals money, so using that logic, slower modes 'should' be less expensive. Before deregulation of the airlines it was way more expensive to fly. Now that airlines compete and the advent of low-cost carriers, your cross-country trip can be pretty cheap sometimes.

And comparing restaurants to travel is an apple and oranges comparison. At McDonalds you're not paying for service or quality of your burger. At Ruby Tuesday you are.

So time does equal money.


----------



## Guest

TVRM610 said:


> This is not how the transportation system in this country works. The quickest flight is not always the most expensive. Many times I have seen Greyhound Bus fares more expensive then amtrak fares, and they take even longer most of the time (due to crazy scheduled layovers).
> In some ways all transportation companies compete with each other. Heck the Amtrak trains compete with NJ Transit! For that matter the Silver Star competes with the Silver Meteor.. just because there are multiple ways to get there doesn't mean one has to have different prices. I respect your opinion but I do not think it is grounded in the reality of the world we live in. If time = money then why is fast food cheaper than a sit down meal? McDonalds delivers my burger alot faster then Ruby Tuesday so they should be charging a premium under your logic.


I bet you would be pretty pissed if Ruby Tuesday handed you a smushed up Big Mac in a cardboard box.


----------



## AlcoLoco

One way flights from Los Angeles to Eugene, OR on Dec. 10, 2009 start at $228, including taxes but not checked bag fees and whatever else they come up with before then. Undiscounted Amtrak coach is $92. My roomette on the CS runs $250.20 with a senior discount. Not having to take off my shoes until I'm ready to crawl into my bunk is worth about $25.


----------



## stonesfan

AlcoLoco said:


> One way flights from Los Angeles to Eugene, OR on Dec. 10, 2009 start at $228, including taxes but not checked bag fees and whatever else they come up with before then. Undiscounted Amtrak coach is $92. My roomette on the CS runs $250.20 with a senior discount. Not having to take off my shoes until I'm ready to crawl into my bunk is worth about $25.


Having travelled on a number of international railway systems, I can absolutely confirm that Amtrak is not 'expensive' at all. Not blinding value for money, but value for money none the less.


----------



## TVRM610

Guest said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not how the transportation system in this country works. The quickest flight is not always the most expensive. Many times I have seen Greyhound Bus fares more expensive then amtrak fares, and they take even longer most of the time (due to crazy scheduled layovers).
> In some ways all transportation companies compete with each other. Heck the Amtrak trains compete with NJ Transit! For that matter the Silver Star competes with the Silver Meteor.. just because there are multiple ways to get there doesn't mean one has to have different prices. I respect your opinion but I do not think it is grounded in the reality of the world we live in. If time = money then why is fast food cheaper than a sit down meal? McDonalds delivers my burger alot faster then Ruby Tuesday so they should be charging a premium under your logic.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you would be pretty pissed if Ruby Tuesday handed you a smushed up Big Mac in a cardboard box.
Click to expand...

Haha.. that I would be. And saxman I know that it's not a direct comparison but it still fits with that logic. I do think that flying is a better value sometimes, as is drivng, as is the bus, as is taking the train! There are times when ALL forms of transit provide the most value, depending on the circumstance. Then there is a matter of preference.. for me the best value is taking the train cause i will enjoy it the most! If your whole goal is to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible then usually in the USA a direct flight will be the best option for you if it is available (depending on a few variables but certainly CHI-LAX and such).


----------



## whistler

Guest said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going by rail when traveling on biz-ness requires a LOT of prep, and if I need to go to (from BWI) to Chicago, or the Twin Cities, or God Forbid Louisville, then it's just plain difficult. I have to factor in a roomette if going overnight, so the cost v. air is often no comparison.
> Going to NOLA in Feb, about $250 from BWI to the Crescent City, ONE WAY in sleeper. RT airfare on SWA is just a bit less, (RT).
> 
> Luckily for me, a lot of my biz-ness travel is in the Northeast, where Amtrak does have an advantage.
> 
> Am at a dead end for a trip to Halifax thou........ Looks like Amtrak Regional ($48), Adirondack ($69), Nite-In-Hotel-In-Montreal ($100) and Via's Ocean in sleeper ($285) is about $500 give or take, not to mention meals. Then I still have to pay $200 to fly back. RT airfare is about $430.
> 
> So I'll end up paying about $300 more to take the train/air option...
> 
> I'm more than open to options.....and advice............
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can take the Cat ferry from Portland to Yarmouth. Amatrak will get you to Portland. Yarmouth to Halifax probably has a bus or you can rent a car.
Click to expand...

http://www.thecloudnineshuttle.com/


----------



## Guest

saxman66 said:


> Airlines may be cheaper in some markets. Some of you are only looking at major city pairs, Orlando to NYC, Chicago to DC, or LAX to Seattle. But it's a different story when you look at smaller cities that may be served by only a few regionals. Almost everytime Amtrak will be cheaper. I use to live in Grand Forks, ND which is only served by Northwest Airlines only with flight to MSP. A flight to there would be at least $200 or $300. Even more when you connected somewhere else. Amtrak OTOH was about $80 round trip. So consider the smaller city pairs too, something the airlines can't compete with. Havre to Seattle. Minot to Milwaukee, Lincoln to Cleveland. Flagstaff to LA.
> Also keep in mind airfares aren't going to be cheap anymore. I believe gone are the days of $99 fares from Chicago to LAX. Thats even if you take Southwest. I read some city pairs have gone up 4 times since last year. The article said the going rate for Houston to Providence is $749 verse $350 a year ago. Thats on the extreme side though. I think we'll see more people combine train and plane trips. We just need to make our infrastructure more intermodal.



I was looking at prices to go from Fargo ND to Seattle WA. On Amtrak it would cost me around $600.00 to fly it will only be $340.00. I hate flying with a passion but I can't justify spending that much more money and time when I actually want to be somewhere.


----------



## RTOlson

^^

Depending when you buy tickets, that trip could cost about $300 on Amtrak. By the same token, flying could cost as much as $640-900 if you wanted to leave tomorrow.

I recognize that the prices that matter most are the ones that apply for the trip that is being planned.

It's good to shop around and I'm glad that Amtrak gives me another transportation option to consider.


----------



## darien-l

The lowest-bucket price between Fargo and Seattle is $153 one-way, or $306 round-trip. Either try to get your train tickets well ahead of time (unlike airline tickets, they're fully refundable), or try to find dates with lower fares.


----------



## dlagrua

I would say that Amtrak coach is generally less expensive than flying. If you add in the bedroom like we do, then it can be more. If you book out in advance you can get a good fare or on some routes like the NE corridor, coach seats are always cheaper than flying. Also consider that some locations along Amtrak routes can be 100 or more miles away from any airport.

I am an advocate for holding the price on fares, particularly on sleepers. I expect to pay more for a train trip but not 3 or 4 times what the airlines charge. Most of our trips are overnight and it can be argued that train are slower. However, most of the LD routes travel overnight and wherever you may be, you always use that time for sleeping anyway. If bedrooms cost in the $200-$250 per night range we'll take the train everytime, rather than be subjected to the crowded, filthy, unhealthly, dehumanizing conditions of air travel. The seats on an airline are very tight for 200lb 5'11" man like myself, there is often no food available and when it is, it's of lower quality than what we probably feed to prisoners. The TSA people are often rude and overzealous and you are required to put your laptop bag and carry on stuff (including food) in a bin that has held 1000 of pairs of dirty shoes- yuuuucch, it makes me want to vomit.

Train travel is the easy going, more comfortable way to travel. There is room and plenty of it. If you go the bedroom route as we do, the privacy is terrific, the food service is usually good to very good, the scenery is intertesting and being able to shower and dress before we arrive at our destination is a plus. From an environmental standpoint the train uses FAR less fuel per passenger per mile than an airline does.

I guess that we here on this forum have an appreciation for the slower, easy going, comfortable way to travel. More seem to be traveling by rail these days so the trend towards rail travel is on the rise while air travel is on the decline.


----------



## Ryan

dlagrua said:


> If you book out in advance you can get a good fare or on some routes like the NE corridor, coach seats are always cheaper than flying.


Not always true - was looking at a trip from WAS to BOS in November with a coworker yesterday to attend the wedding of a third coworker. Southwest was able to do the roundtrip (up on Friday, back on Sunday) for $315, the cheapest Amtrak fare was $390 (both prices are approximate). She hadn't decided yet, but was leaning towards the train because (in her words) "The extra few bucks might be worth it to not have to get from Alexandria, VA to BWI, pay for parking, go through security and then sit at the airport and wait for the plane".


----------



## amamba

I completely disagree with the statement that coach seats are always cheaper than flying in the NEC. When I went to PHL a few weekends ago, there were tickets on Southwest from PHL - PVD for about $100 RT! I paid about $300 roundtrip on the acela (I know, not coach) but even the NEC regional was about $80 each way which is $160 roundtrip. Of course, that was me checking tickets two months prior to departure, so the train was no longer low bucket, but it is interesting that you can often get cheaper airfares last minute but the train only gets more expensive the longer you wait.


----------



## dlagrua

amamba said:


> I completely disagree with the statement that coach seats are always cheaper than flying in the NEC. When I went to PHL a few weekends ago, there were tickets on Southwest from PHL - PVD for about $100 RT! I paid about $300 roundtrip on the acela (I know, not coach) but even the NEC regional was about $80 each way which is $160 roundtrip. Of course, that was me checking tickets two months prior to departure, so the train was no longer low bucket, but it is interesting that you can often get cheaper airfares last minute but the train only gets more expensive the longer you wait.



From PHL to WAS on the NE regional a R/T ticket has cost about $80.00. Last time we traveled in April we only booked 12 days in advance so I don't know where your fare info is coming from. The ACELA will cost more than air travel and the time savings is minimal 10 minutes at best.


----------



## Ryan

Nobody ever flies PHL-WAS.


----------



## dlagrua

Ryan said:


> Nobody ever flies PHL-WAS.


Then price the fare from Metropark Iselin. That would be in the market where travelers have a choice to go to Newark or go Amtrak. There are flights to DC from Newark.


----------



## Ryan

Your point being what, that Amtrak is always cheaper on the corridor? That's already been proven incorrect.


----------



## PaulM

There is another Amtrak forum that prohibits posting prices. I'm beginning to see the wisdom of that edict.

Tastes Great! No. :Less Filling!


----------



## Exiled in Express

My most recent booking, St Paul-Cincinnati return:

Fly: (at needed times) $348 8 hours including security and layover at Chicago OHare

Amtrak: no southbound train on departure date, $90 northbound, 22 hours including 4 hour layover in Chicago Loop

The result is fly one way, rail the other. I view Amtrak as complimentary to air, not a direct competitor. Will it take longer? Yes, but 8 hours of travel kills the day anyway and 8 of the Amtrak hours are overnight sleeping time.


----------



## Donctor

dlagrua said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with the statement that coach seats are always cheaper than flying in the NEC. When I went to PHL a few weekends ago, there were tickets on Southwest from PHL - PVD for about $100 RT! I paid about $300 roundtrip on the acela (I know, not coach) but even the NEC regional was about $80 each way which is $160 roundtrip. Of course, that was me checking tickets two months prior to departure, so the train was no longer low bucket, but it is interesting that you can often get cheaper airfares last minute but the train only gets more expensive the longer you wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From PHL to WAS on the NE regional a R/T ticket has cost about $80.00. Last time we traveled in April we only booked 12 days in advance so I don't know where your fare info is coming from. The ACELA will cost more than air travel and the time savings is minimal 10 minutes at best.
Click to expand...


Last summer, it was $68 roundtrip PHL-NYP on the Regional. PHL-WAS roundtrip was only slightly more expensive. And these prices were what I was given the day of travel. That was convenient.

Paying Acela prices, not so convenient.


----------



## Ryan

PaulM said:


> There is another Amtrak forum that prohibits posting prices. I'm beginning to see the wisdom of that edict.


The only thing dumber than the rule is the rationale behind it. Really par for the course for the forum in question.


----------



## dlagrua

Ryan said:


> Your point being what, that Amtrak is always cheaper on the corridor? That's already been proven incorrect.


Opinion means nothing, facts do. If you want the data I will present it and offer a wager. I use to travel to DC on the Acele and NE regiona Amtrak trains frequently for business. Amtrak NEC (coach) was always less expensive than flying, parking was cheaper, the drive was shorter and the trip was quicker. Only the Acela was more expensive.


----------



## Ryan

That's great for your two city pairs. You made an absolute statement that flying was always more expensive on the NEC, several counterexamples have proven that statement false. Not sure what else you're getting at by talking about opinions and wagers, to be honest.


----------



## amamba

dlagrua said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with the statement that coach seats are always cheaper than flying in the NEC. When I went to PHL a few weekends ago, there were tickets on Southwest from PHL - PVD for about $100 RT! I paid about $300 roundtrip on the acela (I know, not coach) but even the NEC regional was about $80 each way which is $160 roundtrip. Of course, that was me checking tickets two months prior to departure, so the train was no longer low bucket, but it is interesting that you can often get cheaper airfares last minute but the train only gets more expensive the longer you wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From PHL to WAS on the NE regional a R/T ticket has cost about $80.00. Last time we traveled in April we only booked 12 days in advance so I don't know where your fare info is coming from. The ACELA will cost more than air travel and the time savings is minimal 10 minutes at best.
Click to expand...

Well I am looking at PVD - PHL, not PHL - WAS, and the prices are different between those two city pairs. Low bucket is $56/one way I believe (just by testing out some dates on amtrak.com) and I saw prices go as high as $127 one way which might not even be high bucket. Those prices are absolutely higher than some airfares. I just checked July 14 and July 18 for comparison purposes.

And again, when looking at PVD-PHL, the acela saves anywhere from 45-60 minutes over the NE regional. I have no comment about PHL - WAS, but I can clearly demonstrate that amtrak coach is not always cheaper than flying on the NEC.


----------



## PaulM

Ryan said:


> PaulM said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is another Amtrak forum that prohibits posting prices. I'm beginning to see the wisdom of that edict.
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing dumber than the rule is the rationale behind it. Really par for the course for the forum in question.
Click to expand...

When somebody claims that an itinerary "costs" $x000, we know the number is meaningless in itself. So what is dumb about the rule, unless the purpose of a forum is to waste peoples time? Normally, your posts seem to be the opposite, cutting through gibberish with the straight talk.

A couple examples:

I just purchased tickets online after looking at several dates 3 1/2 months out for the outbound and return portions of a trip. Within the few minutes it took me to make the decision, the return price had jumped $100. And this only an overnight CUM-CHI in a roomette. Think of the difference if you were planning a complicated cross country trip in a bedroom.

A couple of years ago on the SEA to MSP segment alone of a long trip, the price of a roomette varied over $300 from date x to date x+1.


----------



## Ryan

PaulM said:


> When somebody claims that an itinerary "costs" $x000, we know the number is meaningless in itself. So what is dumb about the rule, unless the purpose of a forum is to waste peoples time?


You're correct, that single number isn't all that meaningful. But, with a little further knowledge of the bucket system, you can take that number, combine it with fares on different dates and build a pretty decent picture. The rule is dumb because it prevents people from doing that and having conversations like this one - it's pretty tough to have any discussions on price when you can't actually mention any prices. The only thing dumber is the justification:


> Because of this, stating a fare at a particular time may result in another individual believing that the stated fare is still available, which it may not be.


Really? If you can't understand the fact that fares change then you shouldn't even be using a computer. Of course that fits into that sites worldview that users are dumb and need excessive and capricious moderation and that folks should feel blessed to post on their exhausted forums. I'm not really a fan of any of that, so I was rather glad to find this forum.


----------



## George

the_traveler said:


> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!


Amtrak from NY to La is now $387 !! Way too much compared to flying.


----------



## zephyr17

George said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak from NY to La is now $387 !! Way too much compared to flying.
Click to expand...

What day? It is probably fairly close to departure and may well be competitive with last minute airfares which are notoriously expensive. If they are that high, they are probably in a high bucket and close to sold out.


----------



## A.J.

I'd rather pay more for a train ticket than an airplane ticket, period. it's a more interesting, beautiful, comfortable way to travel. so even if, for whatever reason, the train ticket happened to be more expensive, in my opinion you're paying for an enjoyable experience, rather than just getting from point A to point B.


----------



## Ispolkom

George said:


> Amtrak from NY to La is now $387 !! Way too much compared to flying.


For you, yes. For someone else, perhaps, no. Every day I see people pay prices for things that I never would never pay (Mrs. Ispolkom and hair cuts, for instance), but that's the beauty of the free market.


----------



## jimhudson

Excellent point! How about womens shoes, cosmetics,$500 dinners $10,000 watches, $100,000 automobiles $1,000,000+ condos/apartments,and $500 a bottle booze and worst of all sleepers on the Cardinal,Lake Shore Ltd. and all the Western LD trains except the Coast Starlite!(still a bargain IMO!  )Value is in the eye of the beholder but we have a thing in this country (came from overseas)called buy low/sell high and never pay retail! We all have our views on whats overpriced but I think all the above,along with anything from France fits the bill for most people! :help:


----------



## henryj

The real issue here is that our means of transportation do not reflect their true costs. Neither driving, flying or taking the train or bus. Airlines are subsidized with billions of dollars of government money from air traffic controllers to airports provided by the cities, etc. Driving on highways and roads does not evern get close to reflecting it's true costs, even the gasoline tax no longer covers even the maintenance costs. We have created a monster with each transportation method competing with the others for government money to make it the most desirable. In all this confusion, rail passenger travel has clearly lost out. We need to either level the playing field by smoothing out the government hand outs or make each system pay it's own way. Let the airlines pay their true costs. Make the interstate highways toll roads. Just to name a couple. And if you think this will ever happen I have some swamp land down in Florida to sell you.


----------



## Brandon V

whenever i travel by plane its usually overseas.. and I travel with the likes of Korean Air, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, and Emirates. Those parts of the world.. they still actually have something called customer service. Whenver I've flown with these airlines, the service always has been excellent!

When I fly overseas, I fly on nothing but these airlines. forget US based airlines!


----------



## Shawn Ryu

zephyr17 said:


> George said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak from NY to La is now $387 !! Way too much compared to flying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What day? It is probably fairly close to departure and may well be competitive with last minute airfares which are notoriously expensive. If they are that high, they are probably in a high bucket and close to sold out.
Click to expand...

Its around 190 dollars if you go through Crescent-Sunset Limited route. Could be cheaper. Coach of course.


----------



## PerRock

Lets see I just did a quick search for a prices from where I live (in Michigan) to Portland, OR on Amtrak & on Kayak. Date: Oct 27th.

Amtrak Coach: $183.

Kayak (Frontier, Cheapest): $145

For the flight I have to drive (and pay for parking, or get dropped off) 45mins to the Airport. Wait in all the lines (they say 2hrs). Be subjected to searches, limited in what I can bring, I'm stuck in a seat for 7hrs.

For the train, I have a 15min drive with free parking (or get dropped off, or take the bus for a buck). Show up mins before the train comes (0.5 hrs is a good time), Have no issues with searches, lines (maybe a short one to get my tix printed). The most security I would expect is to be asked to show my ID. and I can wander the train get out and stretch my legs, etc. It does take about 50hrs tho to get there; but I can see Glacier Nat Park from the Sightseer!

For a shorter haul; I looked (same dates) at just going to CHI.

Amtrak Coach: $30 (Buiss: $42)

Kayak (United, Cheapest to ORD): $60

Same issues with the flight except flight time is 1hr. (total time is ~5+hrs, with parking and CTA back into the City)

Train; again same story just travel time is 4.5hrs and I'm in the city (say 5hrs, with getting there early & such)

And on Amtrak I can earn AGR points!

peter


----------



## AlanB

George said:


> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak from NY to La is now $387 !! Way too much compared to flying.
Click to expand...

Actually $387 is the high bucket price. Amtrak, just like airlines has different price levels. Book on the wrong day and you'll pay more than $387 for a flight between LA & NY. Book on the right day and that same trip on Amtrak will only cost you $197. Not sure how many airline seats you'll find at that price.


----------



## stonesfan

I've just come back from another trip there and included some more NE corridor train ridery. Whilst the concept of the Acela is brave, its probably poor value for money when compared to the regionals. Especially as I reckon with the same stopping pattern as the acela, more flexible and common sense operating practices, and a bit more ambition in the timetable, a regional consist would actually not be too far away from the same timing as an Acela!

Were there not services like this operating in the past called 'metroliners'?


----------



## Ispolkom

stonesfan said:


> I've just come back from another trip there and included some more NE corridor train ridery. Whilst the concept of the Acela is brave, its probably poor value for money when compared to the regionals. Especially as I reckon with the same stopping pattern as the acela, more flexible and common sense operating practices, and a bit more ambition in the timetable, a regional consist would actually not be too far away from the same timing as an Acela!


Were this the case (and I don't know one way or another) and Amtrak did run regionals as quickly as Acela does, how could they charge more for Acela?

Sure, you get free liquor in first class, and there's a certain social separation (though I've read enough about loud cellphone-using buffoons in Acela first-class cars to make me doubt that there's much separation), but the main advantage for the much-more-expensive Acela that I see is that right now it's faster. Let the little people in regionals get an equally fast ride and the market for Acela disappears.


----------



## stonesfan

Ispolkom said:


> Were this the case (and I don't know one way or another) and Amtrak did run regionals as quickly as Acela does, how could they charge more for Acela?
> 
> Sure, you get free liquor in first class, and there's a certain social separation (though I've read enough about loud cellphone-using buffoons in Acela first-class cars to make me doubt that there's much separation), but the main advantage for the much-more-expensive Acela that I see is that right now it's faster. Let the little people in regionals get an equally fast ride and the market for Acela disappears.


Yeh, that pretty much sums it up. Just a damn, damn shame the Acela doesnt get to stretch its legs more often over that difficult old route. Boston-NY in 3h would be something to boast about.


----------



## Bigval109

the_traveler said:


> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!


That is why I take two weeks vacation when I go cross country.  Riding coast to coast is what I enjoy.


----------



## dlagrua

The Acela is 3-4X the price of the NE regional train. High speed rail right? On my most recent trip to Washington DC the time savings was advertised as 10 minutes. My NE regional train arrived 15 minutes early so there was no time savings riding the Acela. The NE regional food service is also identical to that of the Acela. I do not mind paying more for quality ( as we always do on LD routes in a bedroom) but at 3-4X the cost they can keep their slightly wider seat for the 2 or even 3 hour trip. Its not worth the price.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

What if they never developed Acela and simply spent all that time and money upgrading the right-of-way to improve the timing of the NE Regional trains? Might have been money better spent with faster average speeds for more people.


----------



## stonesfan

daxomni said:


> What if they never developed Acela and simply spent all that time and money upgrading the right-of-way to improve the timing of the NE Regional trains? Might have been money better spent with faster average speeds for more people.


The most infuriating thing to happen to me on an Acela was a blistering run out of Boston, a nice clean cruise through CT, but then staggering along being overtaken by TWO commuter trains en route to NY!!! Got in 15 late. I know there are track ownership reasons for this, but total, total nonsense!!! The system where I live has some issues that defy belief, but for a premier express service to get blitzed by a couple of relative chugalongs, well, words fail me.

Agree upgrading the route where possible would have been a good idea. Theres simply too much staggering along at 40-50mph on seemingly well laid 4 track sections!


----------



## AlanB

daxomni said:


> What if they never developed Acela and simply spent all that time and money upgrading the right-of-way to improve the timing of the NE Regional trains? Might have been money better spent with faster average speeds for more people.


Well the "Acela project" as it were, wasn't just about building Acela. In fact I believe that far more was spent electrifying the NEC from New Haven to Boston than was actually spent on the trains. And without Acela, I suspect that Amtrak's share of the market would not be what it is today. It was already slipping some due in part to time keeping issues with the Metroliner's, but also because they were getting old and tired. People needed a newer more modern looking train to keep them coming back.

And having Acela has enabled Amtrak to increase it's over all capacity on the NEC, as well as elsewhere in the country. Those cars used for the Metroliner service have been refurbished and placed in other places to beef up service.

Finally, the powers that be at that time were also betting that being able to point at the shiny new trains and say "see, look what they can do" would then make it easier for them to get additional funding for track improvements south of NY. Instead opponents seized upon that and said "you spent all of that money for a train that can only go 150 MPH for 18 miles of it's 450 mile journey!"


----------



## stonesfan

I think the average speed is the real problem here, not so much the lack of 150mph running?

The section South of NY is faster despite the Acela not getting to 150. More long stretches of 100-135mph and not too many CT-esque staggering zones.


----------



## Ryan

dlagrua said:


> The NE regional food service is also identical to that of the Acela.


Maybe in business class - the food in Acela First isn't available anywhere else.


----------



## David

It's true, Amtrak is way too expensive and slow. I'm sorry. We need to invest in high speed rail in this country for long distance destinations. It is just not an efficient way to travel if you ask me, unless you have a ton of time and extra money. If I want to take a train from Reno to Denver in the western United States it's ridiculous it will cost $150 one way and take 23 hours. Pressure your politician to invest in high speed rail so we can compete with other countries and not be forced to drive or fly everywhere.


----------



## JJJJ

jackal said:


> I have tried to pressure Kayak, Sidestep (now owned by Kayak), and some of the online travel agencies like Travelocity, etc., to include Amtrak routings in their ticket search results. Travel agencies can sell Amtrak tickets, I believe, so Amtrak city pairs and fares are published to GDS systems. Therefore, it shouldn't be too difficult for some of these sites to add Amtrak to their results.
> 
> I believe that if Amtrak travel were more visible to the general public, people might be more likely to book it--especially if the fare is less! (Most of our population probably doesn't even know Amtrak exists!)
> 
> I've also written Amtrak and asked them to share their data with Google Transit--I imagine a day where I can search for directions from the Queen Mary in Long Beach to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in DC and receive a seamless set of directions across multiple transit systems from start to finish!
> 
> I think both of these options would help increase train travel immensely...


Yes, travel agents can book Amtrak like any other airline, the trains are in the travel system.

Amtrak California trains are in google transit.

As saxman, dont look at major city pairs, look at stops along the way.

A 45 minute flight might cost more than a 6 hour flight, depending on the market.

Amtrak is usually the opposite, in that shorter trips cost less.


----------



## RCrierie

Guest said:


> I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train.


It would have cost me $200 round trip for tickets from Dulles/Reagan National to Orlando International for STS-135. But I chose the Silver Service instead; despite it costing $270 round trip.

Why?

1.) I don't like being groped at airports.

2.) MCO Orlando has looooooooooong grope lines, all the worse that it's peak holiday season for the parks around Orlando; so you have a lot of KIDS and strollers.

3.) I have always been delayed 5+ hours at Orlando each time I've flown from there to DC.


