# Why trains instead of planes for long distance?



## dande

Just curious as to why folks prefer the trains for long distance as opposed to planes


----------



## Gemuser

1) More room & walking around space. DVT not likely to be a problem on trains, can't ne ignored on 14/16 hour sectors, let alone the coming 22 hour sectors.
2) Much better scenary.
3) Often more convient arrival/departure time.
4) Arrives/departs closer to home.
5) No security lines.
6) Less baggage hassels.

Just off the top of my head.
.


----------



## v v

Less damage to the environment, by quite a margin


----------



## Bonser

Gemuser said:


> 1) More room & walking around space. DVT not likely to be a problem on trains, can't ne ignored on 14/16 hour sectors, let alone the coming 22 hour sectors.
> 2) Much better scenary.
> 3) Often more convient arrival/departure time.
> 4) Arrives/departs closer to home.
> 5) No security lines.
> 6) Less baggage hassels.
> 
> Just off the top of my head.
> .



Better departure times more true near major cities, not all. See Salt Lake, Cincinnati, Cleveland and lots more. Agree with the rest though.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Scenery, seeing parts of the country I otherwise would not see, better travel times eastbound (recently flew to Chicago then took a train the rest of the way since I had the time to arrive a day later).


----------



## dlagrua

All of the above, plus I can take my cooler, bring liquids, use the cell phone and easily go online. All this contributes to what we call the comfort factor. The train is like a hotel on wheels, a relaxing way to travel, and far more friendly to the environment. Most people don't realize it but a six hour cross country airline trip will consume 20,000 gallons of aviation fuel for a passenger load of maybe 150-200 passengers. Talk about saving the environment, that's absolutely horrible pollution.


----------



## piedpiper

just a thought - if there is an accident, on a train you might fall 30 ft; on a plane you fall 5 miles - enuf said


----------



## Qapla

Don't like heights ... don't fly
Can bring my own food and drink even in coach
My brother has flown ... his observation, "friendlier passengers in coach on the train"
If I decide to get off sooner than the final destination I can ... try that in an airplane


----------



## Railroad Bill

In many cases of bad weather, the train can make it through while planes will be grounded and nightmare rescheduling...etc. 
Scenery is fantastic, most people on a train are friendly. Lots of options for routes to go to the West. 
We use the train to get us to a destination close to National Parks or other events, rent a car, stay a week or so and then get back on the train to return home.


----------



## keelhauled

piedpiper said:


> just a thought - if there is an accident, on a train you might fall 30 ft; on a plane you fall 5 miles - enuf said


I suggest you don’t look too closely at comparative fatality rates in the US between trains and planes. They don’t paint so nearly an optimistic picture.


----------



## MARC Rider

1. If you're flying between 2 cities less than 300 miles apart AND both have reasonably major airports, AND there's good Amtrak corridor service, it's probably just as practical to take a train than to fly. This is particularly true for northeast corridor trips, especially those 300 miles or less.

2. If you're flying to or from a small town or a city where the airport has a "fortress hub" (i.e. monoploy airline), airfares may be really, really expensive.

3. If you are flying or connecting to/from somewhere that only has commuter airline service (aka "puddle jumpers"), you might want taking the train (if available). I avoid commuter airlines, as bouncing around in rough weather scares the C*** out of me, and I am led to understand that they're not as safe as the mainline air service, they have more inexperienced pilots, etc. Thus if I'm flying to somewhere that only has commuter airline service, I will only fly only as far as the nearest major airline hub and take surface transport the rest of the way. (This usually means renting a car, but if there's train service, I'd use it.)

4. For rural towns along the route of a long distance train, the train gives you a convenient one-seat ride directly into certain major metropolitan areas into which most would prefer not to drive unless they absolutely has to because of the bad traffic and expensive parking. (I'm talking about you, LA, Chicago, Washington, New York, etc.) This could be preferable to flying, even if the train has a longer total trip time.

5. There are reasons that a small, but still considerable subset of the American public can't fly for medical reasons. Aside from phobias, if you've been scuba diving, for instance, you have to wait a certain period before you can fly, unless you want to get the bends at 30,000 ft. I had a former colleague of mine who had eye surgery and was told that he couldn't fly. He had a family vacation planned to Orlando. The rest of the family flew down, he took the Silver Service.

6. Trains will take you to suburban locations as well as into downtown.

7. I, for one, happen to like the experience of riding a train for a long distances. The rocking of the cars is relaxing, the seating is more spacious than in airline coach, it's easier to meet and talk with people, and I like seeing the scenery unroll before my eyes as I pass through it. Also, minimal TSA presence and the trip is less regimented despite the existence of occasional Amtrak staff who are Parris Island Drill Instructor wannabes.


----------



## Way2Kewl

Scenary.
A plane takes me to my vacation, a train "is" my vacation.


----------



## Skyline

Way2Kewl said:


> Scenary.
> A plane takes me to my vacation, a train "is" my vacation.



Agree. For some of us, The Journey Is The Destination.


----------



## Caro

Skyline said:


> Agree. For some of us, The Journey Is The Destination.


I also agree - I’m coming to the States from the UK in part just for the fun of riding the trains (Texas Eagle then Coast Starlight) I could easily have flown from Austin to Seattle in a day for sure but decided a trainride would be a good way for me as a solo traveller to see parts of the States I otherwise wouldn’t see and meet people I wouldn’t otherwise meet hopefully in a safe environment.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Last train trip the reason was it got me home faster.

My home station is Utica NY, the closest airport is Albany.

To get home from Dallas, I hoped a late in the day flight (after work) out of DFW to Chicago, we were late to Chicago almost 7:30pm arrival at gate, but made it to the train station in time to grab some food. Only thing open was McDees. Jump on board with the Coach pax’s and arrived the next day into Utica around 1pm. The earliest flight the next day, had me leave at 5am from DFW and arriving at 2pm at Albany.

I travel Amtrak because I need to get someplace. Someday maybe I will take a train just for the experience, but I am pretty sure it going to be in the Swiss Alps. Not here in the US.


----------



## railiner

Skyline said:


> Agree. For some of us, The Journey Is The Destination.


I agree that the journey is the destination, but unlike most folks on this forum, that includes any thing that rolls, flies, or floats....
To paraphrase the Cunard Line old slogan...”Getting there is half the fun”, to which I add...Coming back, is the other half...


----------



## Barb Stout

1. Not as bad on climate change as is flying.
2. I don't have to take my shoes off and unpack a bunch of stuff going through TSA and thus don't have to put up with other passengers (or TSA) getting mad at me when I'm slow.
3. Passengers and crew aren't as cranky on trains as they are on airplanes.
4. I haven't gotten any respiratory sickness (or any other) during/after train trips which I do about 50% of the times that I have flown. I attribute that to the sardine-like nature of packing into the planes.
5. Trains are roomier. Even this tiny person has troubles on a plane; I just can't imagine what a tall person goes through.
6. I don't have to pay extra to check my luggage. I'm small and don't like to lug a lot of things around, so I always check my baggage when flying.
7. If I'm taking a sleeper, I get a massage all night long.
8. I like the aspect of being "forced" to share a booth with other people during meals. This encourages my introverted nature to practice conversation with others. I have met a number of very interesting people because of the diner car.
9. I LOVE gazing at the scenery. We have such a beautiful country.
10. I get to walk around as much as I like and climb stairs to try to stay in shape.
11. Often when I take a plane, my sinuses experience pain during the ascent and descent due to the sudden air pressure changes. Although, sometimes my ears pop when going up and down in the mountains on the train, there is no associated pain with that.

These are the reasons that first came to my mind; there may be others that are a bit more buried in my brain. Overall, I would say riding a long distance train is a treat whereas flying is a unpleasant burden.


----------



## Rail Freak

Skyline said:


> Agree. For some of us, The Journey Is The Destination.


That's me, for sure!!!


----------



## Bex

Count me in with the journey is the destination. I always get a window seat on a plane but all I see is clouds. On a train I see America.


----------



## Eric in East County

This radio announcement, which originally aired on December 5, 1949, nicely sums up why we choose to take the train rather than fly.

“Think of what you get when you buy a railroad ticket. A ticket on a railroad train buys for you a lot more than just transportation from one place to another.

It buys you, for one thing, comfort and relaxation. You don’t have to keep an eye on the traffic light. You don’t have to watch out for other drivers on the highway. The conductor and the engineer will run the train and all you have to do is to relax and ride and watch America roll by your car window.

And your railroad ticket buys you spaciousness. On the train you don’t have to keep your seat, stay in one place, or even in one car. There are lounges inviting you to a sociable visit with your fellow passengers . . . and dining cars where you may enjoy a snack or a regular meal.

And when night comes, there are sleeping cars with berths and rooms inviting you to slumber . . . all as you ride.

And when you buy a train ticket, you buy dependability, for the trains run in all kinds of weather.

Most important of all, your ticket buys you safety. Safety to a degree which, year in and year out, is not even approached by any other form of passenger transportation in America.

So when you buy a railroad ticket, remember what else you are buying besides transportation.