----------



## dlagrua

After reading most of the posts here; I guess that its obvious that train travel is not for everyone but at similar service levels train travel should usually be less than airline travel. If you compare coach travel fares and first class vs sleeper fares I'd still have to give the edge to rail travel.

The big argument is that rail travel is slow and this is true. Its not for the traveler in a hurry. However on the 17-28 hr train trips that we normally take; they feel like they are going quickly. Since we opt for room privacy, have a bed, plenty of space, are in the dining car about 3 hours (three meals), spend 6-8 hrs sleeping, time in the shower and in the lounge cafe car; before you know it we are at our destination. On our last Crescent journey to NOL, we didn't even have time to watch movies on my laptop.

In contrast everytime that I have been on a plane the trip has been crowded, exausting, tiring,and unpleasant. After TSA strips away all of your dignity,they dose you with radiation, everyone is then squeezed into a small compartment to breathe filthy virus polluted low oxygen air, eat lousy food (if you can even get any at all). All thats left for TSA to do is to dole out the yellow I.D. badges that will say "air traveler"! Airline travel is fast becoming travel, Auschwitz style.


----------



## Ryan

dlagrua said:


> All thats left for TSA to do is to dole out the yellow I.D. badges that will say "air traveler"! Airline travel is fast becoming travel, Auschwitz style.


Boy am I glad that a 9 month old thread was raised from the dead so that we could read trash like this.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Ryan said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> All thats left for TSA to do is to dole out the yellow I.D. badges that will say "air traveler"! Airline travel is fast becoming travel, Auschwitz style.
> 
> 
> 
> Boy am I glad that a 9 month old thread was raised from the dead so that we could read trash like this.
Click to expand...

Why it´s true. Airline travel is no longer luxurious and wondrous like it used to be when it first started. Now it´s just a means to get to point A and point B and that´s it. It´s for people who are in a hurry. There is nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.You no longer get a 3 course meal on flights now your lucky if you get a bag of peanuts with more then 3 in the bag and some airlines you have to pay for those bags of peanuts.


----------



## Ryan

No, it isn't true. Comparisons to the treatment of air travelers to the treatment of Jews (and other "undesirables") under the Third Reich are wildly overblown and inappropriate.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Ryan said:


> No, it isn't true. Comparisons to the treatment of air travelers to the treatment of Jews (and other "undesirables") under the Third Reich are wildly overblown and inappropriate.


Agree!


----------



## amtrakwolverine

So i didn´t catch on to his Jews comment so what? What I said still stands. There's nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.


----------



## Guest

amtrakwolverine said:


> So i didn´t catch on to his Jews comment so what? What I said still stands. There's nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.


It never was. Its not an ocean cruise


----------



## Guest

Why should air travel have to be luxurious? You can still buy a first class ticket if you want to feel special or if that is not enough just charter your own flight. Flights are cheap these days and you get what you pay for.


----------



## RCrierie

There's no denying that a lot of the romance has gone out of air travel these days, largely because of the intrusive security measures instituted after 9/11.

It's no longer enough to get to the airport about 45 minutes before your flight (to be sure), -- you now have to budget at least 1.5 hours -- maybe two if you are flying out of a popular tourist destination -- to clear security. Also, you have to pack special -- liquids no larger than x ounces, and god help you if you have any medicines or assistive devices. It means you now have to go to a store before your flight to pick up 'travel size' toothpaste tubes, or stop at a store after your flight to get toiletries.

It's an added hassle that makes flying not fun.

Also, you can no longer have family members wait at the gate with you -- now everyone needs a ticket; which also eliminates a lot of the lure of going to the airport and simply....watching planes take off.

This also means they can't greet you at the gate anymore.

That said -- they haven't eliminated windows on planes ---- yet. Which means that air travel is still a bit fun if you have a window seat to look out. It's just that the negatives are starting to outweigh the experience of looking out during takeoff/landing or cruising at 30,000 ft.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Guest said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> So i didn´t catch on to his Jews comment so what? What I said still stands. There's nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> It never was. Its not an ocean cruise
Click to expand...

When flying first became popular it was advertised has being luxurious. you could get a five coarse meal and sexy flight attendants would bring it to your seat. The romance of flying is gone.


----------



## JayPea

Ryan said:


> No, it isn't true. Comparisons to the treatment of air travelers to the treatment of Jews (and other "undesirables") under the Third Reich are wildly overblown and inappropriate.



When I saw that I just    . I was going to respond, but knew Ryan would probably see this post.......and he has a much better way with words than I do. And would put it so much better than I could. And he didn't disappoint! :lol: I couldn't agree more with Ryan.


----------



## guest

amtrakwolverine said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> 
> So i didn´t catch on to his Jews comment so what? What I said still stands. There's nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> It never was. Its not an ocean cruise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When flying first became popular it was advertised has being luxurious. you could get a five coarse meal and sexy flight attendants would bring it to your seat. The romance of flying is gone.
Click to expand...

That is still availabe on longer flights.But I do not know where you ever saw 5 course meals.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

amtrakwolverine said:


> So i didn´t catch on to his Jews comment so what? What I said still stands. There's nothing luxurious about air travel anymore.


Do you also lament the $5,000 inflation-adjusted domestic airfares that accompanied those fancier flights in the days before you were born? Luxurious air travel still exists to this very day in the form of charter contracts and fractional ownership arrangements. If and when you're willing and able to pay pre-deregulation airfares those same luxurious flights that catered to the rich and famous back then are ready and waiting to serve _you_ today. Enjoy!


----------



## VentureForth

Most non-American airliners offer incredible experiences for their first class passengers. Most American carriers offer descent first class service ag a much lower price than their international counterparts and it shows.

If you want to have a five course meal and a sexy flight attendant to bring it to you, rent a Gulfstream at $5k+ per hour.


----------



## Ryan

JayPea said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't true. Comparisons to the treatment of air travelers to the treatment of Jews (and other "undesirables") under the Third Reich are wildly overblown and inappropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw that I just    . I was going to respond, but knew Ryan would probably see this post.......and he has a much better way with words than I do. And would put it so much better than I could. And he didn't disappoint! :lol: I couldn't agree more with Ryan.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words - I appreciate it.

I just don't get how some people can lack such a fundamental perspective on things...


----------



## benlugosch

I still don't get it. I like trains. It's a much more humane way of traveling than flying, but the price is insanely high. I looked into prices from Charlotte, NC to Syracuse, and it was double the airfare. I'd take a hit on the time, nearly ten times the flight, but I can't justify both the time and the price. One year, I packed up my three daughters for train trip to south Florida because Amtrak was offering an outstanding price. The train, due at 1 AM, was five hours late in arriving, and three hours late leaving our station in south Florida (even though it was the point of origin for the route). I'd still take the train again. It's green and much more comfortable than flying -- if the prices weren't so outrageous.

What I don't understand is why, if a train moves goods and people more efficiently, they can't bring their price down to something a little more affordable. The complaint that tickets have to be expensive because so few ride the train is inverting the cause and effect. Try offering a year of dramatically reduced prices across the system and see what happens. If it doesn't work, then shut it down.


----------



## Ryan

benlugosch said:


> What I don't understand is why, if a train moves goods and people more efficiently, they can't bring their price down to something a little more affordable.


Compare how much your trip on that airplane is subsidized (a lot) to how much your train trip is (not much).


> Try offering a year of dramatically reduced prices across the system and see what happens. If it doesn't work, then shut it down.


This has three arguments against it:

1. Amtrak doesn't need to lower prices - it can be argued that Amtrak has been more proactive in keeping ticket prices high over the last year, and at the same time had record high ridership.

2. Amtrak doesn't have the capacity to carry the increased ridership that you're envisioning. Trains are running full, or nearly so.

3. Since you're not going to increase ridership greatly by lowering prices, all you're going to do is lower the amount of income that Amtrak takes in, causing it to need more Federal subsidy money, which has no chance of happening.

In a perfect world, lower prices are great. But in that perfect world, Amtrak would have 3 times as much rolling stock and have a much wider variety of routes to take advantage of the increased ridership that those lower prices would bring, and trains would be a much more significant piece of the transportation pie. Sadly, here in the real world that isn't going to happen any time soon.


----------



## guest

VentureForth said:


> Most non-American airliners offer incredible experiences for their first class passengers. Most American carriers offer descent first class service ag a much lower price than their international counterparts and it shows.
> 
> If you want to have a five course meal and a sexy flight attendant to bring it to you, rent a Gulfstream at $5k+ per hour.


Hopefully, the descent service comes well after the ascent service. And on transatlantic and transpacific flights, U.S. airlines' services are nearly identical to those of overseas carriers in all classes, because that is the point where they have REAL competition, as opposed to the collusion that occurs within the U.S.


----------



## Guest

benlugosch said:


> I still don't get it. I like trains. It's a much more humane way of traveling than flying, but the price is insanely high. I looked into prices from Charlotte, NC to Syracuse, and it was double the airfare. I'd take a hit on the time, nearly ten times the flight, but I can't justify both the time and the price. One year, I packed up my three daughters for train trip to south Florida because Amtrak was offering an outstanding price. The train, due at 1 AM, was five hours late in arriving, and three hours late leaving our station in south Florida (even though it was the point of origin for the route). I'd still take the train again. It's green and much more comfortable than flying -- if the prices weren't so outrageous.
> 
> What I don't understand is why, if a train moves goods and people more efficiently, they can't bring their price down to something a little more affordable. The complaint that tickets have to be expensive because so few ride the train is inverting the cause and effect. Try offering a year of dramatically reduced prices across the system and see what happens. If it doesn't work, then shut it down.


Why _should_ the price be the same or cheaper? You said yourself that the Amtrak ride is more comfortable, etc. It would probably be cheaper to drive your family than fly or train, but nobody asks why a car trip is cheaper than airfare or Amtrak. You are paying for a service that you prefer.

There is currently much more demand for air service from Charlotte to Syracuse than rail service. They can fill a few planes a day from point to point and pay their employees to handle hundreds or thousands of passengers a day rather than Amtrak having to pay their employees to serve the few passengers that may elect to take Amtrak from Charlotte to Syracuse.

Amtrak's fare structure is based on distance rather than how airlines price by market. Because Amtrak would be taking you from Charlotte to Syracuse through several other cities, Amtrak will have to charge you more to go from Charlotte to Syracuse than the fare from Charlotte to Charlottesville, Charlotte to DC, Charlotte to Philadelphia, Charlotte to Newark, etc. When trains are full, it would make no sense for Amtrak to sell you a cheap seat form Charlotte to Syracuse when they could get more money for the seat that you're occupying from someone traveling from Charlotte to Washington, DC.

Where Amtrak is almost always a better deal than flying is for purchases/reservations very close to departure date and for shorter distance trips.

Nobody asks why the airlines charge so much more to fly from Charlotte to Charlottesville than Amtrak charges, but this is a particular market of where Amtrak is always a tremendous value.


----------



## Ispolkom

guest said:


> And on transatlantic and transpacific flights, U.S. airlines' services are nearly identical to those of overseas carriers in all classes, because that is the point where they have REAL competition, as opposed to the collusion that occurs within the U.S.


That certainly hasn't been my experience on transatlantic flights. In coach Virgin Atlantic is clearly superior to Northwest or Delta. Heck, I enjoyed a KLM plane and crew that was codeshared as a Delta flight much more than I did the return flight, which was a Delta plane and crew codeshared KLM. I'd like to imagine that my flight next week on American Airlines to Rome will be better, but my hopes aren't very high.

With regard to Amtrak's prices, Ryan hit the nail on the head. Why lower fares if long-distance trains are filled to capacity at present prices?


----------



## Texan Eagle

Ryan said:


> 1. Amtrak doesn't need to lower prices - it can be argued that Amtrak has been more proactive in keeping ticket prices high over the last year, and at the same time had record high ridership.


Record high ridership compared to what? It's own meager ridership figures of past years. That's like a frog living in a well who was able to swim only 10 feet per day claiming record high when it is able to swim 15 feet once. It projects it is a great achievement, not knowing (or not wanting to be told) that frogs in rivers outside can swim 100 feet per day effortlessly.

Agreed Amtrak does not have enough rolling stock or infrastructure or financial ability to expand itself, but that being said, I still find the price structure of Amtrak quite insane. The coach fares are themselves equal or higher than Economy class airfares between most major city pairs, and one level above it you go straight to roomettes and bedrooms which are ridiculously expensive (please don't point out a few random city pairs which have very low bucket sleepers, I am talking about a general trend I have observed for whatever trains I wanted to take which includes TE, SWC, LSL, CL among others). This price structure puts long distance train travel out of contention for single folks like myself, because either I have to pay substantial fare and spend two or three nights sitting/crouching in a Coach seat (it may have generous legroom and incline and all, but frankly it is not a substitute for a bed for a a night sleep) or pay an insanely high price and book a roomette meant for two people even if I am travelling alone. I do not know the reason why does Amtrak not consider having an intermediate class, like someone mentioned in a post at the very start of this thread- a no-frills sleeper class. Buy a ticket and you get a seat during daytime which doubles up as bunk beds during night time, one bunk per person, no need to book entire cabins or rooms. This is the concept used in "Hard sleeper" class in Chinese trains and "AC Sleeper 3 Tier" in Indian trains- you get a bunk bed, clean sheets, a blanket and a pillow.. no free meals or turn down service or private restrooms, though there are common-use restrooms in every car. In these days of not-so-great economy, I am positive a lot of folks would be willing to take the train over a plane or driving long distances if it costs considerably lesser than plane tickets while offering a basic facility to sleep during the night. I, for one, would surely move almost all my travel to train then!


----------



## Ryan

And in a perfect world, Amtrak might be able to offer that kind of a service.

Here in the real world with the rolling stock that Amtrak owns, that isn't going to happen.


----------



## Ziv

colobok said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to lower fares, another major obstacle for most people is time. Given a choice to fly from NY to LA for $300 in a few hours or take Amtrak for $150 and get there in a few days, most people would chose to fly - even though it cost more! Also, many people only have a week's vacation. Taking Amtrak cross country both ways would use up most of their vacation time!
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change  Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. In Ukraine where I am from almost all trains are "sleepers". It's not luxury, it's just the way trains should be. The standard room is for 4 adults (4 beds). So even if you travel for 2 hours you get a bed. The size of the room is approx. size of Amtrak "bedroom". You may also buy "luxury" room for 2 adults with the same size. No toilet or shower in the room, only a public restroom in the car. No meal included, you may go to the dinner car and buy meals yourself. This way one car takes 52 passengers, passengers get more room than in Amtrak roomettes, they pay for travel only, not for meals, shower, etc. and tickets for overnight trip are as low as $10-20. This is the way it should be. Price of $950 for one night in bedroom on Florida trains that I see very often is nonsense. I took it once (for points, not for cash!) and it was not any special from any Ukrainian trains for $10-20.
Click to expand...

I agree with Colobok on the European couchette type of railcars being something Amtrak should look into. There are as many types as there are countries, but most have the aisle/hallway on one side of the car and either semi-open or nearly fully enclosed rooms with 4 to 6 seats that fold into 3' by 6'6" beds. They are pretty comfortable, and I am 6'4". Most of the cars for nearly every train convert into couchettes so there is none of the half-sleep in coach that a lot of us have suffered through. The porter converts the couch into 4 beds (6 beds in second class, but that is a bit crowded) at 10 pm, you kick off your shoes, read for a bit, nod off and wake up at 7 am when the porter comes back through to convert the bunks back into couch seats. The couches aren't quite as comfortable as reclining Amtrak seat, quite, but the bunks are much more comfortable than an Amtrak seat to sleep in. No comparison. With the View Liner and Dining cars to hang out in, a Couchette car is a great value for someone that is traveling overnight but doesn't want to spring for a roomette. It would be cool if Amtrak would convert a dozen cars to couchettes and sell them at a slight premium from the regular coach on a couple routes, but with no meals included.

They might be surprised by the reception.

Ziv


----------



## amtrakwolverine

You want amtrak to offer services like the TGV etc Then cough up the money to make it happen cause our goverment is doing everything in there power to kill amtrak. The american government is anti-rail and will always be.


----------



## amamba

I don't think american's will go for couchettes. Americans crave privacy and don't want to share things with strangers.


----------



## Anderson

A couple of points:

1) The fare isn't _strictly_ distance-based. Plug in WAS-ATL and WAS-NOL for an example (though that _is_ an odd situation)...basically, if load factors are _really_ bad on part of a route, the price may come down to try and entice through traffic.

2) I agree on Americans not going for Couchettes. Heck, VIA up in Canada is having trouble selling sections as I understand it, and the mechanics of a section vs. a couchette aren't _that_ different. You'd be better off shooting for slumbercoaches again.

3) I'd like to see the bottom line on those Ukranian trains you mentioned. If I had to guess, they're netting a decent state subsidy of some kind (as is the case with most train systems). The other thing is that airline service in that part of the world is...shall we say "not the best", as I understand it.

Edit:

4) The airfare/rail coach fare numbers are a mixed bag. I'm actually taking the train from Virginia to Iowa at Christmas, and I got a low bucket sleeper WAS-CHI/CHI-WAS. The cost of the rail trip, round trip, was less than a six-month advance airline booking direct into Des Moines. With some major markets, airfares do come down on volume (and Amtrak fares go up on higher buckets), but it's variable based on demand and capacity.

5) As to the international fares...remind me how much you're paying for that service you get on international flights?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

It's amazing to me how nothing can be done to improve Amtrak unless we can find a "perfect world" to fund it. I suppose every country with a far smaller economy and far fewer resources that has eclipsed Amtrak's offerings is living in a perfect world then. I guess back when America had the world's most advanced passenger rail network we must have lived in a perfect world ourselves. Because otherwise none of those advances would have ever been possible.


----------



## Texan Eagle

Ryan said:


> And in a perfect world, Amtrak might be able to offer that kind of a service.
> 
> Here in the real world with the rolling stock that Amtrak owns, that isn't going to happen.


Aah, so Asian countries like China, India that offer such services are in the perfect world. Gotcha!

Can someone refresh me again about superpowers and Third World countries?


----------



## Ziv

amamba said:


> I don't think american's will go for couchettes. Americans crave privacy and don't want to share things with strangers.


Amamba, I agree that many Americans crave privacy, but if you give us a chance to travel in Amtrak type comfort, but upgraded to a real bunk type bed at night instead of a reclining type seat that is almost impossible to sleep in, most of us will gladly kick off our shoes and sleep in a couchette. Privacy is nice, but having a cheap way to travel while seeing all the best of our countryside AND sleeping soundly at night? I will gladly share my room with 3 other people if I can sleep in a bunk instead of trying to sleep, unsuccessfully, in an Amtrak coach chair.


----------



## Ryan

When it comes to rail funding, yeah - pretty much.

It's pretty simple. Amtrak doesn't have the kind of cars needed. Amtrak doesn't have the money to buy the kind of car needed. Any speculation that they should offer that kind of service ignores the reality of the situation.


----------



## Ryan

Texas Sunset said:


> It's amazing to me how nothing can be done to improve Amtrak unless we can find a "perfect world" to fund it.


It's amazing to me that you can take my comments and twist them into "nothing can be done to improve Amtrak". There are plenty of things that can (and are) being done. Spending money that they don't have for cars that it isn't clear that there is any demand for isn't one of them.


----------



## eagle628

Texan Eagle said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in a perfect world, Amtrak might be able to offer that kind of a service.
> 
> Here in the real world with the rolling stock that Amtrak owns, that isn't going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Aah, so Asian countries like China, India that offer such services are in the perfect world. Gotcha!
> 
> Can someone refresh me again about superpowers and Third World countries?
Click to expand...


With regards to rail funding, yes, they are in the perfect world. China has a government willing to spend vast sums of money to build an extensive rail system very rapidly. We don't, and our rail network reflects that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I refuse to argue with anyone who believes in the existence of a perfect world or a perfect country or a perfect budget. You might as well be arguing about the existence of Santa Clause with a five year old. Get real people.


----------



## Ryan

Texas Sunset said:


> I refuse to argue with anyone who believes in the existence of a perfect world or a perfect country or a perfect budget. You might as well be arguing about the existence of Santa Clause with a five year old. Get real people.


The existence of a perfect world is superfluous.

The fact is that Amtrak has neither the kind of cars needed nor the money to buy the kind of car needed, so any speculation that they should offer that kind of service is pretty much a waste of time. It makes more sense to advocate for things that are within the realm of possibility.


----------



## Shawn Ryu

Is it me or is NE Regional trains cheaper these days? Its 45 dollars from NYP to BOS. It used to be at least 60 for 7 AM train.


----------



## tubaia

Anderson said:


> A couple of points:
> 
> . . .
> 
> 4) The airfare/rail coach fare numbers are a mixed bag. I'm actually taking the train from Virginia to Iowa at Christmas, and I got a low bucket sleeper WAS-CHI/CHI-WAS. The cost of the rail trip, round trip, was less than a six-month advance airline booking direct into Des Moines. With some major markets, airfares do come down on volume (and Amtrak fares go up on higher buckets), but it's variable based on demand and capacity.
> 
> . . .


I have to agree. Airfares may be cheap when flying to and from major markets, but when you aren't flying out of New York, Chicago, or LA, the train can actually be cheaper. We just rode from Iowa to Philly, and it was less than $250 round trip for each of us. It would have been closer to $350 to $400 each for air, and as much as $750 from a smaller airport.


----------



## George Harris

Ziv said:


> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change  Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. In Ukraine where I am from almost all trains are "sleepers". It's not luxury, it's just the way trains should be. The standard room is for 4 adults (4 beds). So even if you travel for 2 hours you get a bed. The size of the room is approx. size of Amtrak "bedroom". You may also buy "luxury" room for 2 adults with the same size. No toilet or shower in the room, only a public restroom in the car. No meal included, you may go to the dinner car and buy meals yourself. This way one car takes 52 passengers, passengers get more room than in Amtrak roomettes, they pay for travel only, not for meals, shower, etc. and tickets for overnight trip are as low as $10-20. This is the way it should be. Price of $950 for one night in bedroom on Florida trains that I see very often is nonsense. I took it once (for points, not for cash!) and it was not any special from any Ukrainian trains for $10-20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with Colobok on the European couchette type of railcars being something Amtrak should look into. There are as many types as there are countries, but most have the aisle/hallway on one side of the car and either semi-open or nearly fully enclosed rooms with 4 to 6 seats that fold into 3' by 6'6" beds. They are pretty comfortable, and I am 6'4". Most of the cars for nearly every train convert into couchettes so there is none of the half-sleep in coach that a lot of us have suffered through. The porter converts the couch into 4 beds (6 beds in second class, but that is a bit crowded) at 10 pm, you kick off your shoes, read for a bit, nod off and wake up at 7 am when the porter comes back through to convert the bunks back into couch seats. The couches aren't quite as comfortable as reclining Amtrak seat, quite, but the bunks are much more comfortable than an Amtrak seat to sleep in. No comparison. With the View Liner and Dining cars to hang out in, a Couchette car is a great value for someone that is traveling overnight but doesn't want to spring for a roomette. It would be cool if Amtrak would convert a dozen cars to couchettes and sell them at a slight premium from the regular coach on a couple routes, but with no meals included.
> 
> They might be surprised by the reception.
> 
> Ziv
Click to expand...

If we back up to the pre-streamliner era, that is trains as they were up to immediately post WW2, for the most part sleepers in the US were very similar in concept to the current the current "couchette" They were called sections. you had an upper and a lower berth with a dividing wall between each section. In the daytime there were a pair of facing seats. I can't describe quite how they were set up right now, but the upper berth folded up against the wall and ceiling. The berths were sold individually. The upper berth with no window was cheaper than the lower. In the early days of room sleepers, there were some that built with all. A common arrangement was 6-6-4, that is, 6 sections, 6 roomettes, 4 double bedrooms. Apparently the demand for sections was such that not many of these cars were built. Thus, the most common makeup of the post WW2 sleepers was the 10&6, that is 10 roomettes adn 6 double bedrooms.

Part of the issue might be that of concept. Even though the common term for coach was "daycoach" for nost people of normal financial circumstances the standard method of travel, if not on somebody else's nickel, was coach, whether overnight or not. For sure, of the 30 odd overnight train trips I made between the ages of 17 and 27, only 2 nights were in a sleeper. Of the dozen or so overnights made since, 3 were in sleeper.

Before jumping into the idea of the couchette cars or a new version of the section sleeper, we had better be sure that there is a market for that type of service. We may find that there is not. There are quite a few people that if given the choice of spending the night in a moving bed or spending a night in a reclining chair and saving $100 or so, you might find that most will take the money.

If anything, the concept of sitting up while traveling, even for very long trips, airline service has implanted the thought of being in a seat while traveling even more strongly into people's minds.


----------



## Anderson

George Harris said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, but for overnight trips like Chicago to DC, I wouldn't mind sacrificing a rough night to save $80. With the price it is now, it makes absolutely no economic sense to take the train. If they lower fares on these overnight trains, then I am sure far more would flock to using them because money is always the prime motivator of change  Then my hope would be Amtrak introduce some type of budget sleeper accommodation, i.e no meals included, no shower, just a flat bunk bed. Even this would have to be 25-50% cheaper than flying for people to seriously use it.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. In Ukraine where I am from almost all trains are "sleepers". It's not luxury, it's just the way trains should be. The standard room is for 4 adults (4 beds). So even if you travel for 2 hours you get a bed. The size of the room is approx. size of Amtrak "bedroom". You may also buy "luxury" room for 2 adults with the same size. No toilet or shower in the room, only a public restroom in the car. No meal included, you may go to the dinner car and buy meals yourself. This way one car takes 52 passengers, passengers get more room than in Amtrak roomettes, they pay for travel only, not for meals, shower, etc. and tickets for overnight trip are as low as $10-20. This is the way it should be. Price of $950 for one night in bedroom on Florida trains that I see very often is nonsense. I took it once (for points, not for cash!) and it was not any special from any Ukrainian trains for $10-20.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with Colobok on the European couchette type of railcars being something Amtrak should look into. There are as many types as there are countries, but most have the aisle/hallway on one side of the car and either semi-open or nearly fully enclosed rooms with 4 to 6 seats that fold into 3' by 6'6" beds. They are pretty comfortable, and I am 6'4". Most of the cars for nearly every train convert into couchettes so there is none of the half-sleep in coach that a lot of us have suffered through. The porter converts the couch into 4 beds (6 beds in second class, but that is a bit crowded) at 10 pm, you kick off your shoes, read for a bit, nod off and wake up at 7 am when the porter comes back through to convert the bunks back into couch seats. The couches aren't quite as comfortable as reclining Amtrak seat, quite, but the bunks are much more comfortable than an Amtrak seat to sleep in. No comparison. With the View Liner and Dining cars to hang out in, a Couchette car is a great value for someone that is traveling overnight but doesn't want to spring for a roomette. It would be cool if Amtrak would convert a dozen cars to couchettes and sell them at a slight premium from the regular coach on a couple routes, but with no meals included.
> 
> They might be surprised by the reception.
> 
> Ziv
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we back up to the pre-streamliner era, that is trains as they were up to immediately post WW2, for the most part sleepers in the US were very similar in concept to the current the current "couchette" They were called sections. you had an upper and a lower berth with a dividing wall between each section. In the daytime there were a pair of facing seats. I can't describe quite how they were set up right now, but the upper berth folded up against the wall and ceiling. The berths were sold individually. The upper berth with no window was cheaper than the lower. In the early days of room sleepers, there were some that built with all. A common arrangement was 6-6-4, that is, 6 sections, 6 roomettes, 4 double bedrooms. Apparently the demand for sections was such that not many of these cars were built. Thus, the most common makeup of the post WW2 sleepers was the 10&6, that is 10 roomettes adn 6 double bedrooms.
> 
> Part of the issue might be that of concept. Even though the common term for coach was "daycoach" for nost people of normal financial circumstances the standard method of travel, if not on somebody else's nickel, was coach, whether overnight or not. For sure, of the 30 odd overnight train trips I made between the ages of 17 and 27, only 2 nights were in a sleeper. Of the dozen or so overnights made since, 3 were in sleeper.
> 
> Before jumping into the idea of the couchette cars or a new version of the section sleeper, we had better be sure that there is a market for that type of service. We may find that there is not. There are quite a few people that if given the choice of spending the night in a moving bed or spending a night in a reclining chair and saving $100 or so, you might find that most will take the money.
> 
> If anything, the concept of sitting up while traveling, even for very long trips, airline service has implanted the thought of being in a seat while traveling even more strongly into people's minds.
Click to expand...