You are buying relaxation and enjoyment. You are buying a look at your country as you travel through it. You are buying a chance to read or to write . . . to work or to talk with your fellow passengers. You are buying spaciousness and reliability and safety . . . all for the price of a railroad ticket.”

Eric & Pat


----------



## Qapla

keelhauled said:


> I suggest you don’t look too closely at comparative fatality rates in the US between trains and planes. They don’t paint so nearly an optimistic picture.



That is true. If you look closely you will find that the number of those killed by rail are, on average, higher than those killed by plane - or are they ????

When a commercial passenger plane crashes it makes big news - especially when all on board are killed. But, that does not happen all that often.

On the other hand, numbers seem to show that people are killed by trains far more often that those newsworthy commercial passenger planes accidents.

But, let's go ahead and look "closely":

Train deaths are all lumped together
There is no separation of those who die on passenger trains from those killed on/by freight trains
Plane crash numbers are those of actual passengers who die or those who die in a passenger plane crash
Military plane deaths, crop dusters, small plane crashes and any bystander killed by accident are not included in the numbers
The majority of those killed in train accidents each year were not "on" the train
People in cars, on bikes and even walking account for the largest number of those killed "by" trains
Those killed at train crossings are usually not the fault of the train and seldom cause death of train passengers
So, yes, we should not look too closely at comparative rates of trains vs plane deaths.


----------



## Sauve850

Never seems to take too long to get a little off topic. Oh well, I’m not concerned about which method of transportation is safer.

I take the train simply because I can. On my way home each summer from out west I take three trains to get back to Florida. I ride in a sleeper, enjoy the relaxation, the time for reflection and the scenery of our country.


----------



## lordsigma

keelhauled said:


> I suggest you don’t look too closely at comparative fatality rates in the US between trains and planes. They don’t paint so nearly an optimistic picture.



It’s certainly statistically more likely to be in an accident involving fatalities on the train. However if you do get into one you probably have more of a chance of not being one of the fatalities (while many airplane crashes are 100% no survivors) not to mention a likely quicker death if you are than the sheer terror of knowing death is coming for possibly minutes or more on a plane.


----------



## keelhauled

Qapla said:


> That is true. If you look closely you will find that the number of those killed by rail are, on average, higher than those killed by plane - or are they ????
> 
> When a commercial passenger plane crashes it makes big news - especially when all on board are killed. But, that does not happen all that often.
> 
> On the other hand, numbers seem to show that people are killed by trains far more often that those newsworthy commercial passenger planes accidents.
> 
> But, let's go ahead and look "closely":
> 
> Train deaths are all lumped together
> There is no separation of those who die on passenger trains from those killed on/by freight trains
> Plane crash numbers are those of actual passengers who die or those who die in a passenger plane crash
> Military plane deaths, crop dusters, small plane crashes and any bystander killed by accident are not included in the numbers
> The majority of those killed in train accidents each year were not "on" the train
> People in cars, on bikes and even walking account for the largest number of those killed "by" trains
> Those killed at train crossings are usually not the fault of the train and seldom cause death of train passengers
> So, yes, we should not look too closely at comparative rates of trains vs plane deaths.



Why don't you use data instead of pulling your claims out of thin air? If you want straight fatality numbers, the DoT breaks down the numbers in exactly the ways you say they don't--they have categories for actual accidents, grade crossing collisions, and pedestrian strikes. They furthermore give the split between freight and passenger trains if you want it.

If you want to compare passenger miles, you can get those numbers too--rail passenger and airline passenger data is available. If any mode is getting unfairly represented it's airlines, since scheduled cargo and passenger airlines are both certified under the same code and their statistics are rolled together, while the rail data is for passenger trains only


----------



## lordsigma

Let's not forget both are infinitely more safe than driving your own vehicle which all of us do routinely. But for most people fear of flying isn't about rationality its about lack of control and the inability to escape in a situation where you aren't in control. Rail being on the ground gives you at least a more perceived chance of being able to escape than being 30,000 feet in the air. Im not saying its rational, but its still a very real thing when you have it. And take this from someone who does have discomforts with flying. I know it isn't rational, I know statistically its safest, but for me its still the scariest.


----------



## SarahZ

lordsigma said:


> (while many airplane crashes are 100% no survivors)


You'll be relieved to know this isn't true. 90% of those involved in plane crashes survive. 

So, if you combine the odds of actually being involved in a plane crash with the odds of _surviving_ that plane crash, there really is very little to be concerned about.

People get into their cars every day and think, "I'm on the ground, and I'm in control if something goes wrong, so it makes me feel better."

Your odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 77.

Your odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 5,000,000.