Well, there's one way to "test market" something like this: Do a deal with one of the major European RRs to buy a couple of used cars (5-10, depending on the routes you want to try them on), rehab them, and stick them on the route of your choice. It's not a risk-free approach, and there are certainly some risks that would be in the mix, but it'd be cheaper than buying a big order and then having to chuck them because you can't fill them at any price and are for all intents and purposes stuck with a low-capacity coach car...and you could probably punt the cars to a third-world country when you're done with the test (as happens with a lot of European cars).

The biggest problem with this is likely to be that passenger cars in the US are basically rolling tanks...to have _anyone_ die onboard an intercity train car in the US, you don't just need a crash, you need something catastrophic (i.e. going off a bridge into a river or getting slammed into by a semi with a full tank of gas) on top of the collision/derailment. It's worth noting the dog that doesn't bark in all of these collision cases: People get thrown around, someone might break an arm from a bad fall or twist an ankle because they go down the stairs wrong, but very rarely does anyone die. European cars have a lot less steel and so forth, and probably wouldn't pass muster.

Edit:

The next best option would be to throw a few in with a second Viewliner II order (i.e. just alter the module that goes into one of them).

With all of that said, I don't think these will fly if there's not some option to "buy out" a room (i.e. if you have three people traveling together, have Arrow allow you to simply buy the fourth slot but note that it's vacant). This is, as I understand it, pretty standard procedure in China, and is likely not unheard of in Europe or India, either. Even with this option, I think it would be a hard sell to Americans...either folks won't want to pay the upcharge and will just stick with Coach, or they'll want to have a private accommodation.

If you went with Pullman sections, this would be a bit easier (just have Arrow offer "lower berth", "upper berth", and "section", where the third option would reserve an upper and a lower in the same section). Now, while I've wanted to take a berth/section in Canada for the novelty, I'm not sure where I'd fall on springing for a roomette versus getting a berth/section. When you get right down to it, it would come down to the options available and the relative cost (i.e. being pushed into the high bucket on the Lake Shore Limited or the Silver Meteor for a roomette would make me seriously look at getting a berth) as well as the question of diner access priority (i.e. if the section still comes with a better chance at dinner, I'd probably spring for it).


----------



## jis

The only thing that might fly is bringing back the Slumbercoach Singles in some way shape or form. I used to go Slumbercoach all the time when they were available, even after food service was included in the fare for Sleepers but not for Slumbercoach. I could fend for myself foodwise from the Cafe/lounge and long stops, and still come out way ahead of paying the Sleeper surcharges.


----------



## jis

Texan Eagle said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in a perfect world, Amtrak might be able to offer that kind of a service.
> 
> Here in the real world with the rolling stock that Amtrak owns, that isn't going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Aah, so Asian countries like China, India that offer such services are in the perfect world. Gotcha!
> 
> Can someone refresh me again about superpowers and Third World countries?
Click to expand...

I don't know what being a Superpower has to do with the type of sleeping service provided in a train. I am yet to see how an ICBM or Aircraft Carrier helps people travel within the country - leaving aside the issue of securing fuel pipelines and maintaining the ability to twist others arms into selling such to us that is. 

The issue is that there is huge demand for rail travel and there is significant shortage of supply in countries like China and India, and that is why they are funded at what appears to be exorbitant levels - but still their funding levels are no more than the level of funding that the Interstate System in US has enjoyed over the years when it was being built from scratch. Notwithstanding that, the type of service that people desire is closely related to the cultural and societal norms angle too. Americans generally do not like to be physically close to each other as much as many other cultures do. So it stands to reason that the sort of accommodation that works in these other places may not be acceptable in the US.

Then again things do change over time. For example India is bringing back Restaurant Car (what they call Dining Cars there) service on the overnight Air-Conditioned trains and there is a huge controversy going on about whether there should be priority for First Class passengers in those or should they be open to all first come first served. The latter will surely require multiple Restaurant Cars in each train since each train carries over 1000 passengers on an average run.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Imagine how quick theyll run out of the "Good Stuff" on Trains with a Thousnad Passengers!

I can just hear it now, "We only have #1 and #4 left! No Pepsi! Only Coke!" :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jis

jimhudson said:


> Imagine how quick theyll run out of the "Good Stuff" on Trains with a Thousnad Passengers!
> 
> I can just hear it now, "We only have #1 and #4 left! No Pepsi! Only Coke!" :lol: :lol: :lol:


In the past they used to run married pair Restaurant and Kitchen cars, so they had ample supplies. One should also keep in mind that a standard Indian car is ~75' long, not 85' like here. But the longest overnight AC trains are 18 to 20 cars long with standard consists. So there will be either significant lengthening of trains - upto 24 cars is possible without lengthening platforms, or reduction of capacity or a combination of the two. So who knows how they will slice and dice this one.


----------



## Texan Eagle

jimhudson said:


> Imagine how quick theyll run out of the "Good Stuff" on Trains with a Thousnad Passengers!
> 
> I can just hear it now, "We only have #1 and #4 left! No Pepsi! Only Coke!" :lol: :lol: :lol:


Catering folks on Indian Railways are used to serving thousand passengers on a train. Now most of the popular long distance trains are 24 cars long, with upto 18-odd air-conditioned and non air-conditioned reserved sleeper cars and five or six unreserved Second Class cars attached at both ends of the train, which are not connected by vestibules to the remaining train, so they are out of contention for food service, but the remaining 18 cars have 60 to 70 passengers each, thus coming to around 1200 reserved passengers. There are food stalls at every platform at all major stations, so some passengers grab their food from there but still a large number depend on the train's catering service for their meals. Of course, no train on Indian Railways offers Amtrak style sit-down dining (there is only one train with a combined kitchen-dining car), it is more like prison food- prepared en masse in the Kitchen Car and distributed to passengers in plastic trays and aluminum foil packets at their berths. If there is to be an Amtrak style Dining Car on Indian trains carrying over thousand passengers, I can imagine the Dining Car attendant announcing in the morning- "_Dining Car reservations are now open for, depending on the time your turn comes, breakfast, lunch or dinner!_"


----------



## RCrierie

Indian trains are also on a broader gauge than in the US; so they are wider.


----------



## jis

Before they were discontinued the dining cars were to be found only on a few trains and most of them had manageable size of patrons. Typically on the AC Express trains there used to be 3 or 4 Chair Cars (Coaches) and one or two Sleepers, which could be adequately served by dining cars. With the introduction of Rajdhani Expresses with their Pantry Cars and at seat food service in 1969, dining cars were quickly phased out from most trains, barring one or two exceptions.

India has several levels of train service. The run of the mill express/mail train fits the description that Texas provides. They have either pantry car based or shore based at seat food service though food is not included in the ticket. In addition they stop often enough and long enough at stations for people to get food from station vendors. A notch above that are the Rajdhani and Shatabdis which are fully air conditioned and corridored. They all have pantry car based food at seat service with food included in the ticket, and typically do not stop often enough and long enough at stations for folks to adequately get food from station vendors. In the last few years another class of trains called Duronto Express have been introduced which have commercial stops only at the origin and destination, with no commercial stops en route. They do have service stops but they are not widely advertised though a rail savvy person knows about them. These trains also have pantry car based food at seat service typically with food included in the ticket.

And then there the lowly passenger trains which have nothing in the way of service at all.

The new dining car proposal is primarily targeted at upper class and on the Rajdhani, Shatabdi and Duronto class trains. Of course what will come of it is anybody's guess.


----------



## jis

RCrierie said:


> Indian trains are also on a broader gauge than in the US; so they are wider.


But they use what is close to UIC loading gauge specially at floor level. Indian passenger cars are based on two shell designs, both from Europe. The so called Integral Coaches are based on a Schlieren design of 1950s vintage and the more modern so called LHB coaches are based on an Alstom/LHB design of 2000 vintage. The former are pretty basic and even lack simple yaw dampers. The latter have relatively modern Fiat trucks with yaw dampers and are capable of 200kph.

Recently, IR manufacturing facilities have built upon the latter platform to create a standard multi-level design which is slowly being introduced into service. An earlier version based on the Schlieren design did not succeed because they ere not air conditioned and dust was a huge problem at the lower deck.

So bottom line is track gauge does not necessarily give more room within the car - specially the long distance one.

OTOH, Indian EMUs are based on a completely different wider design, wider by almost a foot at floor level than the long distance cars. However, at platform level, which is below floor level they are compliant with LD cars in width. Indeed it is the new multi-level cars that initially had problems with scraping existing platform edges.


----------



## afigg

Shawn Ryu said:


> Is it me or is NE Regional trains cheaper these days? Its 45 dollars from NYP to BOS. It used to be at least 60 for 7 AM train.


That looks like the 25% off price if you buy the tickets at least 2 weeks in advance. Amtrak has had the >14 day advance purchase discount program for NE Regionals for a while now.


----------



## afigg

tubaia said:


> I have to agree. Airfares may be cheap when flying to and from major markets, but when you aren't flying out of New York, Chicago, or LA, the train can actually be cheaper. We just rode from Iowa to Philly, and it was less than $250 round trip for each of us. It would have been closer to $350 to $400 each for air, and as much as $750 from a smaller airport.


The higher ticket prices for flights to the smaller airports is just the beginning of a long term trend if oil prices stay above $100/barrel. (I'm using Brent crude price because that is a more accurate reflection of the average global price for oil in the past year than West Texas Intermediate). Brent crude is at $114/barrel as of today and has stayed above $100/barrel since early this year, despite the recent economic news.

The economics of flying small to medium size jet airplanes to the lower volume smaller airports get directly hit by high fuel costs. More efficient and profitable on a per passenger basis to fly large jumbo jets 90% full from major city airports than to fly a 50 seat regional jet to a smaller city airport which might be 50% full on a mid-day flight. Higher tickets prices and fewer daily flights to increase # of passengers per plane is the long term trend for many smaller and even medium sized city airports. Higher fuel costs do raise operating costs for Amtrak, but cost of fuel is a much smaller percentage of operating costs for an Amtrak train (which also serves multiple towns and cities) than it is for airline. This is a fundamental reality which is going to increasingly affect the airplane or driving a car versus passenger train debate over the next decade and beyond. Just my cheerful thought for the day!


----------



## Anderson

Ditto the above. Actually, when this thread started, it's quite possible that some of the airfares hadn't "snapped" upwards yet...but you raise a good point: Airline costs are something like 35% fuel, while with Amtrak in particular it's either 7 or 8% IIRC.


----------



## I270_Hater

DC Commuters use the Amtrak everyday (MARC Train). It is super expensive. I recently moved from MD to the Eastern Panhandle of WV. You would be surprised how many people actually make that 2 hour commute everyday. It is something like $280 a month for unlimited monthly fair. Factor in parking and for most, full fair for the metro or bus to take you to your actual destination...It might actually be cheaper to drive everday- but 270 is such a mess that no sane person actually wants to drive it everday. It took me a full hour to drive 17 miles in the morning when I lived in MD. Yikes!


----------



## VentureForth

I270_Hater said:


> DC Commuters use the Amtrak everyday (MARC Train). It is super expensive. I recently moved from MD to the Eastern Panhandle of WV. You would be surprised how many people actually make that 2 hour commute everyday. It is something like $280 a month for unlimited monthly fair. Factor in parking and for most, full fair for the metro or bus to take you to your actual destination...It might actually be cheaper to drive everday- but 270 is such a mess that no sane person actually wants to drive it everday. It took me a full hour to drive 17 miles in the morning when I lived in MD. Yikes!


I'm a little confused... Do you mean MARC or do you mean Amtrak? They are different. Many of these commuter services (ie: MARC, VRE, etc) have reciprocity deals with Amtrak for their fares, or at least upgrade programs. Amtrak is way more pricey than the commuters, but also tend to act as an express, skipping some local stops, is ready more comfortable and generally has better amenities.


----------



## Ryan

He's talking about the MARC Brunswick line. Only Amtrak service there is the Capitol Limited, which is unusable for commuting.

Not sure what it has to do with this topic, though.

I doubt that there is any way that driving is cheaper in this case (depending on exactly where you work). When I commuted on the Penn Line, my monthly pass cost the same amount as parking alone would, so the train was much cheaper.


----------



## Ziv

The return of an old topic, but it is always interesting to see what people think. I agree with our Ukranian guest from page one. Amtrak should consider re-furbing some of the old cars into Couchette cars, both with 4 and 6 seat/bunk options at first to see which would be more popular. Each compartment would have two benches facing each other with arm rails to divide the seats, with either two very roomy seats on each side or 3 slightly less room seats. The bench/bunk would be nearly 7 feet wide so the seats would be room as would the bunks when they folded down at night. I have ridden Couchettes in China and Eastern Europe and they allow a fairly high amount of travelers per train while allowing for a very comfortable sleep at night. I think the 4 bunk Couchettes would work the best but a second class/tourist option at a price point 20% less might be popular too. These options make an overnight train trip a real pleasure, plus you can fit in nearly as many people as a regular coach car.

On edit: I think Amtrak cars are a foot or two wider than Chinese cars because the Chinese cars have a 6'2" bench and a small hall that takes the entire width of the car. The more I think about it, the 4 seat couchettes would be like first class seats, really wide, because the entire car would only have two seats in width, though since the seats are arranged in pairs (back to back) so they would share their foot space, making their total density higher. So for Amtrak cars the 6 seat/bunk option might fit the width of the cars better, but the 3rd/upper bunk probably wouldn't be too popular. I have slept in the third bunk and it is a bit of a climb.

Page 12? Wow, this is a popular old topic! And I think 6 bunk couchettes would be even better out west where there is a SSL to split time with. I think the Couchettes would fill to 4 people most of the time and the 5th and 6th bunks would be there for really busy times.


----------



## white rabbitt

i live maybe a 7 minite drive from the royal oak amtrak station for me to fly to austin detroit-austin 444 on delta rt 278 coach on amtrak amtrak is cheaper

now u add business class rt and a roomette rt that round trip become's $689.70 and worth every penny amtrak beats flying every time :lol: :lol:


----------



## dlagrua

Its difficult to always do a one on one comparison between air fares and train fares. Both systems use a complex system of bucket fares and both fares can fluctuate wildly.

On Amtrak the former system allowed you to secure the lowest bucket fare when tickets opened up 11 months out. On some routes, fares now appear to open at medium bucket and stay there until a sales pattern starts to develop, while on others the fares can open at low or high bucket. I would say that Amtrak is now using route sales history to maximize revenue which IMO will result in lower revenues for them. My method now is to check several months out before my planned trip will take place and check many dates via Amsnag. In many cases you will still find some scattered low bucket fares. The key is to be flexible with the travel dates.

Airlines appear to use the first in lowest price formula and prices then rise steadily until the last passengers pays 5-7 times the fare of the early purchase fares. Its a more understandable formula.

Given all of the above I would venture to say that it is very difficult to state that rail travel costs more or less than air travel. Amtrak's coach fares are generally less than the airline coach fares for trips 1000 miles or less and more for longer trips. Come vacation time, we always take the train but we do not go coast to coast as we can't spare 4 days and three nights travel time each way. Our vacations are typically to cities like Orlando, Chicago, New Orleans and whatever else we could reach in an overnight trip. On the Autotrain we occasionally take it one way and drive back for some sightseeing along the way. On this years trip in May, in view of the the high price of gasoline, we have decided to take the A/T both ways.


----------



## Shanghai

I am an officer in a volunteer organization that has meetings around the country.

Most of the people who participate in the meetings always fly and give me the "business"

for traveling by train. In early May, we have a meeting in Kansas City on Monday, then

we have a meeting on Wednesday in Chicago. I told them I was taking the train on Tuesday

and I would be happy to book them too. The flight would have cost $216 - $266 each. I booked

them in a roomette (shared for 2) on the train for $227 for two. There will be 5 of us on

the Southwest Chief and they are excited for the trip.


----------



## dn4192

I guess it depends on where you are going, there is no chance I can find a flight from Indy to Philly anywhere near the cost of $85 which is what a one way ticket on Amtrak is going to cost me...


----------



## GAT

RRrich said:


> I also consider the train trip as part of the vacation - when I was younger, someone used the slogan _Getting there is half the fun _ I don't think it was Amtrak, but now it should be


Regrettably, it was Greyhound (I think).


----------



## Anderson

Looking at the date of this topic, it was from 2008. Airline fares took a dip during 2009 but went back up.

In a lot of cases, Amtrak is roughly on par with flying a non-"no frills" airline (for example, it's about $100-120 to take the train to Florida with some decent planning); in some cases, it is light-years ahead of the airlines (going to Des Moines, getting a _sleeper_ is on par with airline coach, and that's even if you write off a large amount for cab fare from Osceola to Des Moines). However, this is going to vary based on a lot of factors.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

In my experience Amtrak sleepers are almost always a premium over flying. Amtrak coach can be cheaper, especially near the departure date, but not by enough to make sitting in a chair surrounded by noisy folks who are prevented from taking a shower for 1-3 days anywhere near worth it.


----------



## Shortline

Texas Sunset said:


> In my experience Amtrak sleepers are almost always a premium over flying. Amtrak coach can be cheaper, especially near the departure date, but not by enough to make sitting in a chair surrounded by noisy folks who are prevented from taking a shower for 1-3 days anywhere near worth it.



Exactly. I regularly price train travel for business, but only rarely does it make sense. A roomette for an overnight trip is typically several hundred dollars more than an airplane ticket. Add in the cost in time, and it's prohibitively expensive 99% of the itme. And, air travel isn't that bad, especially if you're a Frequent Flyer-I RARELY get to the airport more than 45 minutes prior to departure. By printing boarding passes at home, or more commonly, just scanning my iphone at security, I can whiz right through in under 10 minutes. Sky Priority has it's benefits,especially the regular upgrades and special security lines!

Sure, coach train travel is a bargain, but, there is no way I'd spend more than 8 hours or so in coach, and never an overnight. Not my thing.


----------



## RRUserious

I refuse to read this whole thread. Fact is when you see ultra-low air fares, you are seeing consolidator prices. Airlines have complicated procedures for achieving high load factors with max revenue. If you read some writing on travel, it will all be explained. I guess I'd dummy up a budget for a given trip, figure out how big a deal the tickets are in that budget. That should indicate how much a sweat to break over all this . Next, when you are flying ANYWHERE but major hub to major hub, you are on a regional airline that code shares with one of the big ones. You but a "Continental ticket" but you'll never see a Continental seat. So then do you really want to fly the actual airline? Continental washes its hands of anything that happens to you on a codeshare airline. If everything goes swimmingly, great. If anything annoys you, THEN you find out "choosing Continental" gets you nothing at all. In my youth, flying was so much simpler. But the obsession with pennies or dollars less in ticket price have pretty much forced the flight industry into this circus. People log onto some Internet site, take what they see at face value, and lowball it. So why should the airlines care about them at all. Flyers are just cattle. Success means herding the cattle onto your plane (or a codeshare plane) and turning a deaf ear when the cattle complain.

Flying is also about crowding nowadays. I couldnt BELIEVE how much room my coach seat had after decades of flying. Worth paying more? Not to most travelers, I guess.

So if you want to be in the herd, buy from Kayak. If you want to travel and have a good time, resist that lowball urge.


----------



## Ziv

RRUserious said:


> I refuse to read this whole thread. Fact is when you see ultra-low air fares, you are seeing consolidator prices. Airlines have complicated procedures for achieving high load factors with max revenue. If you read some writing on travel, it will all be explained. I guess I'd dummy up a budget for a given trip, figure out how big a deal the tickets are in that budget. That should indicate how much a sweat to break over all this . Next, when you are flying ANYWHERE but major hub to major hub, you are on a regional airline that code shares with one of the big ones. You but a "Continental ticket" but you'll never see a Continental seat. So then do you really want to fly the actual airline? Continental washes its hands of anything that happens to you on a codeshare airline. If everything goes swimmingly, great. If anything annoys you, THEN you find out "choosing Continental" gets you nothing at all. In my youth, flying was so much simpler. But the obsession with pennies or dollars less in ticket price have pretty much forced the flight industry into this circus. People log onto some Internet site, take what they see at face value, and lowball it. So why should the airlines care about them at all. Flyers are just cattle. Success means herding the cattle onto your plane (or a codeshare plane) and turning a deaf ear when the cattle complain.
> 
> Flying is also about crowding nowadays. I couldnt BELIEVE how much room my coach seat had after decades of flying. Worth paying more? Not to most travelers, I guess.
> 
> So if you want to be in the herd, buy from Kayak. If you want to travel and have a good time, resist that lowball urge.


RU, talking about cattle, on the thread about the person that got killed by an Amtrak train, the conductor referred to us Amtrak passengers as 'talking cattle'. So the being treated like cattle thing is not limited to airlines.


----------



## Ryan

I think that you failed to take that remark in the spirit that it was offered.


----------



## RRUserious

Maybe I should have said sardines rather than cattle. Because of the lowball kneejerk reaction, airlines have gotten into the mode of giving precisely what the lowball price buys, a tight fitting seat in a jammed plane. I don't understand why travelers who resort to Kayak and its like expect a quality product. To me it is like going to a surplus store for everything. Sure the price is skimpy, but the inventory is rejects. One problem today is a way to find a middle ground where you pay more than minimum and get the extra quality you are willing to pay for. The frequent flyer can sample the product often enough to sort out the overpriced cheap product from the moderately priced travel value. You need to do a fair amount of travel to make the mistakes and eventually ferret out the quality provider.

One thing is sure to me. A simple online comparison of the lowest Kayak price to Amtrak's coach price is way short of that level of sophistication. The infrequent traveler (which is the class I have been in)is going to be misled. I've done mostly economy class flights, so when I entered the Amtrak coach and saw that the leg room exceeded what I've had in First Class on planes, I was frankly surprised and pleased.

The real issue is time. A lot of people simply cannot afford the time or are unwilling to give it up. Their mode of transportation is not meant to figure large in their trip. They are pretty much stuck going by air. I am happy I am rich in time and can afford rail travel.


----------



## Ziv

Ryan said:


> I think that you failed to take that remark in the spirit that it was offered.


Ryan, my Dad was a conductor on Amtrak trains. If he ever referred to a person that committed suicide by train as a 'trespasser', not once but multiple times without ever sounding saddened by it all, I would have been disappointed. If he had said it about someone that he had no idea about before they died, someone who could have been a commuter trying to get home on time.... And yes, my Dad probably got short tempered too.

But to have the same the same conductor refer to his passengers as talking cattle pretty much precludes me thinking I was taking the comment in a way that is inconsistent with the way it was offered.

I think the vast majority of Amtrak personnel are great people. But a certain part of the Amtrak team probably does think of us as 'talking cattle'.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

I believe I have read many posts on AU where the coach passengers were referred to as cattle (when they're waiting to board or going to the train to board), so I think the conductor said that in jest because of these comments, not because s/he thinks of the passengers as cattle.


----------



## RRUserious

The POINT is that management configures airline travel to match the rock bottom price travelers have come to expect. I remember rumors of "standing only" tickets. Having zero concern for the quality of service is the stupidest thing that travelers do. They buy tickets like they are getting stuff off Pricegrabber.com. But, hey, at least don't expect the companies to treat you better than you are. Alfred Kahn took the position that free market economics were what airlines needed. I think his wisdom was about as shrewd as Alan Greenspans. Free markets produce concentration at the level of low-priced crap. If there's any quality left anywhere, it is because there are consumers who are too smart to just look for "the best price". Those consumers are the dike that holds back the tidal wave of cheap crap consumerism.

And railroads are valuied everywhere except in the USA. We are the world leader in following false gods. We know the price of everything and the value of nothing.


----------



## Anderson

Texas Sunset said:


> In my experience Amtrak sleepers are almost always a premium over flying. Amtrak coach can be cheaper, especially near the departure date, but not by enough to make sitting in a chair surrounded by noisy folks who are prevented from taking a shower for 1-3 days anywhere near worth it.


You're correct insofar as the Des Moines situation is an extreme outlier (the numbers look a bit better at the moment...oh, I only need a _nine month advance purchase_ so that a cattle car airline ticket will be cheaper than a sleeping car with included meals...and even now, coach is still on par or cheaper from what I can tell). However, if you restored through service in Roanoke (ha!), I think you'd find a similar story. There are a couple of other "bad" air markets like that. Not many, but a couple.

Sorry for my explosive sarcasm...here's what I've come to the conclusion of: I will pay for decent service, I will pay for decent comfort. Witness the Acela, witness springing for a roomette on the NEC. Given the choice of it, there are plenty of routes that I would spring for a mid-bucket roomette on. NPN-NYP is one that jumps to mind (considering that I've done this RVR-NYP multiple times). I consider that to be service and comfort. "Service and comfort" is the operative phrasing here, and that phrasing being a good descriptor of what I feel I (generally) get with Amtrak.

Though the experience varies, the problem with the airlines collectively (and I say this without intending to malign those that do their best on the service front, though I _do_ blanket them all with blame for not speaking up on the TSA...it may be a logical decision, but that does _not_ mean I won't blame them for it) is that with the whole flying experience, the feeling I have is that I can choose how much I pay to be treated like I don't matter and run through a security theater that would be too expensive if it were free. At that point, yes, I will search out the cheapest cost for traveling...because if I'm going to be treated like crap, I may as well spend as little doing so as possible.

Of course, part of the problem with flying these days is that I suspect that comfort there has fallen victim to a tragedy of the commons: The guy willing to spring for an intermediate-class ticket (be it BC, E+, or something else) not infrequently has to throw out a _lot_ more to cross-subsidize the guy in coach who got a bottom-dollar ticket. I _am_ legitimately left wondering if we wouldn't be better off paying full fare for the briefcase...

...and then I remember Spirit Airlines wanting to, at one point, charge a fee for carry-on luggage. Oops.

Anyhow...enough with the rambling, I've said enough. If I'm offered a decent product, I'll go for it. Amtrak does, the airlines do not, and therefore my money and my time go to Amtrak. I have a good time and I enjoy _getting_ to where I'm going. That counts for a lot. And hey, sometimes it even _does_ come in cheaper than the relevant airfare.


----------



## Shawn Ryu

RRUserious said:


> The POINT is that management configures airline travel to match the rock bottom price travelers have come to expect. I remember rumors of "standing only" tickets. Having zero concern for the quality of service is the stupidest thing that travelers do. They buy tickets like they are getting stuff off Pricegrabber.com. But, hey, at least don't expect the companies to treat you better than you are. Alfred Kahn took the position that free market economics were what airlines needed. I think his wisdom was about as shrewd as Alan Greenspans. Free markets produce concentration at the level of low-priced crap. If there's any quality left anywhere, it is because there are consumers who are too smart to just look for "the best price". Those consumers are the dike that holds back the tidal wave of cheap crap consumerism.
> 
> And railroads are valuied everywhere except in the USA. We are the world leader in following false gods. We know the price of everything and the value of nothing.


Railroads are valued here, just not for passengers. Freight is where its at, profit wise anyway.

Australia virtually has no passenger rail service, at least not interctiy. We could be worse off.


----------



## RRUserious

Oh, to get Nichols and May to do a sketch like this on economy air travel. :lol:

Economy Air


----------



## dlagrua

AmtrakBlue said:


> I believe I have read many posts on AU where the coach passengers were referred to as cattle (when they're waiting to board or going to the train to board), so I think the conductor said that in jest because of these comments, not because s/he thinks of the passengers as cattle.


If coach passengers can be referred to as cattle, certainly airline passengers can be referred to as sardines. Airline seats are set on tracks and the lower the price goes the closer the seats become. Closer seats and less legroom equates to more seating in a plane. If it keeps going like this, why before you know it your knees will be sitting under your chin. Air travel may be cheap but it is disgusting. Once when I was still flying I sat next to a guy who's nose was dripping like a faucet, another time I got the center seat and two extra large people sat on either side of me; talk about cramped.

As soon as the TSA was created, the X-Ray machines installed and the shoes had to come off, I stopped flying. I refuse to be treated as an animal and join all the sheeples who participate in the degrading, crowded, filthy, dehumanizing conditions of air travel. I'm convinced that you could make a law where every airline passenger has to strip completely naked and no one would say a word. You'd have to be brain dead to submit to the control crap that they want you to submit to!


----------



## AmtrakBlue

dlagrua said:


> AmtrakBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I have read many posts on AU where the coach passengers were referred to as cattle (when they're waiting to board or going to the train to board), so I think the conductor said that in jest because of these comments, not because s/he thinks of the passengers as cattle.
> 
> 
> 
> If coach passengers can be referred to as cattle, certainly airline passengers can be referred to as sardines. Airline seats are set on tracks and the lower the price goes the closer the seats become. Closer seats and less legroom equates to more seating in a plane. If it keeps going like this, why before you know it your knees will be sitting under your chin. Air travel may be cheap but it is disgusting. Once when I was still flying I sat next to a guy who's nose was dripping like a faucet, another time I got the center seat and two extra large people sat on either side of me; talk about cramped.
> 
> As soon as the TSA was created, the X-Ray machines installed and the shoes had to come off, I stopped flying. I refuse to be treated as an animal and join all the sheeples who participate in the degrading, crowded, filthy, dehumanizing conditions of air travel. I'm convinced that you could make a law where every airline passenger has to strip completely naked and no one would say a word. You'd have to be brain dead to submit to the control crap that they want you to submit to!
Click to expand...

I rarely travel and when I have flown, I've not had any problems, thank goodness.

I would love to be able to take the train everytime, but time & money have always been a problem for me. I now have paid vacation, but the money situation is still not good, so I will be flying to SLC in August to greet my 1st grandchild since I'm still paying off my trip (with my other daughter) to UT on the NER/CL/CZ last November. 

We were blessed on our flight back as the two middle seats (we both wanted window seats, so I put my daughter in the seat in front of mine) were empty even though I had checked the seats online before our trip and saw that they were "taken". I'm guessing they either upgraded to FC or canceled. I know I can't expect that on my next trip.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AmtrakBlue said:


> I believe I have read many posts on AU where the coach passengers were referred to as cattle (when they're waiting to board or going to the train to board), so I think the conductor said that in jest because of these comments, not because s/he thinks of the passengers as cattle.


The term "cattle" is not a neutral term. It is a derogatory term. I'm not aware of any positive way to use it or to interpret it.


----------



## pldenc44

The "cattle-car" airline concept has revolutionized travel and allows Americans to get anywhere in the country at 400 MPH in a matter of a few hours for a couple hundred bucks (or less). It changed our way of life for the better by making travel cheap and fast. Yeah it stinks to be crammed in there, but how else would I get home from college for Thanksgiving on a student budget? If you want first-class service/comfort, buy a first-class ticket. Most people would rather suffer the cheap seats to get from point A to point B.

If passenger rail is ever going to thrive, they better start figuring out how to offer tickets at half the price of the airlines. More seats per coach, more cars per consist.

Sad, but true. If Amtrak refuses to do what it takes to be profitable, why should taxpayers subsidize train-enthusiasts' land-cruises?


----------



## trainviews

pldenc44 said:


> The "cattle-car" airline concept has revolutionized travel and allows Americans to get anywhere in the country at 400 MPH in a matter of a few hours for a couple hundred bucks (or less). It changed our way of life for the better by making travel cheap and fast. Yeah it stinks to be crammed in there, but how else would I get home from college for Thanksgiving on a student budget? If you want first-class service/comfort, buy a first-class ticket. Most people would rather suffer the cheap seats to get from point A to point B.
> 
> If passenger rail is ever going to thrive, they better start figuring out how to offer tickets at half the price of the airlines. More seats per coach, more cars per consist.
> 
> Sad, but true. If Amtrak refuses to do what it takes to be profitable, why should taxpayers subsidize train-enthusiasts' land-cruises?


You're getting it wrong. The biggest cost for the airlines is fuel. To get the plane off the ground takes a lot and it's an almost fixed cost no matter how many people are on board. So there is great savings in cramming as many passengers in there as possible.

As for trains, fuel is a minor cost - the big one is staff, which is much more expensive due to the longer running times (more paid hours). Even adding extra cars is not too expensive fuelwise and can be done until the train is very long (if you have spare cars). The savings in cramming that extra row of passengers in there is minor.

Plus, you've got to have a selling point. For airlines it has been time, and for longer hauls they really are unbeatable. For a while it has also been price, but the high fuel prices are jacking up prices especially on routes with lower ridership and/or less competition. While I agree that the low airfares have democratized long distance travel tremedously, that era seems to be waning outside the flights between major hubs. I also agree that the market - the passengers - have clearly decided to wheigh cost over comfortability. Otherwise first class would be a hit.

But one thing is saving 50 percent on putting up with discomfort. For the train that saving would be 10 percent max, and it would still be slower than flying except on short trips. Less saving for more discomfort for longer time - not exactly a winner. Add the competition with driving in the mix - again the selling point for trains is comfort and maybe the ability to work on the way, which is not really possible in a plane either because of the lack of space.

So for trains the best economy is clealy to offer a decent level of comfort. It can do so at prices competitive with uncomfortable air travel, and that will make a share of the market which is not too time sensitive choose the train. Of course this equation (time, price, comfort, accessibility) changes for individual routes, making some more successful than others and for indivdual persons or even different situations the same person is taking the journey in.


----------



## Anderson

Pulling up some hard numbers, for the FY12 budget for Amtrak, I get the following breakdown on expenses:

Salaries, Wages, and Benefits: $1,889.3m _of which_:

Salaries: $263.5m

Wages/OT: $998.1m

Emp. Benefits: $600.1m

Emp. Related: $27.6m

Train Operations: $271.8m

Fuel, Power, & Util.: $369.5m

Materials: $200.6m

Facility, Communication, & Office: $176.6m

Advertising and Sales: $80.4m

Depreciation: $671.4m

Professional Fees: $78.1m

Data Processing: $118.1m

Other Non-Labor Fees/Services: $11.8m

Total Expenses: $3,867.6m

In short, fuel is less than 10% of Amtrak's overall budget (and a bit over 10% once you exclude depreication). For an airline, this number is usually over 30% (35% has often been cited, but I forget at what price point that was at for fuel).

Now, what this means (in essence) is that if Amtrak had the cars, it would behoove them to lengthen trains by adding as many coaches (and sleepers) as the market would bear. Fuel is a relatively fixed cost for Amtrak, and on top of that, it simply isn't a large component in the same way it is for the airlines...this is also part of why airlines take spikes in fuel costs so hard.


----------



## Ryan

pldenc44 said:


> Sad, but true. If Amtrak refuses to do what it takes to be profitable, why should taxpayers subsidize train-enthusiasts' land-cruises?


Because Amtrak isn't in the business of providing land-cruises. Amtrak provides a transportation service and should be subsidized just like the roads and airlines are.


----------



## PRR 60

Anderson said:


> Pulling up some hard numbers, for the FY12 budget for Amtrak, I get the following breakdown on expenses:
> 
> Salaries, Wages, and Benefits: $1,889.3m _of which_:
> 
> Salaries: $263.5m
> 
> Wages/OT: $998.1m
> 
> Emp. Benefits: $600.1m
> 
> Emp. Related: $27.6m
> 
> Train Operations: $271.8m
> 
> Fuel, Power, & Util.: $369.5m
> 
> Materials: $200.6m
> 
> Facility, Communication, & Office: $176.6m
> 
> Advertising and Sales: $80.4m
> 
> Depreciation: $671.4m
> 
> Professional Fees: $78.1m
> 
> Data Processing: $118.1m
> 
> Other Non-Labor Fees/Services: $11.8m
> 
> Total Expenses: $3,867.6m
> 
> In short, fuel is less than 10% of Amtrak's overall budget (and a bit over 10% once you exclude depreication). For an airline, this number is usually over 30% (35% has often been cited, but I forget at what price point that was at for fuel).
> 
> Now, what this means (in essence) is that if Amtrak had the cars, it would behoove them to lengthen trains by adding as many coaches (and sleepers) as the market would bear. Fuel is a relatively fixed cost for Amtrak, and on top of that, it simply isn't a large component in the same way it is for the airlines...this is also part of why airlines take spikes in fuel costs so hard.


The impact of fuel and power on Amtrak finances is a little more serious than that. The problem is that Amtrak only covers about 47% of its total expenses from ticket revenue. The remaining income items used to break even - largely federal and state subsidy payments - are fixed. Amtrak only has control over the ticket revenue, which in FY11 was $1,851.5 million. In FY11, the actual fuel and power expense was $337.8 million. Looking at it that way, fuel and power accounted for just over 18% of ticket revenue. Any increase in fuel and power costs during the fiscal year can only be offset by increased ticket revenue. A 20% increase in fuel and power costs, roughly $70 million, would have to be offset by a roughly 4% increase in ticket revenue. While this is not quite as critical to Amtrak as it is to airlines (where fuel costs are about 30% of ticket revenue), there is no doubt that fluctuations in fuel and power costs are significant issues for Amtrak. In the past, sharp increases in energy costs have had a negative impact on Amtrak finances.


----------



## pldenc44

trainviews said:


> So for trains the best economy is clealy to offer a decent level of comfort. It can do so at prices competitive with uncomfortable air travel, and that will make a share of the market which is not too time sensitive choose the train. Of course this equation (time, price, comfort, accessibility) changes for individual routes, making some more successful than others and for indivdual persons or even different situations the same person is taking the journey in.


I'm not getting it wrong. Amtrak is getting massacred in the market share battle because nobody wants to pay the same as airfare to get there in double the time. Simple as that. Americans would run to trains if they saved time or money... they do neither. If you're going to take 2x the time to get somewhere, it better be a LOT cheaper than flying or driving. This isn't my opinion, its the opinion of most Americans who don't EVER ride Amtrak but fly regularly. Amtrak is not successful. This is why they have to beg congress for so many millions each year. Yes I know all transportation is subsidized, but we all know Amtrak is FAR more subsidized per mile traveled.

This all makes me very depressed because I would love to ride the train instead of drive but it doesn't make financial sense. If Amtrak's costs are mostly wages and equipment, then they will have to figure out how to function with less staff and get more use out of their equipment. It sounds like they need more coach cars. Ridership is on a steady increase over the past couple years. Lets get them some more cars and drop the price! Americans will run to trains if they are affordable. THAT merits a government subsidy. If Amtrak brings lower cost transportation to Americans, I say give them all the cash they need to continue operating. We're not there yet though... something has to change.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

pldenc44 said:


> Yes I know all transportation is subsidized, but we all know Amtrak is FAR more subsidized per mile traveled.


Source?


----------



## afigg

PRR 60 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pulling up some hard numbers, for the FY12 budget for Amtrak, I get the following breakdown on expenses:
> 
> ...
> 
> Fuel, Power, & Util.: $369.5m
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> The impact of fuel and power on Amtrak finances is a little more serious than that. The problem is that Amtrak only covers about 47% of its total expenses from ticket revenue. The remaining income items used to break even - largely federal and state subsidy payments - are fixed. Amtrak only has control over the ticket revenue, which in FY11 was $1,851.5 million. In FY11, the actual fuel and power expense was $337.8 million. Looking at it that way, fuel and power accounted for just over 18% of ticket revenue. Any increase in fuel and power costs during the fiscal year can only be offset by increased ticket revenue. A 20% increase in fuel and power costs, roughly $70 million, would have to be offset by a roughly 4% increase in ticket revenue.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

The Fuel, Power and Utilities lumps together 3 categories, only one of which is diesel fuel costs, so it does not present the full picture.

The power costs for the NEC are more stable as electric power costs have not greatly increased because the primary fuel sources of electrical power are coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro. The price of natural gas in recent years has fallen, although the current very low prices are temporary. Same goes for Utilities which appears to be the overall utilities (power, water, etc) cost for the stations, offices, maintenance facilities that Amtrak owns and operates which are separate from train operations.

The FY12 Comprehensive Business Plan provides a breakdown of the final FY12 budget costs with $208.8 million for diesel fuel, $110.7 million for Propulsion (NEC and Keystone East), and $49.7 million for Utilities. The plan also has a 5 year history with previous Diesel fuel costs: FY08 $214.3M, FY09 $119.5M (big drop), FY10 $147.4M, FY11 $182.5M. The FY12 budget diesel fuel costs is based on a cost per barrel of $105, so Amtrak is likely to exceed the diesel fuel budget for the year depending on how their fuel hedge contracts are structured. The electrical propulsion costs have ranged from $100.6M for FY09 to $110.7M budgeted for FY12.

So proportion of diesel fuel costs for FY11 was $182.5 million against total ticket revenue of $1,851 million, but that also includes NEC revenue. Revenue should include Food & Beverage of $109.4 million for FY11 as that comes from passengers. Then there is the other revenue category of $565 million which includes commuter operations & NEC use income, commercial rents. (Note: don't know if the diesel fuel costs for Amtrak commuter contracts are bundled into the Diesel fuel category.) These are not state or federal subsidies, so they are part of the revenue picture. So, if we are taking a simplified approach - which does have some meaning - the diesel fuel cost proportion over direct revenues was $182.5 million over ($1851.1M + $109.4M + $565.0M) or 7.2% of total revenue.

Problem is that to do this right, we should separate the NEC only revenue and propulsion costs from the ticket revenue earned by the non-NEC corridor and LD trains and their diesel fuel costs. We could do a rough approximation, but I don't feel like parsing out the numbers from the financial and monthly reports myself. There are cost and revenue number breakdowns in the 2010 PIP reports on the specific LD trains that may be more relevant.


----------



## PRR 60

Texas Sunset said:


> pldenc44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I know all transportation is subsidized, but we all know Amtrak is FAR more subsidized per mile traveled.
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...

_Not 100% up-to-date, but pretty close._

*2009 Passenger-Miles by Mode (US DOT)*

Air travel: 552 billion (11.3%)

Highway travel: 4,236 billion (87.3%)

Transit (rail and bus): 54 billion (1.1%)

Intercity rail (Amtrak): 6 billion (0.1%)

*DOT Budget (FY2010 enacted) - $76.9 billion*

Federal Aviation Administration - $16.0 billion (21.0%)

Federal Highway Administration – $42.8 billion (55.6%)

Federal Transit Administration - $10.7 billion (13.9%)

Federal Railroad Administration - $4.4 billion

-	Amtrak - $1.6 billion (2.1%)

Other programs - $3.0 billion

*Federal subsidy per passenger mile:*

Air travel – 2.8 cents

Highway travel – 1.0 cent

Transit – 18.8 cents

Amtrak – 26.7 cents


----------



## Ryan

What happens to those numbers when you add in all the state and local funding that goes towards road subsidies?


----------



## lmctrouble

If passenger rail is ever going to thrive, they better start figuring out how to offer tickets at half the price of the airlines. More seats per coach, more cars per consist.

My son and I are going round trip from Toledo, OH to Williamsburg, VA for $245 on Amtrak (with a small detour to King George to spend a few days with a friend) - I couldn't get a round trip plane ticket for ONE person at that price. I'd much rather spend the night sleeping on the train than go through security, pay outrageous baggage fees and have crappy customer service.


----------



## Anderson

I'm going to throw out a hypothesis on the SCL situation at A-Day: Seaboard was turning a profit on its Florida services, if only barely. The RF&P, however, may have been substantially in the hole on their segments and have been unwilling to not join Amtrak for that reason. This, in turn, would fit in well with the comment I think I once saw about Seaboard worrying about having to do transfers at Richmond rather than Southern's transfers at DC, since for example, I believe that the pre-Amtrak Crescent went past DC while a transfer was forced in DC post-A-Day.


----------



## saxman

lmctrouble said:


> If passenger rail is ever going to thrive, they better start figuring out how to offer tickets at half the price of the airlines. More seats per coach, more cars per consist.


Except that people are already filling the seats that are available, and then some. If they offered tickets at half of what they are charging now, Amtrak would simply that revenue. Sure they might get a few people to come over, but those few people coming over won't make up for the lost revenue. The fact is that Amtrak trains are full now. When demand is high you raise the price, not lower it. Obviously if people are willing to pay the price that Amtrak is offering, they are doing something right. Revenue and ridership continue to go up.

It be nice if Amtrak had to the money to buy more cars, so they can collect even more revenue, but those cars are a huge capital expense. We'd have a thriving intercity passenger rail system today, if it weren't for the billions in subsidies we began putting into railroads' competition, the highway. Or at least put it all on a level playing field from the start.


----------



## saxman

Anderson said:


> ...and then I remember Spirit Airlines wanting to, at one point, charge a fee for carry-on luggage. Oops.


Spirit still does this.


----------



## Ziv

I am still interested in the idea of Amtrak converting some of the Superliners to Couchette class cars and if my measurements are right, they could fit 10 compartments with 4 bunks in the same space that now has 5 bedrooms and 10 roomettes. So they would have room for 40 couchette passengers in the space that fits 10 bedroom passengers and 20 roomette passengers.... Not sure that there would be enough demand for a 'second class' sleeper with 4 people in it if the prices weren't at least 20% less than the roomette prices. I know I would pay a 20% premium over coach to have a bunk but I don't know that competing with the Superliners 62 passengers up top would work for the bottom line. 40 paying a 20% premium over 62 paying standard coach prices doesn't look profitable. Rats. Maybe lay flat seats in an upgrade section of the car that costs less than a roomette? They would need another 4" of space in front to give you the room a lay flat seat needs if I remember the article on that type of seating in airliners. What if Amtrak took out one row of seats behind the staircase and put in 16 lay flat seats instead of 18 regular seats? And charged 15% more for them? I really like LD train travel but I just can't stomach the price of a roomette most of the time. I went around the world by train 8 years ago and the only place it was hard to find overnight berths is in the US. It all comes down to cost, I know, but options would be cool.


----------



## GAT

Ziv said:


> I am still interested in the idea of Amtrak converting some of the Superliners to Couchette class cars and if my measurements are right, they could fit 10 compartments with 4 bunks in the same space that now has 5 bedrooms and 10 roomettes. So they would have room for 40 couchette passengers in the space that fits 10 bedroom passengers and 20 roomette passengers.... Not sure that there would be enough demand for a 'second class' sleeper with 4 people in it if the prices weren't at least 20% less than the roomette prices. I know I would pay a 20% premium over coach to have a bunk but I don't know that competing with the Superliners 62 passengers up top would work for the bottom line. 40 paying a 20% premium over 62 paying standard coach prices doesn't look profitable. Rats. Maybe lay flat seats in an upgrade section of the car that costs less than a roomette? They would need another 4" of space in front to give you the room a lay flat seat needs if I remember the article on that type of seating in airliners. What if Amtrak took out one row of seats behind the staircase and put in 16 lay flat seats instead of 18 regular seats? And charged 15% more for them? I really like LD train travel but I just can't stomach the price of a roomette most of the time. I went around the world by train 8 years ago and the only place it was hard to find overnight berths is in the US. It all comes down to cost, I know, but options would be cool.


Half a century ago, I rode across Canada in what I think were called Pullman sleeper coaches. Daytime, a regular coach. Nighttime, the seats converted to beds,and an upper berth dropped down. Everything was protected from the aisle by drop curtains. Long distance coach passengers don't need the privacy of rooms or couchettes, but they could benefit from a place to lie down flat and pehaps take off their "street" clothes in private, and would probably be willing to pay a small premium for that.


----------



## Texan Eagle

George said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still interested in the idea of Amtrak converting some of the Superliners to Couchette class cars and if my measurements are right, they could fit 10 compartments with 4 bunks in the same space that now has 5 bedrooms and 10 roomettes. So they would have room for 40 couchette passengers in the space that fits 10 bedroom passengers and 20 roomette passengers.... Not sure that there would be enough demand for a 'second class' sleeper with 4 people in it if the prices weren't at least 20% less than the roomette prices. I know I would pay a 20% premium over coach to have a bunk but I don't know that competing with the Superliners 62 passengers up top would work for the bottom line. 40 paying a 20% premium over 62 paying standard coach prices doesn't look profitable. Rats. Maybe lay flat seats in an upgrade section of the car that costs less than a roomette? They would need another 4" of space in front to give you the room a lay flat seat needs if I remember the article on that type of seating in airliners. What if Amtrak took out one row of seats behind the staircase and put in 16 lay flat seats instead of 18 regular seats? And charged 15% more for them? I really like LD train travel but I just can't stomach the price of a roomette most of the time. I went around the world by train 8 years ago and the only place it was hard to find overnight berths is in the US. It all comes down to cost, I know, but options would be cool.
> 
> 
> 
> Half a century ago, I rode across Canada in what I think were called Pullman sleeper coaches. Daytime, a regular coach. Nighttime, the seats converted to beds,and an upper berth dropped down. Everything was protected from the aisle by drop curtains. Long distance coach passengers don't need the privacy of rooms or couchettes, but they could benefit from a place to lie down flat and pehaps take off their "street" clothes in private, and would probably be willing to pay a small premium for that.
Click to expand...

Couchettes would be nice, but if that is not happening, give me just a coach seat that reclines full-flat, similar to modern Business class seats on international flights and I'd be a happy traveler. No doors or curtains or any other fancy stuff needed.


----------



## amamba

Texan Eagle said:


> Couchettes would be nice, but if that is not happening, give me just a coach seat that reclines full-flat, similar to modern Business class seats on international flights and I'd be a happy traveler. No doors or curtains or any other fancy stuff needed.


I think this is such an intriguing idea. Could it be called "business class" or something to differentiate from coach? If the previous poster was correct, only a few seats would need to be removed from the coach to have another pitch between the seats to accomplish this. It sounds like that could be profitable in the long run if a premium charge were added to the fare.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> I'm going to throw out a hypothesis on the SCL situation at A-Day: Seaboard was turning a profit on its Florida services, if only barely. The RF&P, however, may have been substantially in the hole on their segments and have been unwilling to not join Amtrak for that reason. This, in turn, would fit in well with the comment I think I once saw about Seaboard worrying about having to do transfers at Richmond rather than Southern's transfers at DC, since for example, I believe that the pre-Amtrak Crescent went past DC while a transfer was forced in DC post-A-Day.


Post A-Day Southern Crescent continued to run to New York under the pre-Amtrak agreement between PC and Southern, which Amtrak continued to honor. Same as the case with the Silvers and Champion. Of course the latter were Amtrak trains post-A-Day.

Really Amtrak has not very often been hopelessly nasty to collaborating with private operators to run trains. Yes there have been cases of such but nothing like what URPA would like to have us believe. Right now they are in the process of entering into a joint ticketing arrangement with S&NCR. It would be suicide for them to start being nasty with private operators at this point in time.


----------



## Ziv

With a proper cite going out to WRJensen, I will quote him below. Basically, Amtraks 50" pitch is very close ( he thought it was 56" but wiki begs to disagree and the Acela is only 42") to what some airline 'lie-flat' seating in which the seat folds out so that it is nearly flat, but at a 15 degree up angle, so you tend to slide down in the seat if you are completely flaked out.

_ *what is funny about those 777 seats is that they are listed as 55" seat pitch because they are not true lay flat. (Seat Pitch is the distance from any point on one seat to the exact same point on the seat in front or behind it.)**http://www.seatguru....g_777-200_B.php*

* *

*If you wanted to be a true lay flat like SIA (they are nice I have seen them) :http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Singapore_Air/Singapore_Air_Boeing_777-300ER.php*

*it would be a 71" seat pitch*

* *

*Superliners are listed as 56" Seat pitch.*

*FRA list the Regional Coach as 42" *

*So if you put 55" Seat pitch on a regional coach you could get about 13 rows of 3 or 39 seat. *

*A 71" seat pitch would be 10 rows or 30 seats.* _

But if you put lie-flat at an angle into a Superliner, they might fit ok but you would tend to slide down in the seat at night, and even the angled ones are 5 or 6" longer than the Superliner pitch so you would have to remove a row of seats to get 50" and split that 50 between 9 pairs of seats to make enough room for it. So you would lose 11% of the seats in that section so you would need to increase the price for 'lie-flat at an angle' by at least 15% to make up for lost revenue. Sounds good to me! I used to wake up in the morning kind of sore from sleeping at a 45 degree angle. Not bad, just not fully rested.


----------



## zephyr17

George said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still interested in the idea of Amtrak converting some of the Superliners to Couchette class cars and if my measurements are right, they could fit 10 compartments with 4 bunks in the same space that now has 5 bedrooms and 10 roomettes. So they would have room for 40 couchette passengers in the space that fits 10 bedroom passengers and 20 roomette passengers.... Not sure that there would be enough demand for a 'second class' sleeper with 4 people in it if the prices weren't at least 20% less than the roomette prices. I know I would pay a 20% premium over coach to have a bunk but I don't know that competing with the Superliners 62 passengers up top would work for the bottom line. 40 paying a 20% premium over 62 paying standard coach prices doesn't look profitable. Rats. Maybe lay flat seats in an upgrade section of the car that costs less than a roomette? They would need another 4" of space in front to give you the room a lay flat seat needs if I remember the article on that type of seating in airliners. What if Amtrak took out one row of seats behind the staircase and put in 16 lay flat seats instead of 18 regular seats? And charged 15% more for them? I really like LD train travel but I just can't stomach the price of a roomette most of the time. I went around the world by train 8 years ago and the only place it was hard to find overnight berths is in the US. It all comes down to cost, I know, but options would be cool.
> 
> 
> 
> Half a century ago, I rode across Canada in what I think were called Pullman sleeper coaches. Daytime, a regular coach. Nighttime, the seats converted to beds,and an upper berth dropped down. Everything was protected from the aisle by drop curtains. Long distance coach passengers don't need the privacy of rooms or couchettes, but they could benefit from a place to lie down flat and pehaps take off their "street" clothes in private, and would probably be willing to pay a small premium for that.
Click to expand...

Those are Pullman "sections" Canada still has them. They were largely phased out in the US in the 50s. The price was and is closer to private accomodations than coach. What was cheaper was the "slumbercoach" which provided small rooms at a lower price.

Doubt the couchette/common sleeping area would catch on in the US.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

zephyr17 said:


> Doubt the couchette/common sleeping area would catch on in the US.


Why?


----------



## WICT106

Texas Sunset said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubt the couchette/common sleeping area would catch on in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

I think part of the reason is that our culture is a bit different than many of the European countries, in that our expectations of Privacy and personal space are greater than many Europeans.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

WICT106 said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubt the couchette/common sleeping area would catch on in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think part of the reason is that our culture is a bit different than many of the European countries, in that our expectations of Privacy and personal space are greater than many Europeans.
Click to expand...

If privacy and space are the core issues then how can we explain the millions of American coach passengers that put up with ZERO privacy and NO personal space?


----------



## Texan Eagle

WICT106 said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubt the couchette/common sleeping area would catch on in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think part of the reason is that our culture is a bit different than many of the European countries, in that our expectations of Privacy and personal space are greater than many Europeans.
Click to expand...

I have heard this argument several times whenever the topic of economic sleeping accommodation comes up, and it begs a question- if for once I accept your point that the expectations of Americans of privacy and personal space are greater than Europeans and Asians (?) and they would never accept sleeping in any thing that is less than a private room, so does that mean people in America never travel by planes? All those transcontinental and international flights with Business Class and First Class must be running so empty out of America, no? I wonder why there are so many international airports and airplanes in this country then.


----------



## Ziv

All I know is, if there was a way to sleep economically and comfortably on Amtrak, more people would use it for overnight trips. (Roomettes aren't what I think of as economical and the coach seats aren't comfortable for sleeping.)

Full stop.


----------



## jis

Actually you seem to be a bit confused about seats in International Business Class on United Airlines. The seats they claim to be lie flat are actually completely flat and have a pitch of 76" not 56". See this at Seatguru. Having used one I can tell you from first hand experience that they are actually lie flat, no 15 degree angle.

AFAIK they do not claim their 55" pitch Worldwide Business Class seats to be lie flat. See this at Seatguru.

In addition United's ex-Continental 777s have very nice full lie flat seats at 60" pitch in a herringbone pattern, that I have used often and love. No 15" angle or anything, it is absolutely flat and you convert it from the sitting mode to the lie flat mode without even getting out of the seat! See this in Seatguru.

I think this last kind of seat would work quite well in trains if someone were to give it a try.

The ex-Continental 767s still have those 15 degree cotnraptions, which I hate for obvious reasons. But they will be gone by the end of the year.



Ziv said:


> With a proper cite going out to WRJensen, I will quote him below. Basically, Amtraks 50" pitch is very close ( he thought it was 56" but wiki begs to disagree and the Acela is only 42") to what some airline 'lie-flat' seating in which the seat folds out so that it is nearly flat, but at a 15 degree up angle, so you tend to slide down in the seat if you are completely flaked out.
> 
> _ *what is funny about those 777 seats is that they are listed as 55" seat pitch because they are not true lay flat. (Seat Pitch is the distance from any point on one seat to the exact same point on the seat in front or behind it.)**http://www.seatguru....g_777-200_B.php*
> 
> * *
> 
> *If you wanted to be a true lay flat like SIA (they are nice I have seen them) :http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Singapore_Air/Singapore_Air_Boeing_777-300ER.php*
> 
> *it would be a 71" seat pitch*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Superliners are listed as 56" Seat pitch.*
> 
> *FRA list the Regional Coach as 42" *
> 
> *So if you put 55" Seat pitch on a regional coach you could get about 13 rows of 3 or 39 seat. *
> 
> *A 71" seat pitch would be 10 rows or 30 seats.* _
> 
> But if you put lie-flat at an angle into a Superliner, they might fit ok but you would tend to slide down in the seat at night, and even the angled ones are 5 or 6" longer than the Superliner pitch so you would have to remove a row of seats to get 50" and split that 50 between 9 pairs of seats to make enough room for it. So you would lose 11% of the seats in that section so you would need to increase the price for 'lie-flat at an angle' by at least 15% to make up for lost revenue. Sounds good to me! I used to wake up in the morning kind of sore from sleeping at a 45 degree angle. Not bad, just not fully rested.


Why would you put a lie flat seat in the same space of a non-lie flat seat beats me. Of course you would charge 20% more for lie flat seats at least, so it's OK to use 60" pitch, which is quite reasonable and works quite well.


----------



## jebr

Ziv said:


> All I know is, if there was a way to sleep economically and comfortably on Amtrak, more people would use it for overnight trips. (Roomettes aren't what I think of as economical and the coach seats aren't comfortable for sleeping.)
> 
> Full stop.


The question is: would enough people do it to justify the expense of new or retrofitted cars?

Aside: do the sleepers pay their own way in terms of funding? That is, does the cost at least cover the additional cost of another train car (as in additional fuel for that car), the cost to maintain/set up those rooms (staff wise, linens, etc) and cover the cost of food? If not, why not?


----------



## SarahZ

Texan Eagle said:


> Couchettes would be nice, but if that is not happening, give me just a coach seat that reclines full-flat, similar to modern Business class seats on international flights and I'd be a happy traveler. No doors or curtains or any other fancy stuff needed.


I would LOVE this. We go to ABQ more often than anywhere else. It's a 26-hour trip, so it feels weird to pay for a roomette since our time on the train isn't very long at all. We're perfectly happy bringing cheese, crackers, and beef jerky. We do just fine with that and don't need four huge meals. The problem is, I cannot sleep in those coach seats. I get maybe, MAYBE thirty minutes of sleep. More often than not, I just stay awake the entire time. So, we get a roomette and basically end up paying for me to be able to lay flat.

I'd love if we could pay a bit more than Coach but not as much as a roomette to have the option of fully-reclined seats. I don't need a room to myself. I don't need four huge meals. I just need to be able to lay flat.


----------



## RRUserious

I just checked United Airlines business class one way in April to Amtrak sleeper one way on the same date. The air trip is $780. The sleeper car trip is $350. The premise of this thread is that Amtrak is higher priced than flying. Yet, people are comparing pitch in business class with coach. Seems like things are wandering way, way away from the original premise. The coach fare was $179. At $780, the business class space better be way better. That's 4 to 5 times more money. It is more than twice a sleeper with all meals paid. Of course, I did not inquire at a consolidator. I went to United's site to get what would be the ordinary price. Apples to apples.


----------



## Texan Eagle

RRUserious said:


> I just checked United Airlines business class one way in April to Amtrak sleeper one way on the same date. The air trip is $780. The sleeper car trip is $350. The premise of this thread is that Amtrak is higher priced than flying. Yet, people are comparing pitch in business class with coach. Seems like things are wandering way, way away from the original premise. The coach fare was $179. At $780, the business class space better be way better. That's 4 to 5 times more money. It is more than twice a sleeper with all meals paid. Of course, I did not inquire at a consolidator. I went to United's site to get what would be the ordinary price. Apples to apples.


Sure, apples to apples. I hope the train you compared with the flight takes you from Chicago to Los Angeles in five hours.

You are completely missing the point here. Nobody is *comparing *airline Business Class with Amtrak coach class. The discussion is about how Amtrak can possibly add a class of service that offers lie-flat seats and that's it, no other frills of sleeper travel- private showers, three meals included in the fare etc etc. Just a more comfortable coach, let's call it _Coach+ _or _*Premium Coach. *_


----------



## Ziv

jebr said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is, if there was a way to sleep economically and comfortably on Amtrak, more people would use it for overnight trips. (Roomettes aren't what I think of as economical and the coach seats aren't comfortable for sleeping.)
> 
> Full stop.
> 
> 
> 
> The question is: would enough people do it to justify the expense of new or retrofitted cars?
> 
> Aside: do the sleepers pay their own way in terms of funding? That is, does the cost at least cover the additional cost of another train car (as in additional fuel for that car), the cost to maintain/set up those rooms (staff wise, linens, etc) and cover the cost of food? If not, why not?
Click to expand...


I think that people traveling overnight would pay at least 20% more for a lie-flat seat, whether it was fully flat or inclined by 15 degrees would matter little. Would they pay 50% more? Some would, some wouldn't. The only way to find out would be to invest in a few sections of lie-flat seats and see how they sell. I believe that you can get a decent lie-flat seat that is inclined around 15 degrees into 55 or 56" of pitch and the normal pitch for a Superliner seat is 50" so the space behind the staircase might be a good spot to start because there is around 8 rows of seats. Remove them and put in 7 rows of sleep flat seats. Market them as 'Business Class Lie-Flat Seats' and see if you can get 50% more than regular coach. I know that I refuse to pay double, let alone triple for a Roomette, but I know that I would pay 50% more for a lie-flat seat that I could really sleep in, not just doze intermittently in.

As to your second question, I would guess that sleeper cars make as much for Amtrak if not more than a coach car. Those meals they get for free aren't worth all THAT much money. And I do like the food in the diner cars, so that isn't sniping.

If your question was, 'Would the new sleeper lie-flat seats pay their own way', again, I would say, most likely they would. I would pay 50% more for the comfort and Amtrak only loses 10% of the seating capacity. Plus it would bring in more mid-range passengers who previously refused to pay double or triple coach to get a roomette.

Now if we could just get lie-flat seats in a 55-56" pitch and have most of Amtrak's LD routes set up for going 110 mph over much of their routes with enough double tracking to limit the delays! That would be golden! LOL!


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to throw out a hypothesis on the SCL situation at A-Day: Seaboard was turning a profit on its Florida services, if only barely. The RF&P, however, may have been substantially in the hole on their segments and have been unwilling to not join Amtrak for that reason. This, in turn, would fit in well with the comment I think I once saw about Seaboard worrying about having to do transfers at Richmond rather than Southern's transfers at DC, since for example, I believe that the pre-Amtrak Crescent went past DC while a transfer was forced in DC post-A-Day.
> 
> 
> 
> Post A-Day Southern Crescent continued to run to New York under the pre-Amtrak agreement between PC and Southern, which Amtrak continued to honor. Same as the case with the Silvers and Champion. Of course the latter were Amtrak trains post-A-Day.
> 
> Really Amtrak has not very often been hopelessly nasty to collaborating with private operators to run trains. Yes there have been cases of such but nothing like what URPA would like to have us believe. Right now they are in the process of entering into a joint ticketing arrangement with S&NCR. It would be suicide for them to start being nasty with private operators at this point in time.
Click to expand...

There is one piece of evidence to the contrary, namely their expressly-stated reluctance to sell disused equipment to possible startup operators (noting concerns of competition) as stated in their equipment plan. It would seem to me that _encouraging_ other operations that offer interline travel opportunities ought to be Amtrak's position (since such operations would expand destination possibilities where Amtrak can't because of legal issues and provide a "network effect" bump) . Of course, with that said, I do recognize the risks of _direct_ competition.

S&NCR is an odd case because it is in an area that Amtrak is unlikely to even _want _to extend a competing train. The FEC situation is a bit of a mess to some extent, but the station lockout concerns (expressed if FECI goes "on their own") are what I would point out as a counter-example. There, you have an Amtrak train (two, actually) running the same A-B route (be it ORL-MIA or JAX-MIA) and Amtrak doesn't seem too fond of the possibility. I'm going to wonder what Amtrak's relationship with Iowa-Pacific starts looking like going forward...that seems to fall more into the second category, but they're also hooking cars onto Amtrak trains, so presumably Amtrak is getting at least some revenue in the deal.


----------



## Ryan

Texas Sunset said:


> WICT106 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doubt the couchette/common sleeping area would catch on in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think part of the reason is that our culture is a bit different than many of the European countries, in that our expectations of Privacy and personal space are greater than many Europeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If privacy and space are the core issues then how can we explain the millions of American coach passengers that put up with ZERO privacy and NO personal space?
Click to expand...

Let me take a swing at this. I think that the hangup is that Americans don't like to share what they think of as a "private space" with strangers. I think that you can see that in how hostels seem to be much less popular here in the US than they are elsewhere in the world. Rooms in a sleeping car would fall under that "private space", whereas 60 people in a coach car is certainly not private. 
I think that airline style lay flat seats are a great idea. It seems backwards, but I'd rather sleep in a lay flat seat in a coach with 40 other strangers than I would with 2 other strangers in a walled off (or curtained off) area within that same car. Odd? Absolutely. But I think that's the mindset that is being talked about.



Ziv said:


> Now if we could just get lie-flat seats in a 55-56" pitch


The problem with that is that many people are taller than 55-56", so to make that work you'll have to turn things on an angle (as Jis made mention of earlier). As soon as you do that, you lose your ability to go 4 across in a railcar, and you start losing seating density (meaning your ticket costs have to go up to compensate).


----------



## jis

Amtrak's role as an entity that is able to get direct government subsidy for operations should be to serve areas that no one else wants to serve. That is not to say that it should discontinue any services that they already run. If the government decides that areas that cannot be served by any private operator should not be served at all and the great representatives of the people go along with it then that would be a problem for Amtrak.

If a railroad wants to operate its own passenger service where Amtrak wants to operate serving the exact same purpose then it is not clear why Amtrak should get involved there. In case of FEC the goals of FEC is Corridor Service. The goals of Amtrak is LD service. They are not at odds at each other, and traditionally FEC has conveyed tains from the north primarily owned and run by other railroads all the way to Key West at one time, so this should not be anything new for them. Also not that FEC has not even decided yet who is going to actually operate the trains on its road for the corridor service, and have not said that it will be something that they will do in house. So let us wait and see what develops before discussing how FEC will Amtrak's life hell etc.

Interline operations both of passengers and even through equipment should be encouraged. That is the way to get a vibrant passenger rail industry. Not contemplating in how many ways Amtrak and the private railroads can screw each other, to the detriment of the riding public. We see enough of that nonsense among 4 government owned outfits around New York City. We don't want to encourage such behavior nationwide.

It would be nice if Amtrak (or something else) were to provide a nationwide uniform ticketing system at such a price that others could reasonably subscribe to it to provide the passengers a seamless experience.


----------



## jis

RRUserious said:


> I just checked United Airlines business class one way in April to Amtrak sleeper one way on the same date. The air trip is $780. The sleeper car trip is $350. The premise of this thread is that Amtrak is higher priced than flying. Yet, people are comparing pitch in business class with coach. Seems like things are wandering way, way away from the original premise. The coach fare was $179. At $780, the business class space better be way better. That's 4 to 5 times more money. It is more than twice a sleeper with all meals paid. Of course, I did not inquire at a consolidator. I went to United's site to get what would be the ordinary price. Apples to apples.


This is a meaningless and bogus comparison over such distances where one takes 5 hours and one take more than 2 days, IMHO. In one case you have to spend less than 5 hours in a seat and in the other case you basically have to set up household in the seat for several days. That comparison makes sense only in consideration of Corridor service like between New York and Washington DC.

Think of it this way. If you can measure the cost and discomfort (the CD Index or CDI) of the seat on a scale of 1 to 10,and compute the net CDI for a trip as the product of the base CDI and the number hours spent in that state, then you will immediately see that a plane will come out way ahead in terms of total Cost-Discomfort Index than the plane even if Amtrak's is 1 and the planes is 6.

Anyhow this has precious little to do with what is being discussed here, which is whether airline business class style lie flat seats (which BTW are not really available on too many Chicago - San Fran United flights) in trains.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to throw out a hypothesis on the SCL situation at A-Day: Seaboard was turning a profit on its Florida services, if only barely. The RF&P, however, may have been substantially in the hole on their segments and have been unwilling to not join Amtrak for that reason. This, in turn, would fit in well with the comment I think I once saw about Seaboard worrying about having to do transfers at Richmond rather than Southern's transfers at DC, since for example, I believe that the pre-Amtrak Crescent went past DC while a transfer was forced in DC post-A-Day.
> 
> 
> 
> Really Amtrak has not very often been hopelessly nasty to collaborating with private operators to run trains. Yes there have been cases of such but nothing like what URPA would like to have us believe. Right now they are in the process of entering into a joint ticketing arrangement with S&NCR. It would be suicide for them to start being nasty with private operators at this point in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is one piece of evidence to the contrary, namely their expressly-stated reluctance to sell disused equipment to possible startup operators (noting concerns of competition) as stated in their equipment plan. It would seem to me that _encouraging_ other operations that offer interline travel opportunities ought to be Amtrak's position (since such operations would expand destination possibilities where Amtrak can't because of legal issues and provide a "network effect" bump) . Of course, with that said, I do recognize the risks of _direct_ competition.
Click to expand...

As I said there have been cases of such but it is not a constant theme. I agree that Amtrak's goal should be to be a part of an eco system of rail passenger transport providers, perhaps even taking up the role of the keeper of passenger rail technical standards, sort of like AAR is for freight, and Amtrak almost de-facto already is for passenger rolling stock. It should set the standrds for inter-line operations and centralized ticket and tariff clearing house etc., sort of like the British Rail Regulators play in that area.



> S&NCR is an odd case because it is in an area that Amtrak is unlikely to even _want _to extend a competing train. The FEC situation is a bit of a mess to some extent, but the station lockout concerns (expressed if FECI goes "on their own") are what I would point out as a counter-example. There, you have an Amtrak train (two, actually) running the same A-B route (be it ORL-MIA or JAX-MIA) and Amtrak doesn't seem too fond of the possibility. I'm going to wonder what Amtrak's relationship with Iowa-Pacific starts looking like going forward...that seems to fall more into the second category, but they're also hooking cars onto Amtrak trains, so presumably Amtrak is getting at least some revenue in the deal.


No. Amtrak provides NYP - JAX - ORL - MIA service. FEC has no dream or desire to do so. Even Amtrak where it operates its own Corridor Service and LD service as on the NEC keeps the two quite separate with distinct and different types of equipment and service. So I do not agree that it is a counter example. If Amtrak were split into an NEC operations and an LD operation, would you claim that LD operations on the NEC was in competition with Amtrak. Do you really think Amtrak is competing with NJT between new York and Trenton or Metropark in any meaningful way. By design they are trying to make it unsavory for those short turn passengers to take Amtrak.


----------



## Ziv

Ryan said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if we could just get lie-flat seats in a 55-56" pitch
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that many people are taller than 55-56", so to make that work you'll have to turn things on an angle (as Jis made mention of earlier). As soon as you do that, you lose your ability to go 4 across in a railcar, and you start losing seating density (meaning your ticket costs have to go up to compensate).
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you would lose anything other than the 5 or 6" of increased pitch, i.e. distance front to back the seat takes. If it is a lie-flat seat at a 15 degree angle (approximately) when in sleeping position, the feet of one passenger are under the chest of the passenger in front of them, so the 'bed/seat' is around 80" long from foot to head with the lower 25" overlapping the seat ahead with room for my feet to sit upright without brushing the seat back of the person in front of me. Lie-flat seats are the same width as an Amtrak seat so the width won't be a factor. So my feet will be 6" off the ground and my head will be 22" off the ground. Is it as comfortable as a 'lie-flat seat horizontally mounted'? No, but the horizontal mount takes up 82" of pitch and has my feet 6" from the passenger in front of me.

I don't know what the answer is to getting comfortable seats/compartments that make Amtrak money and encourage more riders to use them, but I would bet that between Couchettes and Lie-flat at an angle seats, Amtrak could find a lot of new riders, and at least with the latter, do so by increasing ridership and revenue per passenger. As an added bonus, lie-flats could be installed relatively easily in any Superliner car on a test basis when they are re-furbed.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> No. Amtrak provides NYP - JAX - ORL - MIA service. FEC has no dream or desire to do so. Even Amtrak where it operates its own Corridor Service and LD service as on the NEC keeps the two quite separate with distinct and different types of equipment and service. So I do not agree that it is a counter example. If Amtrak were split into an NEC operations and an LD operation, would you claim that LD operations on the NEC was in competition with Amtrak. Do you really think Amtrak is competing with NJT between new York and Trenton or Metropark in any meaningful way. By design they are trying to make it unsavory for those short turn passengers to take Amtrak.


Amtrak holds express ambitions on at _least_ JAX-MIA direct service, and they currently serve ORL-MIA. FECI wants to do the latter, and has the former in their long-term sights. Particularly south of Orlando on the Meteor and Tampa on the Star, I have gathered that Amtrak has trouble keeping seats full because of the amount of net disembarkation in central Florida. Losing that business would be a noticeable net loss for Amtrak.

On the NEC, there is a synergy between Amtrak and the commuter agencies. However, all parties concerned are essentially public entities...for the most part, I doubt that NJT or MNRR care much about lost market share.


----------



## jis

Well just because Amtrak has ambitions does not mean that it makes sense under all circumstances. If the choice is between Amtrak requiring more in way of subsidy than FEC because of FEC's extensive property holdings in FL guess which makes more sense? Amtrak will just need to adjust to the new situation. Given its financial situation as far as the LD BU goes, the writing is very clearly on the wall should FEC come up with a viable business case and move forward with a plan that requires less subsidy than Amtrak woul require.


----------



## RRUserious

The thread title says coach is more expensive than flying. It is not. As to the time involved, I've always said that if all you are paying for is reaching the destination, and you don't mind having you junk jiggled, buy a plane ticket! There is hardly an amenity worth mentioning on a plane, but you don't care about the vehicle that takes you anyway. Me, I am blessed with tons of time, and my AIM is not merely to travel fast to some destination. I have slightly higher standards nowadays. Also, I know trains are increasingly in our future. So I'm pitching in my bit so that the next generations don't have to build totally from scratch. Plane passengers are so focused, they can't see past a cheap fare and a fast trip. They might object to being felt up, but they manage to overlook it by thinking how cheap their ticket was and how little time the trip took.

Such people are really aliens on this board. There's little or anything of value to them in the train system. I'd go nearly as far as to think them trolls. But this is the Open Internet, so being mocked by strangers here is like being massaged by ugly people from TSA. Just part of life.


----------



## Texan Eagle

RRUserious said:


> The thread title says coach is more expensive than flying. It is not.


Except when it is. Just a couple of quick figures. I checked from the city where I live.

Dallas-Chicago. Several days in May 2012. Amtrak coach cheapest:* $119. *Flight cheapest: *Spirit Airlines $79*. (Both fares for same day- May 16)

Dallas-Boston. Several days in May 2012. Amtrak coach cheapest: *$219. *Flight cheapest: *Spirit Airlines $79 *(Both fares for same day- May 16)

Dallas-Houston. Several days in May 2012. Amtrak coach cheapest: *$84. *Flight cheapest: *Southwest Airlines $60* (Both fares for same day- May 16)

Want more examples?



> As to the time involved, I've always said that if all you are paying for is reaching the destination, and you don't mind having you junk jiggled, buy a plane ticket!


I have never really figured out why do folks here on AU mention so much about physical interaction by TSA. Is it based merely on media report? In the last two years I have taken over 25 domestic flights within USA and 10 international flights arriving and departing from airports in USA and not once have I been touched by a TSA agent. And FYI, I am not any frequent flier or have any special privileges. In fact, I would fall under what paranoid Americans would call high-risk passengers- a young male non-white guy, and have always traveled economy class, but never has the TSA checkpoint involved more than a cursory walk through X-ray scanner. That's it.



> Me, I am blessed with tons of time, and my AIM is not merely to travel fast to some destination.


But not everyone is. This is what some politicians had mentioned and many people didn't like it, that only retired people with truckload of free time travel on Amtrak! Of course that statement is not entirely true, but it is not entirely false either.



> Such people are really aliens on this board. There's little or anything of value to them in the train system. I'd go nearly as far as to think them trolls. But this is the Open Internet, so being mocked by strangers here is like being massaged by ugly people from TSA. Just part of life.


Sorry, I do not approve of this observation. I've flown over 40,000 miles on airplanes in the past two years, so that makes me alien on this board? What if I tell you I have also done over 50,000 miles of train travel so far? In fact, with statements like these, I feel it is _you_ who is out here to troll people.


----------



## trainman74

Texan Eagle said:


> In fact, I would fall under what paranoid Americans would call high-risk passengers- a young male non-white guy, and have always traveled economy class, but never has the TSA checkpoint involved more than a cursory walk through X-ray scanner. That's it.


Then you're lucky you haven't encountered the "backscatter" scanners that are in use at many airports, which require more than a "cursory" walk through. A fair number of people choose to decline going through those scanners for various reasons, but if you decline going through one of those, then you get a somewhat _intense_ physical search from the TSA.


----------



## PRR 60

trainman74 said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, I would fall under what paranoid Americans would call high-risk passengers- a young male non-white guy, and have always traveled economy class, but never has the TSA checkpoint involved more than a cursory walk through X-ray scanner. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're lucky you haven't encountered the "backscatter" scanners that are in use at many airports, which require more than a "cursory" walk through. A fair number of people choose to decline going through those scanners for various reasons, but if you decline going through one of those, then you get a somewhat _intense_ physical search from the TSA.
Click to expand...

I have gone through a scanner, and it was pretty much a walk-through. No problems at all.

If people here want to believe the stories about physical probing by TSA, they are welcome to do so. I also go through TSA maybe 20-30 times a year and also have never been touched.


----------



## PRR 60

RRUserious said:


> The thread title says coach is more expensive than flying. It is not. As to the time involved, I've always said that if all you are paying for is reaching the destination, and you don't mind having you junk jiggled, buy a plane ticket! There is hardly an amenity worth mentioning on a plane, but you don't care about the vehicle that takes you anyway. Me, I am blessed with tons of time, and my AIM is not merely to travel fast to some destination. I have slightly higher standards nowadays. Also, I know trains are increasingly in our future. So I'm pitching in my bit so that the next generations don't have to build totally from scratch. Plane passengers are so focused, they can't see past a cheap fare and a fast trip. They might object to being felt up, but they manage to overlook it by thinking how cheap their ticket was and how little time the trip took.
> 
> Such people are really aliens on this board. There's little or anything of value to them in the train system. I'd go nearly as far as to think them trolls. But this is the Open Internet, so being mocked by strangers here is like being massaged by ugly people from TSA. Just part of life.


Watch out! There may be an "alien" and "troll" serving as a moderator here.

There is no regulation that prohibits someone who often travels by air (and maybe even enjoys it once in a while) from enjoying rail travel as well. Indeed, there is at least one airline pilot active here. Those people, and their opinions, are as welcome here as are those who, by desire, travel only by rail.


----------



## Texan Eagle

PRR 60 said:


> trainman74 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, I would fall under what paranoid Americans would call high-risk passengers- a young male non-white guy, and have always traveled economy class, but never has the TSA checkpoint involved more than a cursory walk through X-ray scanner. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're lucky you haven't encountered the "backscatter" scanners that are in use at many airports, which require more than a "cursory" walk through. A fair number of people choose to decline going through those scanners for various reasons, but if you decline going through one of those, then you get a somewhat _intense_ physical search from the TSA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have gone through a scanner, and it was pretty much a walk-through. No problems at all.
> 
> If people here want to believe the stories about physical probing by TSA, they are welcome to do so. I also go through TSA maybe 20-30 times a year and also have never been touched.
Click to expand...

I have been through the "backscatter" scanners at Denver, San Francisco and Albuquerque, and except for the fact that you have to stand in a weird pose with hands in the air for 5 seconds, it really is no big deal or different from the usual walk through the metal detector. The horror stories that you read in media start when the passengers decide to be a pain in the posterior and decline passing through the scanner. The TSA and scanners may be a theater and may or may not be effective at ensuring security for us, but if one keeps one's opinion to self and not argue with those guys and make a scene, the whole TSA security part is hardly an annoyance to travel. In fact I have had to deal with more annoying folks at Amtrak stations (kindergarten-walk-scheduler, rude lady at inquiry counter not telling what time train is expected etc) than I've had at airports.


----------



## jmbgeg

Alan and Anthony,

Perhaps when a subject gets this huge over years, maybe it should be locked, and upon interest; others may restart.


----------



## George Harris

Texan Eagle said:


> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the time involved, I've always said that if all you are paying for is reaching the destination, and you don't mind having you junk jiggled, buy a plane ticket!
> 
> 
> 
> I have never really figured out why do folks here on AU mention so much about physical interaction by TSA. Is it based merely on media report? In the last two years I have taken over 25 domestic flights within USA and 10 international flights arriving and departing from airports in USA and not once have I been touched by a TSA agent. And FYI, I am not any frequent flier or have any special privileges. In fact, I would fall under what paranoid Americans would call high-risk passengers- a young male non-white guy, and have always traveled economy class, but never has the TSA checkpoint involved more than a cursory walk through X-ray scanner. That's it.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like they are afraid of being accused of discrimination than anything else.

I am a plus 60 white guy with a wife that is likewise (except female) and *always* get the full treatment going through the TSA theatre. Well, I have metal in my leg, my wife has metal in her back and neck and artificial knees, so we always set off the metal detector so that we get the full pat down or X-ray experience. Then, I am frequently carrying a laptop (I stll work) so I have essentially disassemble to go through security. And, if we have baggage to check, there is that process to go through as well. And, after getting on the plane, there is the lecture, the no electronic devices, etc. foolishness to go through. Therefore, it is a huge relief when we can go somewhere by train where all we have to do is show up with ticket and get on. Even the baggage checking process is easier.

We fly when the time or end point locations demand it.



> Me, I am blessed with tons of time, and my AIM is not merely to travel fast to some destination.
> 
> 
> 
> But not everyone is. This is what some politicians had mentioned and many people didn't like it, that only retired people with truckload of free time travel on Amtrak! Of course that statement is not entirely true, but it is not entirely false either.
Click to expand...

That is part of the whole problem of transportation issues being turned into politicl issues.


----------



## RRUserious

PRR 60 said:


> There is no regulation that prohibits someone who often travels by air (and maybe even enjoys it once in a while) from enjoying rail travel as well. Indeed, there is at least one airline pilot active here. Those people, and their opinions, are as welcome here as are those who, by desire, travel only by rail.


And you're implying that the OP, with the claim that he can fly cheaper than go coach is such a person? If so, that's a very mixed up person. Maybe one who simply resents every penny given to any carrier for the privilege of traveling.

As I say, you willing to take the whole "flying package" as market conditions have created it today, then just don't hassle train-lovers about it. You aren';t GONNA get your lowball deal on the train. Deal with it!

Besides my unwillingness to deal with the endless round of crap by the aviation industry and its friends in DHS, I also happen to enjoy the TRIP. It isn't some meaningless blur between departure and arrival. And it is affordable. So I find myself irked by these people who think the mindset of flyers should apply everywhere. If they don't find the whole world of travel a loving reflection of air travel, they think they've grounds to stir up a fuss. How self-indulgent. I hope they DON'T get on the trains. I don't need to deal with that type while I'm enjoying my train trip.


----------



## Ispolkom

Texan Eagle said:


> I have heard this argument several times whenever the topic of economic sleeping accommodation comes up, and it begs a question- if for once I accept your point that the expectations of Americans of privacy and personal space are greater than Europeans and Asians (?) and they would never accept sleeping in any thing that is less than a private room, so does that mean people in America never travel by planes? All those transcontinental and international flights with Business Class and First Class must be running so empty out of America, no? I wonder why there are so many international airports and airplanes in this country then.


I've traveled in shared compartments a few dozen times, mostly in Eastern Europe, and I've never had a problem with it. The issue I think that you would have in the U.S. is with strangers, especially of different genders, sharing compartments with doors that close. Questions of theft, harassment, and assault come up, when I mention such accommodations to Americans. Has any U.S. railroad, even in less litigious times, ever offered sleeper service where strangers shared a compartment?

Lie-flat chairs, on the other, hand, make a lot of sense for coach. Let's remember that Amtrak long-distance coaches were designed in the 70s, and reflect standards of those time. I only traveled in first class internationally a couple of times in the 80s and early 90s, but what I remember (through the haze of champagne, caviar, and 25-year-old scotch) is seats that were broadly similar to what Amtrak Superliner coaches have. When did lie-flat chairs come into service on airliners?

One concern I'd have, though, is that Amtrak has enough trouble keeping their present chairs in service. How much harder would it be to maintain a lie-flat one?


----------



## jis

Ispolkom said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard this argument several times whenever the topic of economic sleeping accommodation comes up, and it begs a question- if for once I accept your point that the expectations of Americans of privacy and personal space are greater than Europeans and Asians (?) and they would never accept sleeping in any thing that is less than a private room, so does that mean people in America never travel by planes? All those transcontinental and international flights with Business Class and First Class must be running so empty out of America, no? I wonder why there are so many international airports and airplanes in this country then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've traveled in shared compartments a few dozen times, mostly in Eastern Europe, and I've never had a problem with it. The issue I think that you would have in the U.S. is with strangers, especially of different genders, sharing compartments with doors that close. Questions of theft, harassment, and assault come up, when I mention such accommodations to Americans. Has any U.S. railroad, even in less litigious times, ever offered sleeper service where strangers shared a compartment?
Click to expand...

Actually if you look at the situation in India, just as a random example (the situation is similar in most of Southeast Asia) the only compartment accommodation where doors close is AC First Class, and IR takes extreme care in assigning accommodation making sure that Indian sensibilities about separation of sexes, which is way way more strict than in the US, is adhered to strictly.

All other sleeping accommodation is in open section cubicles with no doors, and depending on the class of travel curtains to give some privacy in ones berth, or not. Theft is always a possibility and most who have such concerns carry along a bicycle chain and lock to lock their baggage to a fixed post under the seat or in the luggage rack. But broadly speaking, the risk of theft is no more in an open section than in Coach.



> Lie-flat chairs, on the other, hand, make a lot of sense for coach. Let's remember that Amtrak long-distance coaches were designed in the 70s, and reflect standards of those time. I only traveled in first class internationally a couple of times in the 80s and early 90s, but what I remember (through the haze of champagne, caviar, and 25-year-old scotch) is seats that were broadly similar to what Amtrak Superliner coaches have. When did lie-flat chairs come into service on airliners?


The first time I flew in one was about 10 or so years back in Sept 2001 one week after 9/11 on BA in Business Class (when I had to make an emergency trip to India to attend to my Dad's illness). So it might have come in a little before that, though the US airlines were late getting into that game.



> One concern I'd have, though, is that Amtrak has enough trouble keeping their present chairs in service. How much harder would it be to maintain a lie-flat one?


Yes that would be a concern.

I happened to be on Amtrak today and had a measuring device with me, so I took a few rough measurements. It looks like in a regular 85 footer with single vestibule, an ADA restroom and a regular restroom like on Amfleet 2, you can find room for 10 rows of 72" pitch lie flat seats without doing any herringbone. Which means you can fit 40 passengers. This would imply that all else being equal, if you do not also burden the passengers with god knows how much extra for meals and premium service, you could get away with charging a little less than double the coach fare to come out even. It would be considerably less than double if compared with a 66 seater. The cost of service would depend on whether some bedding is provided or not.

To provide a slightly broader berth in the sleeping position one could go with 60" herringbone 3 abreast with effective bed length of 72" to accommodate 36. The only difference will be about 4 to 6" wider sleeping space above ones knees, and a quite a bit narrower below.

In either arrangement luggage space would be exactly the same as in Coach. In classic sections which would have similar capacity there was a problem with luggage space because the ample overhead storage space was not available, being occupied by the upper berth.

But as Anderson rightly points out, these seats are more complex pieces of machinery, though I hear that they are very robust, modular, reliable and relatively light for what they do, and do not require a lot of maintenance. I suppose technology has come some ways in the area of electrical servo mechanisms.


----------



## Ziv

jis, 72" pitch is a huge amount of space, that is halfway between first class size and business in most airlines. I think 56" pitch, 'lie-flat at an angle' (business class 'lie flat') are probably the only way Amtrak would see it work profitably. Adding 6" to a 50" pitch gives a pretty comfortable 79" flat, albeit slanted, 'bed'. No herring-bone sort of arrangement needed. And since your feet would only go 9 or 10 inches under the seat in front and your seat back would go only 10 inches back from its upright position, you wouldn't intrude either in front or in back so all the seats wouldn't have to be 'turned down' at once. The top of the seat/bed would be 26" higher than the bottom, but it would be flat and it would be a decent way to sleep, much better than the standard Superliner seats now.

Heck, if you used 72" pitch you would be wasting at least a foot for each row.

I am sorry to disagree but I really would like to see Amtrak start to re-furb sections of the Superliners in a way that makes a decent sleep possible on LD routes without paying as much as a roomette costs. And it really looks like the only way that will ever happen is if Amtrak starts to buy 'lie-flat' 56" pitch seats from who ever makes them for business class travelers using American airlines. It would be cheap to try and the revenue would probably pay for itself in just a few years. And I would be able to get a decent nights sleep on the Empire Builder without paying double or triple the coach fare.

http://www.airlinequality.com/Product/seats_americas.htm


----------



## Texan Eagle

Ziv said:


> jis, 72" pitch is a huge amount of space, that is halfway between first class size and business in most airlines. I think 56" pitch, 'lie-flat at an angle' (business class 'lie flat') are probably the only way Amtrak would see it work profitably. Adding 6" to a 50" pitch gives a pretty comfortable 79" flat, albeit slanted, 'bed'. No herring-bone sort of arrangement needed. And since your feet would only go 9 or 10 inches under the seat in front and your seat back would go only 10 inches back from its upright position, you wouldn't intrude either in front or in back so all the seats wouldn't have to be 'turned down' at once. The top of the seat/bed would be 26" higher than the bottom, but it would be flat and it would be a decent way to sleep, much better than the standard Superliner seats now.
> 
> Heck, if you used 72" pitch you would be wasting at least a foot for each row.
> 
> I am sorry to disagree but I really would like to see Amtrak start to re-furb sections of the Superliners in a way that makes a decent sleep possible on LD routes without paying as much as a roomette costs. And it really looks like the only way that will ever happen is if Amtrak starts to buy 'lie-flat' 56" pitch seats from who ever makes them for business class travelers using American airlines. It would be cheap to try and the revenue would probably pay for itself in just a few years. And I would be able to get a decent nights sleep on the Empire Builder without paying double or triple the coach fare.
> 
> http://www.airlinequ...ts_americas.htm


I agree. Angled lie-flat Business class seats don't take up awful lot of extra space over the already quite-generous Superliner legroom. Are they the best way to sleep? Probably no. Are they very uncomfortable to sleep in? Probably no either. Several airlines use these type of seats and thousands of business travelers travel longhaul on these seats, if they were awful, they wouldn't be there on the planes in the premium class. Something similar to Lufthansa's angled lie-flat bed (see photo below) could nicely fit into Superliners without reducing capacity by a lot. Give me this and I'd happily pay 50% over coach fare, maybe twice the coach fare too if it is a long overnight journey, and sleep happily in it. I ain't need fancy rooms with private showers or in-built potty or meals included in fare. Just a place to lay my body flat in the night, and I am good to go


----------



## Ryan

That looks terribly uncomfortable to me.

Since you can get 40 lie-flat-AND-level seats in a coach car, I don't see any need to go with the crooked bed.


----------



## George Harris

Resurrect the section sleeper that for the most part disappeared after WW2? Put in bunks three high and perpendicular to the car with an aisle on one side? That you can see in China. Both will carry more people than the current sleeper, and the three high bunks probably as many as coach. As for this angled seat, forget it. It is minimal improvement over the current coach seat. They sell on airlines because the coach seat are appropriate to midgits.


----------



## Anderson

On the issue of airfares vs. Amtrak fares: It varies based on the route, the time of year, etc. For a "cheap" air market, Amtrak will tend to be more expensive; for an "expensive" air market, Amtrak will come in cheaper.

As to the number of lie-flat seats...how do you come up with 40, just out of curiosity? Is this assuming 10 rows of 4? 14 rows of 3 (well, 42, but close enough for government work)? Etc.


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> I really would like to see Amtrak start to re-furb sections of the Superliners in a way that makes a decent sleep possible on LD routes without paying as much as a roomette costs. And it really looks like the only way that will ever happen is if Amtrak starts to buy 'lie-flat' 56" pitch seats from who ever makes them for business class travelers using American airlines. It would be cheap to try and the revenue would probably pay for itself in just a few years. And I would be able to get a decent nights sleep on the Empire Builder without paying double or triple the coach fare.
> 
> http://www.airlinequality.com/Product/seats_americas.htm


Where I disagree is that one can get decent sleep on those 15% slanted contraptions. Been there, done that, never again. Actually just two months back I had the pleasure of trying to sleep on one of those contraptions in a Lufthansa 747 from Delhi to Frankfurt, with not much success. Fortunately the Frankfurt to Newark leg was on Continental full lie flat and that allowed me to recover from the lost sleep in the previous leg.

Continuously slithering down the seat while trying to sleep is not my idea of getting a good sleep. Superliner seats are good enough if that is what one wants.

A full lie flat seat should cost no more than 65% more than a Coach seat. It is nothing like 2 to 3 times, unless of course Amtrak chooses to load it up with extras.

BTW this is all whistling in the wind since Amtrak is not going to do anything of the sort. There simply are too many more important things that need to be done to keep things running with the limited budget available. Any additional type of accommodation is just not going to happen.


----------



## Ziv

Texan Eagle said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> jis, 72" pitch is a huge amount of space, that is halfway between first class size and business in most airlines. I think 56" pitch, 'lie-flat at an angle' (business class 'lie flat') are probably the only way Amtrak would see it work profitably. Adding 6" to a 50" pitch gives a pretty comfortable 79" flat, albeit slanted, 'bed'. No herring-bone sort of arrangement needed. And since your feet would only go 9 or 10 inches under the seat in front and your seat back would go only 10 inches back from its upright position, you wouldn't intrude either in front or in back so all the seats wouldn't have to be 'turned down' at once. The top of the seat/bed would be 26" higher than the bottom, but it would be flat and it would be a decent way to sleep, much better than the standard Superliner seats now.
> 
> Heck, if you used 72" pitch you would be wasting at least a foot for each row.
> 
> I am sorry to disagree but I really would like to see Amtrak start to re-furb sections of the Superliners in a way that makes a decent sleep possible on LD routes without paying as much as a roomette costs. And it really looks like the only way that will ever happen is if Amtrak starts to buy 'lie-flat' 56" pitch seats from who ever makes them for business class travelers using American airlines. It would be cheap to try and the revenue would probably pay for itself in just a few years. And I would be able to get a decent nights sleep on the Empire Builder without paying double or triple the coach fare.
> 
> http://www.airlinequ...ts_americas.htm
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Angled lie-flat Business class seats don't take up awful lot of extra space over the already quite-generous Superliner legroom. Are they the best way to sleep? Probably no. Are they very uncomfortable to sleep in? Probably no either. Several airlines use these type of seats and thousands of business travelers travel longhaul on these seats, if they were awful, they wouldn't be there on the planes in the premium class. Something similar to Lufthansa's angled lie-flat bed (see photo below) could nicely fit into Superliners without reducing capacity by a lot. Give me this and I'd happily pay 50% over coach fare, maybe twice the coach fare too if it is a long overnight journey, and sleep happily in it. I ain't need fancy rooms with private showers or in-built potty or meals included in fare. Just a place to lay my body flat in the night, and I am good to go
Click to expand...


Texan Eagle, that is exactly the type of seat that uses 56" to 60" instead of 50" that Amtrak uses now, but allows you to rest comfortably and sleep well. Amtrak would lose 11-20% of the passengers in any section that converted to lie-flat seats, but would gain passengers who would otherwise not use the train. If they can fit these seats into a space that is just 12% more than standard Superliner seats and charge 25% more, these seats would pay for themselves in a year or two and would be positive cash flow for years thereafter. Plus a car that has a section that has 12% fewer passengers uses less water, less electricity and needs less man-hours from the conductor and the attendant. These seats are not as comfortable as a horizontal, first class, 82" inch seat/bed, but they are a huge improvement over a standard Amtrak coach seat.

I hope Amtrak will give it a shot, these sort of seats are very comfortable for medium length trips, and I for one would pay nearly half again a regular coach fare to sit in one. But I won't pay double or triple for a roomette. And I would bet there are a lot of people that feel the same way about paying triple for a tiny compartment.

I love train travel, but I refuse to pay outrageous amounts for a modest upgrade.

These seats would rock!

People that can afford a bedroom may look down on the lie-flat sort of seat that is so popular in Business Class flights across the Pacific and the Atlantic, but most of us would love to have that level of luxury instead of tossing and twisting on a coach seat at 3 am.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> On the issue of airfares vs. Amtrak fares: It varies based on the route, the time of year, etc. For a "cheap" air market, Amtrak will tend to be more expensive; for an "expensive" air market, Amtrak will come in cheaper.
> 
> As to the number of lie-flat seats...how do you come up with 40, just out of curiosity? Is this assuming 10 rows of 4? 14 rows of 3 (well, 42, but close enough for government work)? Etc.


It is 10 rows of 4 or 12 rows of 3.

BTW I don't know of any airline that is installing any new angled sleeper seats. It's time has come and gone. They are generally all getting replaced by full lie flat seats.

As I said in my previous message., IMHO the angled lie flats are horribly uncomfortable and I consider the Superliner seats or even the old Sleepy Hollow seats better than the angled lie flats, having experienced each of them many many times.

I agree with George that bringing back the old Sections would work well too, and would have about the same capacity per car as the lie-flat seats, and the berths would be much wider in that case. Since the number of seats would be the same as for lie-flat seats the fares should be about the same too, about 60% to 70% more than Coach.

However, if you want to use lie-flat seats, this is the sort of thing you want






However, as George says, the most preferable is the old Sections. And yes, 3 high will carry as many as in Coach quite easily though I find them a bit claustrophobic.


----------



## Texan Eagle

George Harris said:


> Resurrect the section sleeper that for the most part disappeared after WW2? Put in bunks three high and perpendicular to the car with an aisle on one side? That you can see in China. Both will carry more people than the current sleeper, and the three high bunks probably as many as coach.


Sleeper coaches with three high bunks are very popular in India too. A major part of all express trains consist of sleeping cars with three high bunks, some air-conditioned cars and some non-air conditioned cars. I have traveled about 40,000 km in these sleepers and I find them very comfortable and fun to travel.

*Daytime configuration*






*Night time configuration*






But I have been told by some members on this forum that for some cultural reasons, people in United States would not travel in such an arrangement because it falls short of their idea of privacy and personal space.


----------



## Ziv

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the issue of airfares vs. Amtrak fares: It varies based on the route, the time of year, etc. For a "cheap" air market, Amtrak will tend to be more expensive; for an "expensive" air market, Amtrak will come in cheaper.
> 
> As to the number of lie-flat seats...how do you come up with 40, just out of curiosity? Is this assuming 10 rows of 4? 14 rows of 3 (well, 42, but close enough for government work)? Etc.
> 
> 
> 
> It is 10 rows of 4 or 12 rows of 3.
> 
> BTW I don't know of any airline that is installing any new angled sleeper seats. It's time has come and gone. They are generally all getting replaced by full lie flat seats.
> 
> As I said in my previous message., IMHO the angled lie flats are horribly uncomfortable and I consider the Superliner seats or even the old Sleepy Hollow seats better than the angled lie flats, having experienced each of them many many times.
> 
> I agree with George that bringing back the old Sections would work well too, and would have about the same capacity per car as the lie-flat seats, and the berths would be much wider in that case. Since the number of seats would be the same as for lie-flat seats the fares should be about the same too, about 60% to 70% more than Coach.
> 
> However, if you want to use lie-flat seats, this is the sort of thing you want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, as George says, the most preferable is the old Sections. And yes, 3 high will carry as many as in Coach quite easily though I find them a bit claustrophobic.
Click to expand...

An angled lie-flat seat takes 56-60" and is pretty darned comfortable compared to a Coach seat. So it takes 11-20% more space, and probably costs 40-50% more, and it is more profitable than coach for Amtrak.

A full lie-flat like the first class seats you show in the photo take 78-96" according to SeatGuru, which is 50% to 95% more than Coach seats and would cost about 80-150% more than a Coach seat. I understand that angled lie-flat aren't quite as comfortable as a bed in a roomette or a first class lie-flat horizontally seat, but the cost difference is such that I simply will not pay that extra money for a LD train. I will fly instead. And that is what the vast majority of Americans are doing. If you want Amtrak to prosper, make an intermediate sort of sleeping arrangement that is less expensive than a Roomette or an airlines first class but more comfortable than a Coach seat. I am tired of not being able to sleep on Amtrak, while every country in Europe and Asia has decent sleeping arrangements for overnight trains.

I wish I could afford first class seats that lie flat horizontally, or to book a roomette, and I guess I could, but I would have to skimp on other aspects of my trip to make my vacation work financially. Lie flat at an angle is using less than 75% of the space that a first class lay flat horizontal uses. That kind of saving means I can spend more time where I want to go, and eat out more often, and feel more comfortable that I am not exceeding my budget. I understand that there are better options out there, but there don't seem to be better options that cost a reasonable amount.


----------



## jis

The picture that I show is of a 60" pitch Business-First seat in ex Continental United 777-200ERs. It is not a First Class seat. As I said you can fit 36 such seats in a standard Amtrak car. Compared to a 66 seater the fare would be about 80% higher, not more. If narrower beds are acceptable then upto 40 can fit in 4 abreast and then fares would be about 65% higher.

So your contention about full lie flat is incorrect. Yes it is true that the First Class lie-flats would take more space. But I am not talking about First Class lie-flats. I thought I made it clear in my previous message in which I included several references to specific seat types in Seatguru, which you probably missed.

For your reference, one more time in Seatguru I am referring to this page, and check the 60" pitch BusinessFirst Class seats. They are 60" pitch and 22" wide. Nothing like 78" to 96" pitch as you suggest, and that is the picture I included in my previous message.

So I believe you are arriving at incorrect conclusions because you are using incorrect data about these seats.



Ziv said:


> An angled lie-flat seat takes 56-60" and is pretty darned comfortable compared to a Coach seat. So it takes 11-20% more space, and probably costs 40-50% more, and it is more profitable than coach for Amtrak.
> 
> A full lie-flat like the first class seats you show in the photo take 78-96" according to SeatGuru, which is 50% to 95% more than Coach seats and would cost about 80-150% more than a Coach seat.
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the issue of airfares vs. Amtrak fares: It varies based on the route, the time of year, etc. For a "cheap" air market, Amtrak will tend to be more expensive; for an "expensive" air market, Amtrak will come in cheaper.
> 
> As to the number of lie-flat seats...how do you come up with 40, just out of curiosity? Is this assuming 10 rows of 4? 14 rows of 3 (well, 42, but close enough for government work)? Etc.
> 
> 
> 
> It is 10 rows of 4 or 12 rows of 3.
> 
> BTW I don't know of any airline that is installing any new angled sleeper seats. It's time has come and gone. They are generally all getting replaced by full lie flat seats.
> 
> As I said in my previous message., IMHO the angled lie flats are horribly uncomfortable and I consider the Superliner seats or even the old Sleepy Hollow seats better than the angled lie flats, having experienced each of them many many times.
> 
> I agree with George that bringing back the old Sections would work well too, and would have about the same capacity per car as the lie-flat seats, and the berths would be much wider in that case. Since the number of seats would be the same as for lie-flat seats the fares should be about the same too, about 60% to 70% more than Coach.
> 
> However, if you want to use lie-flat seats, this is the sort of thing you want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, as George says, the most preferable is the old Sections. And yes, 3 high will carry as many as in Coach quite easily though I find them a bit claustrophobic.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## RRUserious

Why can't American rail have cars like those in other countries? Why must ours be so peculiar? When my wife did a tour of Europe, she only took night trains between countries and got all her sleep on the train. Have no idea what the cars looked like, but they obviously were suitable for sleeping because that's what she did. She was between college years, so I know she wasn't popping for luxury accommodations. Sure the train was started here, but the rest of the world developed it so much. I wish our manufacturers would consider finding the most popular blueprints and making them.


----------



## Anderson

RRUserious said:


> Why can't American rail have cars like those in other countries? Why must ours be so peculiar? When my wife did a tour of Europe, she only took night trains between countries and got all her sleep on the train. Have no idea what the cars looked like, but they obviously were suitable for sleeping because that's what she did. She was between college years, so I know she wasn't popping for luxury accommodations. Sure the train was started here, but the rest of the world developed it so much. I wish our manufacturers would consider finding the most popular blueprints and making them.


Part of the problem is that in Europe, you've got lots of economies of scale and shorter train routes for the most part. 900 miles is CHI-NYP. By contrast, Warsaw-Paris is only about 1000 miles, and that's a _long_ trip within Europe. There's no real comparison outside of Russia for something like the Empire Builder or the Sunset Limited.


----------



## George Harris

I think some of this is getting into the realm of opinion. As to the 15 degree sloped seat, if someone tries to call that a "lie flat" I would regard them as being guilty of false advertising. "Lie flat" means exactly that, horizontal. I would not spring for whatever the difference would be between a standard Amtrak long distance coach seat and a 15 degree sloped seat. I can sleep fine with the deep reclined coach sleep. The sloped lie flat leaves you nothing to hook either your butt or your feet, so you are constantly sliding down. To me the sloped imitation bed would be a step down from a reclining seat. That would be particularly true with the bumping of a train. With the plane, baring turbulence, there is no bumping, plus you are most unlikely to spend over 12 hours on a plane going anywhere without getting off and back on.

I have slept in section style sleepers in other countries, and have no problem with it, but then, my thought is you adjust to where you are to the greatest extent you can manage. The difference in distance is very much part of the equation. With one exception, all my night trains overseas were of no more than around 10 hours duration. For some of my trips, I wish they would have grasped the old American concept of "Sleepers may be occupied until 7:30", or 8:00, or whatever, rather than having to roll out at to be ready to get off at 6:00am because that is the train's arrival time. I have also spent a night, once, in a section sleeper in the US, but that was a long time ago.

It is probably not by accident, and not solely because they were lower priority trains that the section sleepers survied longest in the US on the shorter runs.


----------



## Ziv

Anderson said:


> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't American rail have cars like those in other countries? Why must ours be so peculiar? When my wife did a tour of Europe, she only took night trains between countries and got all her sleep on the train. Have no idea what the cars looked like, but they obviously were suitable for sleeping because that's what she did. She was between college years, so I know she wasn't popping for luxury accommodations. Sure the train was started here, but the rest of the world developed it so much. I wish our manufacturers would consider finding the most popular blueprints and making them.
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the problem is that in Europe, you've got lots of economies of scale and shorter train routes for the most part. 900 miles is CHI-NYP. By contrast, Warsaw-Paris is only about 1000 miles, and that's a _long_ trip within Europe. There's no real comparison outside of Russia for something like the Empire Builder or the Sunset Limited.
Click to expand...

I would agree that few trips abroad rival the length of the Empire Builder, but it is also true that the Trans-Mongolian (Beijing to Moscow) is over 4700 miles and is done with a lot of rolling stock that uses 4 bunk sleeping cabins that are pretty cool. Even the Kunming to Beijing route is over 1200 miles if memory serves and it uses a mixture of cars but a lot of them are 4 and 6 bunk soft and hard sleepers, again a very cool way to travel. I have never done the true Trans Siberian from Vladivostok to Moscow, but it must be incredibly long at 5700+ miles.

What the US needs is a San Diego to New York route, direct, to get us up there in the longest railroad route record hunt. We wouldn't win, but we would be close! And yes, that was supposed to be a joke.


----------



## Ziv

jis, it is quite likely that I am in error. I thought that all the 'lie-flat horizontally' seats took up more than 60" of pitch or were too wide to fit 4 across in a Superliner. I would much rather lie-flat horizontally if it would fit into a space small enough that the pitch would only increase 6 or 10" while still fitting into a width of less than 22". That would be like having your cake and eating it too! Which was part of the reason I thought it wouldn't work.... I have to admit, I don't understand HOW it would work, but if it does, that would be what I would wish for Amtrak to install in a limited amount of Business Sleeper Seats. Charge enough of a premium that Amtrak makes a slightly better profit on the upgrade seats while pricing them between coach and roomettes.

I like having more choices and I have a feeling if Amtrak did have seats that were more comfortable than regular coach but cheaper than roomettes, they would attract even more LD travelers.

And since we are working my way down my wish list, how about faster speed limits where it is possible, say, most of Montana and North Dakota? And having the Empire Builder hit Glacier Park during the day both ways? Or is that just being unrealistic? 

On edit: jis, the more I look at your photo and at seatguru, I think we are talking about two different sizes of seats. I think Amtrak could make as much money or more if they used a slightly longer pitch and the same width to give a lie-flat at an angle sleeping seat. It wouldn't be as nice as the seat you pictured, not by a long shot, but I really do not think that those seats could fit a 6'5" guy into a 60" pitch without herringboning which would mean losing a seat in width, ie going from 4 seats across to 3 across in a Superliner. Going to 3 across would make the cost of these seats so high that they would be little cheaper than a roomette and have less privacy. Think about it, a 60" pitch is 5', how are you going to fit a row of people into 5' if they are laying flat? You simply cannot do it without angling them and losing the 2 + 2 width that Superliners have. I understand your thoughts regarding how an inclined bed wouldn't be as comfortable as a flat bed, but the inclined bed would be an order of magnitude better than a coach seat for sleeping.

I am not trying to be confrontational, but I do think Amtrak should try to do an intermediate step between coach seats and roomettes, and the inclined lie flats may be the best option we can aspire to.

I just don't see how we can fit a 79" flat bed into 60" without herringboning or inclining it. If you look at seatguru, the Continental/United Business Class lie flat 60" pitch looks to be angled toward the windows by 10-15 degrees, which there simply isn't room to do in a Superliner. Herringboning or angling to the side simply won't work due to the lack of space side to side. The airlines business classes take up the nearly the same space with 2 business seats that fits 3 seats in coach.


----------



## jis

RRUserious said:


> Why can't American rail have cars like those in other countries? Why must ours be so peculiar? When my wife did a tour of Europe, she only took night trains between countries and got all her sleep on the train. Have no idea what the cars looked like, but they obviously were suitable for sleeping because that's what she did. She was between college years, so I know she wasn't popping for luxury accommodations. Sure the train was started here, but the rest of the world developed it so much. I wish our manufacturers would consider finding the most popular blueprints and making them.


The popular inexpensive sleeping accommodation in Europe is 2nd Class Couchette which has 4 or 6 berths in compartments shared with others. They are quite comfortable. I have traveled quite a bit on those on the old Eurocity Expresses with interesting names.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> The picture that I show is of a 60" pitch Business-First seat in ex Continental United 777-200ERs. It is not a First Class seat. As I said you can fit 36 such seats in a standard Amtrak car. Compared to a 66 seater the fare would be about 80% higher, not more. If narrower beds are acceptable then upto 40 can fit in 4 abreast and then fares would be about 65% higher.
> 
> So your contention about full lie flat is incorrect. Yes it is true that the First Class lie-flats would take more space. But I am not talking about First Class lie-flats. I thought I made it clear in my previous message in which I included several references to specific seat types in Seatguru, which you probably missed.
> 
> For your reference, one more time in Seatguru I am referring to this page, and check the 60" pitch BusinessFirst Class seats. They are 60" pitch and 22" wide. Nothing like 78" to 96" pitch as you suggest, and that is the picture I included in my previous message.
> 
> So I believe you are arriving at incorrect conclusions because you are using incorrect data about these seats.


Agreed completely. I'm not sure why one would ever advocate for those uncomfortable-looking (and thanks for providing your perspective) flat-but-not-horizontal seats, when for 4 more inches you can get flat-and-horizontal.


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> jis, it is quite likely that I am in error. I thought that all the 'lie-flat horizontally' seats took up more than 60" of pitch or were too wide to fit 4 across in a Superliner.


Again, as I said earlier, the 60"x22" requires to be placed in a herringbone pattern to have sleeping space length of about 72". Only 3 such will fit per row not 4, hence my estimate that 36 = 3 x 12, will fit in the typical passenger space in 85 footers. If you can accept 19" width then 72"x18" can be fit longitudinally 4 per row and 10 rows which adds up to 40. I suppose in an alternative arrangement the Continental 60" pitch style seats, could probably be fit logitudinally 4 per row (becomes 72" pitch). The passagemway would even probably be adequate at about 2' wide.



> I would much rather lie-flat horizontally if it would fit into a space small enough that the pitch would only increase 6 or 10" while still fitting into a width of less than 22". That would be like having your cake and eating it too! Which was part of the reason I thought it wouldn't work.... I have to admit, I don't understand HOW it would work, but if it does, that would be what I would wish for Amtrak to install in a limited amount of Business Sleeper Seats. Charge enough of a premium that Amtrak makes a slightly better profit on the upgrade seats while pricing them between coach and roomettes.
> 
> I like having more choices and I have a feeling if Amtrak did have seats that were more comfortable than regular coach but cheaper than roomettes, they would attract even more LD travelers.


As I said, it is very very unlikely that anything of this sort will happen anytime soon. There is way too much other more pressing stuff that needs allocation of funds than this sort of thing.



> And since we are working my way down my wish list, how about faster speed limits where it is possible, say, most of Montana and North Dakota? And having the Empire Builder hit Glacier Park during the day both ways? Or is that just being unrealistic?


Unlikely, unless someone comes up with a pot of money to hand to BNSF to make it worth their while. BTW, during summer months it does hit Glacier in daylight both ways if running on time, no? It is winter that is the problem.


----------



## Ziv

jis, I didn't note your comment earlier that the 60" pitch required a herringbone pattern, my error.

I know Amtrak has no funds to spare, I just wish they could do inexpensive stuff that would help their bottom line and I thought that re-furbing a handful of Superliners to put 14 business class lie-flat at an angle in the section behind the stair whre there are 16 coach seats might be something that could be done cheap enough that it might get funded. My first wish for a couchette car is simply too expensive to actually happen, plus it may not be as welcome here in the States.

I still have high hopes for PTC helping to raise the speed limits in as many places as is possible, especially out west. But even there, I don't know how much of the BNSF line through ND and MT is double tracked, so Amtrak might encounter more delays if they increase the speed. That is something I know I just don't know enough about to speak of with any degree of knowledge. But anything that costs much money is probably not going to happen anywhere outside the NEC.

To stay positive, it would seem that record ridership for each of the past several years might just jar some funding increases loose, hopefully. And the increase in energy prices hits the other transportation modes harder than it does rail so that advantage will continue to grow over time.


----------



## jis

Ziv said:


> jis, I didn't note your comment earlier that the 60" pitch required a herringbone pattern, my error.


No problem. Using herringbone layout is how they get actual bed length of 70"-72" while keeping pitch at 60".

BTW, you will probably be able to get one or two more rows into a Superliner upper deck since the space lost to the vestibule and toilets in single levels is not lost in Superliner upper deck. Only the space for the stairs is lost, which is much less of a lossage.



> To stay positive, it would seem that record ridership for each of the past several years might just jar some funding increases loose, hopefully. And the increase in energy prices hits the other transportation modes harder than it does rail so that advantage will continue to grow over time.


Not until LD service starts getting close to breaking even above the rails, and that will require significant fare hikes or significant growth in ridership. I am not even sure that mere growth in ridership can get us there. CASM is way too high compared to RASM at present.


----------



## Ziv

jis said:


> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> jis, I didn't note your comment earlier that the 60" pitch required a herringbone pattern, my error.
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. Using herringbone layout is how they get actual bed length of 70"-72" while keeping pitch at 60".
> 
> BTW, you will probably be able to get one or two more rows into a Superliner upper deck since the space lost to the vestibule and toilets in single levels is not lost in Superliner upper deck. Only the space for the stairs is lost, which is much less of a lossage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To stay positive, it would seem that record ridership for each of the past several years might just jar some funding increases loose, hopefully. And the increase in energy prices hits the other transportation modes harder than it does rail so that advantage will continue to grow over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not until LD service starts getting close to breaking even above the rails, and that will require significant fare hikes or significant growth in ridership. I am not even sure that mere growth in ridership can get us there. CASM is way too high compared to RASM at present.
Click to expand...

I hear you about CASM, but with wages and benefits nearly 5 times the amount that fuel costs Amtrak, and the trains not over-staffed by any stretch of the imagination, I just don't know how to reduce cost appreciably. I see my conductors pretty much all day, and they do, what, 2 fourteen hour days on a two day trip? I have no idea what crew rest consists of.

Adding more cars to the busier trains would gain some revenue but the costs would rise too, though perhaps not as much.

Obviously this is something that the older hands have discussed at length in other posts and I have nothing new to add, other than about the only way I can see to add revenue is to put in slot machines! It seems to work on the reservations. LOL!


----------



## Anderson

Ziv said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ziv said:
> 
> 
> 
> jis, I didn't note your comment earlier that the 60" pitch required a herringbone pattern, my error.
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. Using herringbone layout is how they get actual bed length of 70"-72" while keeping pitch at 60".
> 
> BTW, you will probably be able to get one or two more rows into a Superliner upper deck since the space lost to the vestibule and toilets in single levels is not lost in Superliner upper deck. Only the space for the stairs is lost, which is much less of a lossage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To stay positive, it would seem that record ridership for each of the past several years might just jar some funding increases loose, hopefully. And the increase in energy prices hits the other transportation modes harder than it does rail so that advantage will continue to grow over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not until LD service starts getting close to breaking even above the rails, and that will require significant fare hikes or significant growth in ridership. I am not even sure that mere growth in ridership can get us there. CASM is way too high compared to RASM at present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear you about CASM, but with wages and benefits nearly 5 times the amount that fuel costs Amtrak, and the trains not over-staffed by any stretch of the imagination, I just don't know how to reduce cost appreciably. I see my conductors pretty much all day, and they do, what, 2 fourteen hour days on a two day trip? I have no idea what crew rest consists of.
> 
> Adding more cars to the busier trains would gain some revenue but the costs would rise too, though perhaps not as much.
> 
> Obviously this is something that the older hands have discussed at length in other posts and I have nothing new to add, other than about the only way I can see to add revenue is to put in slot machines! It seems to work on the reservations. LOL!
Click to expand...

This has been discussed elsewhere...but adding LD cars (even just more coaches) is one of the things that _really _needs to happen. Amtrak has noted revenue possibilities here, particularly on segments of LD routes (the "Sparks Cars" suggestion, for example).

And this brings up another point: Though Boardman is right to at least some extent about not getting gobs of new LD equipment for the western routes, I don't get why he isn't willing to at least kick in for some coaches. The _worst _case scenario would be that they'd go through and reconfigure the seats from the LD setup to a corridor setup if a bunch of routes got axed; while that wouldn't be free, I don't think the cost would be astronomical. The other option would be to use non-LD coaches for some of these services and to split coach in two parts on the train for ticketing purposes.


----------



## jis

That is what is done on eastern trains for adding short turn capacity. No reason it couldn't already be done out west.


----------



## Oldsmoboi

Guest said:


> With sites like kayak.com and sidestep, I can nearly always find flights that are cheaper than Amtrak coach fares . I realize people take train for many reasons, but my guess is most are ignorant of Internet tools to find cheap flights. I suppose if you had to buy a ticket last minute then Amtrak can be cheaper.
> 
> My suggestion is Amtrak needs to lower coach fares to 50% of airline fares. An example is Chicago to Washington DC which costs $156 roundtrip, which is very close to what is costs to fly that route. For me to justify spending 18 hours to get there, the fare should be half that cost.


The best price I could find on Kayak was $284 RT. Add another $50 in baggage fees which brings it to $334 and magically your wish is granted! Amtrak is less than 50% of coach airfare.


----------



## Teddy

Yea amtrak is ALMOST ALWAYS more expensive.. I'm trying to travel from Arizona to Iowa and an amtrak trip is 350 something for a 32 hour trip when i can fly the same price for a 3 hour trip hmmm let me think about that... also if i want to add a sleeping room my price just shot up another 1000.. Don't understand how they sell tickets; people must like the scenery


----------



## jebr

Teddy said:


> Yea amtrak is ALMOST ALWAYS more expensive.. I'm trying to travel from Arizona to Iowa and an amtrak trip is 350 something for a 32 hour trip when i can fly the same price for a 3 hour trip hmmm let me think about that... also if i want to add a sleeping room my price just shot up another 1000.. Don't understand how they sell tickets; people must like the scenery


A. Not wanting to hassle with airport security/airlines.

B. Have a fair amount of baggage (which costs money on the airlines, but is free with Amtrak).

C. Want some room in their seats, and not be packed like sardines.

D. Have a discount of some sort (AAA, Student Advantage, etc.) that lowers the price.

Also, do you have to transfer trains? Unlike the airlines, which charge for the trip as a whole, Amtrak simply charges for each leg (so you essentially get no discount by booking the two legs together.) This may be something for Amtrak to change, especially if capacity increases.

However, I consider a sleeping room to be very different comparison than traveling coach. There is really no other mode of transportation quite like it, and as such it should be considered for what it is (either as a replacement for a hotel room or part of the vacation, not as simply a means of transportation.)


----------



## Ryan

Teddy said:


> Yea amtrak is ALMOST ALWAYS more expensive..


Some day you'll grasp the difference between anecdotes and data.


----------



## jis

jebr said:


> Unlike the airlines, which charge for the trip as a whole, Amtrak simply charges for each leg (so you essentially get no discount by booking the two legs together.) This may be something for Amtrak to change, especially if capacity increases.


That is actually not true in all cases. For example.... on a CHI - WAS - NYP itinerary on the Cap and an NER one gets a huge discount on the NER leg for booking a single itinerary instead of two separate itineraries.


----------



## jebr

jis said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike the airlines, which charge for the trip as a whole, Amtrak simply charges for each leg (so you essentially get no discount by booking the two legs together.) This may be something for Amtrak to change, especially if capacity increases.
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually not true in all cases. For example.... on a CHI - WAS - NYP itinerary on the Cap and an NER one gets a huge discount on the NER leg for booking a single itinerary instead of two separate itineraries.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay. I've only looked at transfers between LD trains/trains in the Midwest.


----------



## Beth Newton

My friend and I are taking Amtrak next month to go from Newbern Tn to LA to see my newest grandbaby Abby. My son said we should fly. We opted to take the train instead. Not because it was cheaper but because of what the train offers. If your just in a hurry to get somewhere then I guess planes would be the answer for some, but for us, our vacation starts the second we step onto that train. Its the journey that makes the memories and forms friendships, and that is what you loose by hurrying up and getting there.


----------



## George Harris

I think as more and more people have office type jobs that do not require their presence in the office, we could well see a significant increase in train ridership as people figure out a day on a train can be a productive day if need be.

For example: I am flying SFO to MEM this Friday, returning a week later. It will be a full day shot in each direction. If I had known that I would have a couple days work that could be done anywhere I can sit down with the laptop before setting up this trip, the picture could have well been different. OK, so it is three days and three nights if by train, but those days could be spent with the laptop plugged in and open while sitting in comfort doing work for which I could be paid. A plane with the changes, to/from airport, hassles in and hassles out, there is not enough time to make getting the laptop out and work setup worth doing. So, a day not only lost to work, but also lost to everything else and exhausting to boot.


----------



## GAT

George Harris said:


> I think as more and more people have office type jobs that do not require their presence in the office, we could well see a significant increase in train ridership as people figure out a day on a train can be a productive day if need be.
> 
> For example: I am flying SFO to MEM this Friday, returning a week later. It will be a full day shot in each direction. If I had known that I would have a couple days work that could be done anywhere I can sit down with the laptop before setting up this trip, the picture could have well been different. OK, so it is three days and three nights if by train, but those days could be spent with the laptop plugged in and open while sitting in comfort doing work for which I could be paid. A plane with the changes, to/from airport, hassles in and hassles out, there is not enough time to make getting the laptop out and work setup worth doing. So, a day not only lost to work, but also lost to everything else and exhausting to boot.


I agree. I have clients in SNS, SLO, and SBA. I love taking the CS from EMY because of the work I can get done en route as well as the complete relaxation compared with driving Rte. 101, especially on the trip home, when I can enjoy a nice meal and some wine. And that's not even mentioning the beautiful scenery. If I don't get a roomette, or get it in one direction only, cost to the client is less than the mileage charge for driving. A roomette both ways is only slightly more than mileage. A win-win all 'round.


----------



## Rob3E

This thread was started several years ago. Maybe things have changed. But for my upcoming trip, I originally thought I found airfare that was cheaper then the train, but when I went to book the flight, it was gone. Now the cheapest flight I can find is 30% more than Amtrak. I'm sure that many times flying is cheaper, but not always.

Also, this trip will be at the conclusion of a bicycle trip. To fly with a bicycle costs _at least_ $50 and requires that I largely dissemble the bike and fit it into a smaller box. There are places that will do this for me for another $50. And that bike baggage fee is only with one, particular airline. It's usually $100 or more. Most airlines will charge an additional fee if I have to check another bag as well. And then there would be the issue of getting me and a boxed bike to the airport. My baggage fees alone when flying could be as much as my ticket, which is already more expensive then Amtrak. Transporting my bike with Amtrak, I can bike into the station, buy a $15 dollar bike box that my bike fits into with minimal dis-assembly, and check it for $5. When I get home, five minutes after retrieving my luggage, I can be pedaling home. Time is money, I suppose, but so is convenience. Nothing beats the convenience of not having to deal with airline baggage rules, and of not having to figure out how to lug bike boxes around without a car, and not having to spend all that pre and post travel time on bike assembly. And all for less then the cost of just flying myself with no baggage.

But flying is so much faster, so I tried to make it work. One flight routed me through a nearby city, so I thought, "How much would I shave off the cost of my ticket if I only use the plane to get that far, and then found another way to get the rest of the way home?"

Ha. When I tried that, my fare more than doubled, because now I'm flying direct. The airline doesn't charge by the leg. Instead they charge for how little they inconvenience you. At least with the train, fares are have a base value and are adjusted based on scarcity, which seems far more decent to me than the airline's model.

But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.

Still, I was pleasantly surprised by Amtrak's prices. This will be my first long trip on a train. I already don't like dealing with airports/airlines, and adding my bike into the equation was stressing me out even more, so I was thrilled when I found that I could not only skip the plane in favor of the train, but do it cheaper.


----------



## jebr

Rob3E said:


> But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.


Labor costs, mainly. Sure, it may be cheaper to have two people on a 55-passenger bus in terms of fuel cost, but they still have to spread out the cost of labor among those 55 passengers. Typically, you don't calculate the cost of your time driving a car when making the comparison, as you're in a mode of transportation either way.

The other thing is that they fairly equally spread out the cost between those 55 passengers. Thus, if they tend to run full, the space taken by the second person is space that another person could use. In a car driving alone, you have a lot of excess capacity. Add a second person, and that starts to change, as there's little to no additional cost to have that second person with you in the car.


----------



## TimePeace

A little story:

I'm in a store. I want an apple. I see they have oranges for sale, but not at the same price as the apples. I buy my apple.

End of story.


----------



## Guest

Maine Rider said:


> A little story:
> 
> I'm in a store. I want an apple. I see they have oranges for sale, but not at the same price as the apples. I buy my apple.
> 
> End of story.


AGREED!

I mean, you could probably walk cheaper than flying/Amtrak to most places, so why don't you just do that?!?


----------



## pldenc44

Rob3E said:


> But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.


BINGO! You have just hit the most frustrating thing about American passenger rail. Trains are supposed to be (and are) ultra-efficient at moving weight from point A to point B, yet it will almost always be cheaper to drive if you have 2+ people. There should be very low incremental costs to adding passengers to a train, so having much longer trains filled with people should theoretically bring the cost down significantly. Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.


----------



## Guest

pldenc44 said:


> Rob3E said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO! You have just hit the most frustrating thing about American passenger rail. Trains are supposed to be (and are) ultra-efficient at moving weight from point A to point B, yet it will almost always be cheaper to drive if you have 2+ people. There should be very low incremental costs to adding passengers to a train, so having much longer trains filled with people should theoretically bring the cost down significantly. Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.
Click to expand...

I think if we actually had a formula for figuring-in the cost of buying, owning and maintaining the car, as the fares on trains and planes do, it would show that the cost of auto travel is actually higher that just buying gas.


----------



## AlanB

pldenc44 said:


> Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.


Amtrak revenues in 2011 were $2.714 Billion. Labor costs were $1.963 Billion.


----------



## AlanB

Guest said:


> pldenc44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob3E said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO! You have just hit the most frustrating thing about American passenger rail. Trains are supposed to be (and are) ultra-efficient at moving weight from point A to point B, yet it will almost always be cheaper to drive if you have 2+ people. There should be very low incremental costs to adding passengers to a train, so having much longer trains filled with people should theoretically bring the cost down significantly. Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think if we actually had a formula for figuring-in the cost of buying, owning and maintaining the car, as the fares on trains and planes do, it would show that the cost of auto travel is actually higher that just buying gas.
Click to expand...

Correct, most people only count the cost of the gas in their car when they comparison shop. And one cannot do that if you want a true comparison. The IRS tells us that all that other stuff along with gas means that it costs 55.5 cents per mile to operate your car. AAA calculates 58.5 cents per mile.

And none of the above numbers includes anything for the massive amount of subsidies that are poured into our streets & highways. We drivers only cover half the costs of our roads via fuel taxes and other direct fees. That means that the other half slides out of your pocket via other taxes, like Income, Sales, and Property taxes.

There is no free ride, you're paying for it one way or the other. The problem is that again, most people fail to consider all the expenses when comparison shopping. They just look at the easy stuff.


----------



## jebr

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pldenc44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob3E said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO! You have just hit the most frustrating thing about American passenger rail. Trains are supposed to be (and are) ultra-efficient at moving weight from point A to point B, yet it will almost always be cheaper to drive if you have 2+ people. There should be very low incremental costs to adding passengers to a train, so having much longer trains filled with people should theoretically bring the cost down significantly. Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think if we actually had a formula for figuring-in the cost of buying, owning and maintaining the car, as the fares on trains and planes do, it would show that the cost of auto travel is actually higher that just buying gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, most people only count the cost of the gas in their car when they comparison shop. And one cannot do that if you want a true comparison. The IRS tells us that all that other stuff along with gas means that it costs 55.5 cents per mile to operate your car. AAA calculates 58.5 cents per mile.
> 
> And none of the above numbers includes anything for the massive amount of subsidies that are poured into our streets & highways. We drivers only cover half the costs of our roads via fuel taxes and other direct fees. That means that the other half slides out of your pocket via other taxes, like Income, Sales, and Property taxes.
> 
> There is no free ride, you're paying for it one way or the other. The problem is that again, most people fail to consider all the expenses when comparison shopping. They just look at the easy stuff.
Click to expand...

Owning and operating a car costs 55.5 cents per mile. Most people own a car already, and including the cost to license and insure the vehicle is silly, as there's little to no change with those when driving more. Even the actual owning of a car is a bit disingenuous, as the car may expire as much with time as with miles driven, and it's not a linear relationship.

A truer comparison would be the cost to maintain the vehicle (such as new tires, oil changes, and other repairs that happen as you drive more miles) plus the cost of gas. I think the IRS calculates that at just under 25 cents a mile.


----------



## PRR 60

AlanB said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pldenc44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob3E said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in general the economics of mass transit confuse me. It was pointed out earlier that taking a train (and usually a bus, and sometimes a plane) can be cheaper than driving depending on gas prices and wear-and-tear on your vehicle, but add just one more person to your car, and suddenly the economics shift towards the car. This baffles me because the whole idea of mass transit seems like your per person costs would be lower than having those people transport themselves. When I'm going visit my family 3 hours away on my own, I take the train. If my wife is coming with me, we drive because it makes no sense economically to take the train even before we figure out getting to and from train stations and having to travel on Amtrak's schedule instead of our own. I don't understand why I can transport two people cheaper than Amtrak or Greyhound can.
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO! You have just hit the most frustrating thing about American passenger rail. Trains are supposed to be (and are) ultra-efficient at moving weight from point A to point B, yet it will almost always be cheaper to drive if you have 2+ people. There should be very low incremental costs to adding passengers to a train, so having much longer trains filled with people should theoretically bring the cost down significantly. Did you know that Amtrak revenues barely cover labor costs (I think revenues are basically 2bn and labor costs are 1.8bn)? That's just labor! All other operating costs are basically covered by the govt (see Amtrak budget). "Operating costs" doesn't include cost of new equipment either. Amtrak would need a lot more cars ("equipment") to achieve the economies of scale to be self-sufficient. It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg thing and it frustrates me to death. Traveling by rail should be dirt cheap... yet it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think if we actually had a formula for figuring-in the cost of buying, owning and maintaining the car, as the fares on trains and planes do, it would show that the cost of auto travel is actually higher that just buying gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, most people only count the cost of the gas in their car when they comparison shop. And one cannot do that if you want a true comparison. The IRS tells us that all that other stuff along with gas means that *it costs 55.5 cents per mile to operate your car*. AAA calculates 58.5 cents per mile.
> 
> And none of the above numbers includes anything for the massive amount of subsidies that are poured into our streets & highways. We drivers only cover half the costs of our roads via fuel taxes and other direct fees. That means that the other half slides out of your pocket via other taxes, like Income, Sales, and Property taxes.
> 
> There is no free ride, you're paying for it one way or the other. The problem is that again, most people fail to consider all the expenses when comparison shopping. They just look at the easy stuff.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The 55.5 cent IRS allowance is NOT the per-mile _operating_ cost of a car. It is the _ownership__ and operating _cost of a car. The 55.5 cent rate includes IRS-determined values for average annual depreciation (per IRS tables), insurance, interest, and license and registration fees. Those are all fixed costs that are independent of the number of miles driven. The IRS takes estimates of those fixed costs and divides them by an average annual mileage to come up with the ownership portion of the standard mileage rate for business travel deductions (which allows pro-rated values for ownership). Unless you can somehow rid yourself of the ownership costs of a car for the duration of a specific trip (neat trick), those costs apply whether you are driving the car or it is sitting in your garage. If you ride Amtrak for 100 miles, your annual cost for auto depreciation, insurance, interest, and registration do not change one cent. Saying a trip on Amtrak avoids a 55.5 cent per mile auto trip is not valid.

The IRS also publishes a mileage rate that is just for the operation of a car that is used for determine the deductions for medical-related travel and moving expenses (where ownership costs are not deductible). That rate is 23 cents per mile. The operating cost rate excludes the fixed costs of ownership that are not dependent on mileage. If you own a car, and plan to continue to own a car, then, according to the IRS, the cost of taking a 100 mile trip is not $55.50, it is $23.00.

If you want to assess the cost of a specific car trip, the correct mileage rate to use is 23 cents per mile, not 55.5 cents per mile.

From the IRS:



> The standard mileage rate for business is based on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile. The rate for medical and moving purposes is based on the variable costs as determined by the same study.


IRS


----------



## Rob3E

AlanB said:


> Correct, most people only count the cost of the gas in their car when they comparison shop. And one cannot do that if you want a true comparison. The IRS tells us that all that other stuff along with gas means that it costs 55.5 cents per mile to operate your car. AAA calculates 58.5 cents per mile.
> 
> And none of the above numbers includes anything for the massive amount of subsidies that are poured into our streets & highways. We drivers only cover half the costs of our roads via fuel taxes and other direct fees. That means that the other half slides out of your pocket via other taxes, like Income, Sales, and Property taxes.
> 
> There is no free ride, you're paying for it one way or the other. The problem is that again, most people fail to consider all the expenses when comparison shopping. They just look at the easy stuff.


The problem with 55 (or 58) cents per mile is that 1) that is an average, so a budget-conscious person can likely bring their expenses well below that, and 2) these numbers often seem to figure costs that are irrelevant to _driving_ a car, and are more factors of simply _owning_ a car. So you don't save 55 cents per mile by not driving your car unless you don't actually own a car. Once you stop owning a car, then obviously mass transit becomes the more affordable option because paying for mass transit for any given trip is likely cheaper than purchasing a car.

I think it's great to consider subsidies and how the way are taxes are spent affects out transportation infrastructure. But when you're comparison shopping between transportation options for specific trips, it's irrelevant. I don't get to say, "I took the train, so please return the tax money of mine that you would have spent on roads."

I have no doubt that our transportation system would look vastly different if we didn't pour a disproportionate amount of money into personal transportation-oriented projects, but we do, and that only adds to the idea that on a per-trip basis, driving will often be cheaper. Your tax money ends up in those roads regardless. You don't save it by not driving on them.

So I agree that just figuring gas is simplistic and ignores other factors, but I also think that many of the attempts to figure the "true" cost of driving are also unrealistic. I'm planning a trip this summer, and I hope to return on Amtrak, by myself. Even then, if I had a car at my disposal, it would possibly be cheaper to drive. On the way up, I am sharing a car with two other people, and on that trip it will definitely be cheaper to drive. Cheaper then flying, cheaper then a train, cheaper then a bus. It may be that this is a matter how tax money is spent to fund one form of transportation over another, but it doesn't change the fact that it seems strange to find that I can get 3 people across 600 miles for less money then mass transit can move 2. Maybe it's simple economics, maybe it's wrapped up in complexities of transportation spending, but whatever the reason, it runs contrary to how I _feel_ like mass transit should work.


----------



## Ispolkom

Rob3E said:


> it doesn't change the fact that it seems strange to find that I can get 3 people across 600 miles for less money then mass transit can move 2.


What is strange about the fact that, after ignoring the sunk costs of car ownership, the marginal costs of travel by car are less than the costs of taking mass transit? If you didn't already own a car and had to rent one the costs might be different.

Mrs. Ispolkom and I carpool in the winter, because the extra costs of commuting together are less than the cost of two bus passes. That's only true because we *already* have a car.

In the summer we bicycle to work, of course, like sensible people.


----------



## Rob3E

Ispolkom said:


> What is strange about the fact that, after ignoring the sunk costs of car ownership, the marginal costs of travel by car are less than the costs of taking mass transit? If you didn't already own a car and had to rent one the costs might be different.


If I had to rent a car, they would be different. When you factor in the cost of a rental car, two people traveling together spend very close to the amount spent taking mass transit, so a 3rd person would be required to make the trip a clear win economically. Apart from the occasional local bus in the off hours, I've never taken any type of mass transit where fewer than 3 people were traveling, which means that even without car ownership, driving can be done cheaper than mass transit. And that's for a one-way trip with the lion share of the fees going to charges related to returning the car to a different location. If we look at this as a round trip, then that fee goes away, and it becomes a matter of how many days you are traveling. For a long weekend, two people renting a car would be cheaper then most mass transit and faster than many options. Longer than a week, and it starts to get iffy.

I like the idea of mass transit, and I use local transit frequently, and travel by rail within the state a few times a year. But it seems like the idea should be that we're pooling our resources so that a group of people can travel more cheaply then they could as individuals. In my experience, looking at trips I have taken, this is not always the case, and is seldom the case when two people are traveling together. You are correct to say that mass transit sometimes loses because we have already accepted the costs of owning a vehicle, but I think there are plenty of situations where mass transit loses even if you factor in full costs of vehicle ownership.

I think the societal costs of all the cars on the road is high, and I would love to see mass transit become more popular, but when I look at the personal economics as things currently stand, I don't see a compelling reason for the average family to shift towards mass transit. Perhaps rising gas costs will change that.


----------



## Ispolkom

Rob3E said:


> I think the societal costs of all the cars on the road is high, and I would love to see mass transit become more popular, but when I look at the personal economics as things currently stand, I don't see a compelling reason for the average family to shift towards mass transit. Perhaps rising gas costs will change that.


You're absolutely right. Plus, in most places, public transportation isn't a viable replacement for a car. I live in St. Paul, Minnesota, and can say from experience that if you don't live in Minneapolis or St. Paul (basically, within the area that once had streetcars), there really isn't a public transit network. It's hard to impossible to get to most cities outside of the metropolitan area without a car. That's just the way it is.


----------



## jebr

Ispolkom said:


> Rob3E said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the societal costs of all the cars on the road is high, and I would love to see mass transit become more popular, but when I look at the personal economics as things currently stand, I don't see a compelling reason for the average family to shift towards mass transit. Perhaps rising gas costs will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right. Plus, in most places, public transportation isn't a viable replacement for a car. I live in St. Paul, Minnesota, and can say from experience that if you don't live in Minneapolis or St. Paul (basically, within the area that once had streetcars), there really isn't a public transit network. It's hard to impossible to get to most cities outside of the metropolitan area without a car. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not terribly difficult to get to the bigger towns in the area, since most have intercity bus service. But to actually get around once you get to town? A car is required, definitely. Especially on evenings or weekends (you may be able to survive on Dial a Ride during the week.)


----------



## George Harris

There are a lot of families that have a second car because of lack or perceived lack of viable public transit. For these, the true all included cost is their cost of the car because with good public transit they would not have it. It also varies by location. If you live in a place like San Francisco, you can easily be out a few hundred dollars a month *plus car payments*if you have a car that does not turn a wheel. this gets to another point: The per mile all-in costs are based on an average amount of driving. If you drive less milage, the fixed cost portion is still there, it is just spread over fewer miles, which would result in a higher cost on a per mile basis. I approximate that I can rent a car two weekend a month in San Francisco and still be under the fixed cost portion of ownership.


----------



## douglas

I don't have a family and I travel alone. Using Amtrak increases the price I pay for travel. I would love to take the train but it costs $968 round trip compared to $285 on an airplane. I save a day also and then have to get a hotel for that day but I have $683 savings to pay for the room. I figure it costs more to operate trains because of the real estate tax and people they need to operate each train. I would prefer to use the train because I imagine there is a lot less pollution generated by rail. But disel fuel pollutes, if trains run on it. I know the Chicago suburb trains use that fuel. Those contrails have been falling on us for over 100 years now and that cannot be good. Trains provide a relaxing way to pass the time (I imagine) if you have a bed. 20 hours on a train is much better than an airplane. Once I went to South America for `13 hours on a plane and it was horrible. Too bad I could not take a train.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

Diesel Locomotives are the first form of a hybrid vehicle. They use a diesel engine to turn a generator that provides power to electric motors that turn the wheels. SMART a intercity bus company has got a few diesel electric buses. its cleaner then a truck that runs on diesel. A jumbo jet pollutes more then a train does.


----------



## jebr

douglas said:


> I don't have a family and I travel alone. Using Amtrak increases the price I pay for travel. I would love to take the train but it costs $968 round trip compared to $285 on an airplane. I save a day also and then have to get a hotel for that day but I have $683 savings to pay for the room. I figure it costs more to operate trains because of the real estate tax and people they need to operate each train. I would prefer to use the train because I imagine there is a lot less pollution generated by rail. But disel fuel pollutes, if trains run on it. I know the Chicago suburb trains use that fuel. Those contrails have been falling on us for over 100 years now and that cannot be good. Trains provide a relaxing way to pass the time (I imagine) if you have a bed. 20 hours on a train is much better than an airplane. Once I went to South America for `13 hours on a plane and it was horrible. Too bad I could not take a train.


I'm curious what route you're using and how you're calculating it. Yes, Amtrak can be higher, especially if you splurge for a roomette, but if there's no transfers, Amtrak seems to almost always be cheaper in my experience, when comparing like accommodations (coach to coach, sleeper to first class or even business class).


----------



## Shawn Ryu

I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,

Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.

Plus I can get free bed on Capitol Limited if you know what I mean :giggle:


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jebr said:


> Yes, Amtrak can be higher, especially if you splurge for a roomette, but if there's no transfers, Amtrak seems to almost always be cheaper in my experience, when comparing like accommodations (coach to coach, sleeper to first class or even business class).


Twenty or thirty hours in an Amtrak coach seat may LOOK similar to two or three hours in an airline coach, but it sure as hell FEELS a lot different at the end. If we're truly going to consider like-for-like then I think it's only fair that roomettes and bedrooms figure prominently in the equation.


----------



## PRR 60

Every time I think this nearly four-year-old topic has finally died a long overdue death, someone pulls out the paddles and shocks it back to life.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

PRR 60 said:


> Every time I think this nearly four-year-old topic has finally died a long overdue death, someone pulls out the paddles and shocks it back to life.


If you can't stand people discussing a topic you've long since lost interest in then you're always free to leave. Or simply lock everyone else out now that you're a moderator. That'll show 'em.


----------



## Texan Eagle

Shawn Ryu said:


> I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,
> 
> Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.


I am always amazed how people think sitting in coach on Amtrak for 20 hours is the same as sitting in coach in a plane for 2 hours. I have done it and trust me, it is _*not*_ the same, wider seats and more legroom notwithstanding. Flights from NYC to Chicago start at $79 and there are a tonne of them for around $125. I just checked for a random weekday later this month and got *45 (yes, forty five) *direct fights between LGA/JFK and ORD for $125 or under. And its not like Amtrak offers a lot of flexibility- there are a grand total of *two* direct trains from NYP to Chicago, one of them being non-daily.

Sorry, as much as I love trains, under the current setup except the corridor services and short distance hops, Amtrak just doesn't work when it comes to traveling to get from point A to point B efficiently. Amtrak ends up being the vacation transport when I have plenty of free time at hand to relax.


----------



## jebr

Texan Eagle said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,
> 
> Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed how people think sitting in coach on Amtrak for 20 hours is the same as sitting in coach in a plane for 2 hours. I have done it and trust me, it is _*not*_ the same, wider seats and more legroom notwithstanding. Flights from NYC to Chicago start at $79 and there are a tonne of them for around $125. I just checked for a random weekday later this month and got *45 (yes, forty five) *direct fights between LGA/JFK and ORD for $125 or under. And its not like Amtrak offers a lot of flexibility- there are a grand total of *two* direct trains from NYP to Chicago, one of them being non-daily.
> 
> Sorry, as much as I love trains, under the current setup except the corridor services and short distance hops, Amtrak just doesn't work when it comes to traveling to get from point A to point B efficiently. Amtrak ends up being the vacation transport when I have plenty of free time at hand to relax.
Click to expand...

Somehow, I doubt it'll be able to be relevant on speed between NYP and CHI (or, frankly, on any corridor that long.) Even if they were able to double the speed, it'd still take 10 hours (which would still require an overnight or a full day, and the overnight would still have the seat issue.) However, if time is less of a concern than straight comfort (because there is a longer time tolerance with a wide, roomy seat than a coach seat on an airline) or money (because, especially between two less-populous destinations, Amtrak is significantly cheaper), Amtrak can win.

As an example, it's fairly easy to get tickets for $117 each way between OMA and SLC (so $234 total). Taking two random, non-popular dates along the same route and it becomes $341 through flying, which is a $107 difference. Amtrak also offers more discounts (for example, 10% off with AAA or 15% off with Student Advantage, neither of which have airfare equivalents) and checked luggage is free, instead of $25 each way for a bag. If I have to go somewhere with more than a carry-on, and time is not a critical concern, Amtrak makes much more sense economically.

Note, though, that for me, the idea of a 25 hour train ride doesn't seem bad, even though my first time doing it will be this summer. I've done two nights (30 hours total trip time) on Megabus, and Amtrak is much more comfortable than Megabus.

I don't think Amtrak's goal should be to win on speed, especially on such long distances, because it can't. But doing smaller legs within LD routes, or offering corridor services to bring regions together (for example, the NEC or Midwest area's plans) is an area where Amtrak can compete on speed and comfort, and that should be its focus.


----------



## Guest

Texan Eagle said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,
> 
> Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed how people think sitting in coach on Amtrak for 20 hours is the same as sitting in coach in a plane for 2 hours. I have done it and trust me, it is _*not*_ the same, wider seats and more legroom notwithstanding. Flights from NYC to Chicago start at $79 and there are a tonne of them for around $125. I just checked for a random weekday later this month and got *45 (yes, forty five) *direct fights between LGA/JFK and ORD for $125 or under. And its not like Amtrak offers a lot of flexibility- there are a grand total of *two* direct trains from NYP to Chicago, one of them being non-daily.
> 
> Sorry, as much as I love trains, under the current setup except the corridor services and short distance hops, Amtrak just doesn't work when it comes to traveling to get from point A to point B efficiently. Amtrak ends up being the vacation transport when I have plenty of free time at hand to relax.
Click to expand...

It depends on which cities are YOUR points A and B.

Besides maybe the Capitol and Auto Train, of course, most Amtrak passengers don't travel from end-point to end-point of the train.

Try booking a trip from NYP to TOL, SAV TO ORL, or FAR to MKE (to name just a few) and you can easily see why people concerned about price travel on Amtrak between these markets.

Airlines do not price by miles, they price by market. The markets with the most competition are often the cheapest and furthest apart.


----------



## RRUserious

Trouble with cars is that they eat up a lot of real estate. Plus who really wants to live next to most expressways? I think it is only marginally significant how the operating costs compare. Plus when our population doubled, our car population tripled. There were cars that got bought for trivial reasons. But however trivial they are, the cars jam up the freeways just as effectively. I doubt car ownership will ever end. But we certainly are near the point where the "convenience" is dubious. I watched a show where a traffic copter pilot said the cars beneath him were averaging 3 mph. Walking speed. But in order to achieve that speed, the cars were burning up gas at a rate much higher than if they were traveling 50 mph. In what bizarre universe can we call that "convenient"?

If enough people shifted out of cars to anything else, the remaining cars might at least get the increased gas efficiency that has been built into them. Cars are now really a zero-sum game. Drivers themselves should now want alternatives to maybe move a half to a third of the people who are now driving. I'm a little shocked that the van pool movement isn't back in fashion. After the oil shocks, the biggest private companies where I live were buying the vans so employees could team up and commute together.


----------



## Ispolkom

> It depends on which cities are YOUR points A and B.


That's why I've been riding the Empire Builder 3 decades, man and boy. It's often the cheapest, easiest method of getting to my destination. If there are 45 flights LGA-ORD, the pickings St. Paul-Malta are a little slimmer. Even St. Paul-Minot is usually cheaper on the train (often even in sleeper) than flying Delta.



RRUserious said:


> Drivers themselves should now want alternatives to maybe move a half to a third of the people who are now driving.


Of course. The Onion got it right 12 years ago: "98% of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others."


----------



## Texan Eagle

Guest said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,
> 
> Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, as much as I love trains, under the current setup *except the corridor services and short distance hops*, Amtrak just doesn't work when it comes to traveling to get from point A to point B efficiently. Amtrak ends up being the vacation transport when I have plenty of free time at hand to relax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends on which cities are YOUR points A and B.
> 
> Besides maybe the Capitol and Auto Train, of course, most Amtrak passengers don't travel from end-point to end-point of the train.
> 
> Try booking a trip from NYP to TOL, SAV TO ORL, or FAR to MKE (to name just a few) and you can easily see why people concerned about price travel on Amtrak between these markets.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I mentioned in my reply too, see the underlined part. Amtrak does make sense when one of the two points on your journey is a non-major city. For longer than few hours journeys, especially outside of NE Corridor and Midwest, the routes and frequency just do not exist to invite a driving or flying passenger to take the train. I live in Dallas and lets see all the places I have had to travel for business or personal reasons (non-vacation) in the last year-

Philadelphia-Dallas -> Amtrak takes over 48 hours and 1 change of train. (Driving time: 24 hours)

Dallas-Denver -> Amtrak takes 42 hours, 2 trains and 2 buses. (Driving time: 14 hours)

Dallas-Austin -> Amtrak takes 6 hours. (Driving time: 3 hours)

I mentioned driving times not to suggest one would drive 24 hours, but rather to show what time train journeys should take. Let's face it, trains *cannot* compete with flights on time, but they can compete with driving times at least. If there were direct trains connecting all major cities in the United States, I am positive a lot more people would be taking the trains.

Another thing, again discussed to death multiple times, is accommodation classes- Amtrak LD trains give you either coach (sit) or luxury expensive sleepers for 2 or more people. There is no affordable sleeping accommodation for single traveler and that is the reason I have never taken a sleeper journey on Amtrak. Using the NYC-Chicago example, if the Lake Shore Limited was a couple hours faster than existing schedule, say something like 6pm departure from NYP and 8am arrival into Chicago and offered sleeper bunks, I would happily travel on it. Yes, it is much slower than taking a flight but reasonable overnight travel. When I used to live in India, I never took a domestic flight, for all destinations up to 1000 miles, sometimes even longer, it was always a sleeper bunk on an overnight express, whichever city I may be traveling to. It is fun comfortable way to travel.


----------



## Shawn Ryu

Texan Eagle said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed how cheap Chicago-NYP routes can be. Below $100 for coach is a good deal,
> 
> Assuming I spend 25 dollars on food aboard, that still means its 115 dollars I spent on Amtrak to Chicago or NYP. Cheaper than any airline fares except 2 or 3 flights.
> 
> 
> 
> I am always amazed how people think sitting in coach on Amtrak for 20 hours is the same as sitting in coach in a plane for 2 hours. I have done it and trust me, it is _*not*_ the same, wider seats and more legroom notwithstanding. Flights from NYC to Chicago start at $79 and there are a tonne of them for around $125. I just checked for a random weekday later this month and got *45 (yes, forty five) *direct fights between LGA/JFK and ORD for $125 or under. And its not like Amtrak offers a lot of flexibility- there are a grand total of *two* direct trains from NYP to Chicago, one of them being non-daily.
> 
> Sorry, as much as I love trains, under the current setup except the corridor services and short distance hops, Amtrak just doesn't work when it comes to traveling to get from point A to point B efficiently. Amtrak ends up being the vacation transport when I have plenty of free time at hand to relax.
Click to expand...

cannot find any flights from NYC to Chicago under 110 dollars. I looked up at Kayak.

Point is if I had to spend 110 on Amtrak and take 19 hours or so to chicago or 2 hours on a plane I would take Amtrak any day. And a lot of people agree, NY to Chicago trains are often crowded after few hours out from NYP regardless of which od the 2 trains you are taking.


----------



## Ispolkom

Shawn Ryu said:


> Point is if I had to spend 110 on Amtrak and take 19 hours or so to chicago or 2 hours on a plane I would take Amtrak any day. And a lot of people agree, NY to Chicago trains are often crowded after few hours out from NYP regardless of which od the 2 trains you are taking.


But lots more disagree. What do you suppose is the proportion of people who fly from New York to Chicago vs. those who take the train? 30 to 1? 50 to 1? How about the number of people who drive between the two metropolitan regions? I'd not be surprised if it's an equally high proportion.


----------



## jebr

Ispolkom said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point is if I had to spend 110 on Amtrak and take 19 hours or so to chicago or 2 hours on a plane I would take Amtrak any day. And a lot of people agree, NY to Chicago trains are often crowded after few hours out from NYP regardless of which od the 2 trains you are taking.
> 
> 
> 
> But lots more disagree. What do you suppose is the proportion of people who fly from New York to Chicago vs. those who take the train? 30 to 1? 50 to 1? How about the number of people who drive between the two metropolitan regions? I'd not be surprised if it's an equally high proportion.
Click to expand...

I also wonder how full it is right out of NYP, how full it stays, and how much turnover there is. As mentioned before, NYP to CHI is probably one better served by the airlines (because there is a lot of competition, so fares are lower, and it's much faster.) I'd dispute the driving ratio being that high, because Google Maps has it at 13 hours and 47 minutes to drive. Factor in gas, maintenance, and tolls and it's not all that economical, and the speed isn't really there when you consider that you have to stop at least three times for gas, and possibly more. So it's a full day's drive each way, and then there's the concern about parking, etc. I doubt that too many people drive that route.

However, Amtrak's business is not in the CHI to NYP pairs, but intermediate points to endpoints, and intermediate points to other intermediate points. As I mentioned earlier, Amtrak from OMA to SLC is quite a bit cheaper than flying, though it's also a fairly long trip. They also stop places where there's no other travel option (other than perhaps intercity bus.)

Amtrak is never going to get much business from business travelers on longer distances, because time is much more crucial than saving even $100 or $150 round trip. But for people who are visiting family, or trying to travel on a budget, that savings may be enough to make them take Amtrak over flying, especially for those places that is expensive to travel to by plane. Amtrak can also get a lot of business between intermediate markets (MSP - CHI, OMA - CHI, OMA - DEN, etc.) that are short enough to make the extra time less of a hassle. They'll also get plenty of business travelers (and travelers in general) on corridor services, as proven by the relative success and usage of those (not only in the NEC, but also the Hiawatha from CHI - MKE and other corridor trains.)

Thus, to say Amtrak is failing because they can't get the CHI - NYP market is as ludicrous as saying the airlines are failing because they can't really capture the CHI - MKE market. Each mode of transportation has their strengths, and to point to their natural weak areas (due to the definition of the service) and concluding that the entire mode is failing because of those natural weak points is silly.


----------



## CarolynG

I have traveled with my toddlers by myself several times, and our train trip from St Louis MO to Wilmington, DE was better than driving because it took about the same amount of time - we got on board STL at 8 am, got to DE at 3 pm - and if I were driving I would have had to stay overnight halfway, so it was about the same. The great part was not having the kids stuck in their car seats the whole trip, and I was able to play with them.

My Durango gets about 18 mpg and Gas Buddy's trip calculator at http://www.gasbuddy.com/Trip_Calculator.aspx estimates it would have cost $196, then you have $50-$60 in hotel. It was $270 for the three of us. Again, about equal, and it was a far better trip for all of us!

No way could I have afforded to fly - there are no half price fares for kids on airline travel.

Carolyn


----------