This app can help those who are scared. I find it amusing, but not in a way that pokes fun at people with a genuine phobia. I just like the data. Hopefully, it will help some of those people: https://www.fearofflying.app/


----------



## LookingGlassTie

Riding a train gives you new perspectives on places you might have already visited by car or bus. Even your hometown/home area. 

Also allows you to see people's backyards without trespassing...............


----------



## SarahZ

LookingGlassTie said:


> Riding a train gives you new perspectives on places you might have already visited by car or bus. Even your hometown/home area.
> 
> Also allows you to see people's backyards without trespassing...............


All of those are fun, especially peeking into backyards. 

I like when people put seasonal decorations in their backyard so those on the train can enjoy them. When I had an apartment that faced the Amtrak/NS tracks, I always decorated the windows facing the tracks.


----------



## Qapla

keelhauled said:


> Why don't you use data instead of pulling your claims out of thin air?



I did use data ... I used the data I located online using Google. Maybe it doesn't agree with the data you found - but,like they say : "Statistics - the only math that does lie"

I have no intention or desire of continuing to discuss the accident and/or death danger/rates between plane/train/cars - especially since that is not the subject of this thread.



lordsigma said:


> for most people fear of flying isn't about rationality it's about lack of control and the inability to escape in a situation where you aren't in control.



not sure if I would say "most" -maybe - "many" ... for me it has nothing to do with "control" - it is "fear", plain and simple. I have a fear of heights and planes tend to fly high ... trains stay on the ground. Either way, the fear is irrational ... even so, I am still afraid of heights - if I was any taller I would have a problem standing up!

Nevertheless, even if heights had nothing to do with it ... I still prefer the relaxed pace of riding the train and the 24/7 travel sure beats driving - I find it much easier to sleep in a train than sitting in a car while someone else is driving.

A few other reasons for riding the trains:

Don't have to stop to use the Restroom
Don't have to navigate roads I am not familiar with on the way to my destination
I just find it cool!


----------



## Bluejet

v v said:


> Less damage to the environment, by quite a margin





dlagrua said:


> All of the above, plus I can take my cooler, bring liquids, use the cell phone and easily go online. All this contributes to what we call the comfort factor. The train is like a hotel on wheels, a relaxing way to travel, and far more friendly to the environment. Most people don't realize it but a six hour cross country airline trip will consume 20,000 gallons of aviation fuel for a passenger load of maybe 150-200 passengers. Talk about saving the environment, that's absolutely horrible pollution.



So I’m going to preface my response here that I am a frequent traveler by train and grew up in a household where I had family in the railroad buisness. Also, long time lurker, first time caller.

I’m an airline pilot for a major airline. And I believe the numbers here are a bit off. I believe on short trips, a train certainly is more efficient then an airliner, especially under catenary. That said, where airliners can win the efficiency game is on transcontinental flights. No narrowbody airliner since the 707, and likely not even that aircraft, will burn 20,000 gallons of jet a crossing the country. An Airbus 321-200 with sharklets and V2500 powerplants will burn roughly 35,000lbs on a trip from New York to Los Angeles. At 6.8lbs/ gallon, the Airbus will burn 5150 gallons carrying 159 people in a low density configuration with 16 or those seats in buisness class. The a321neos coming online burn 20% less fuel, so about 4100 gallons. By Amtrak’s reporting (and if I’m wrong here, apologies) long distance trains average .4m mpg, so considering a trip from NYC to Los Angeles the train will burn roughly 7000 gallons. Now, I do realize that the train has a bit more capacity, but likely significantly lower load factor, so there can’t really be a direct burn per hour total comparison, but my guess is the loads are likely similar. Our NYC to LAX flights run 12x daily and have 90+% load factors. 

I’ll be the first to say that raw tonnage is obviously moved more efficiently via rail, but the problem is the tare weight is so high that there is a phenomenally higher tonnage that is being moved that doesn’t necessarily have to be. A full a321 with fuel weighs about 200,000lb, not significantly higher then a single super liner car.

In conclusion, I don’t know that long distance train travel is necessary a more “green” travel experience then a jet.


----------



## lordsigma

Bluejet said:


> In conclusion, I don’t know that long distance train travel is necessary a more “green” travel experience then a jet.


It very likely depends on time of year and how busy the train is. The new Charger locomotives when they enter service on these trains could alter the numbers as well.


----------



## jiml

There is nothing wrong with either method of travel, and combining both judiciously can be very practical. I have travelled a large percentage of the rail routes in North America and also have million-miler+ status with airlines. If not for one I might not be able to access the other. It all comes down to destination, time available and budget. (With the latest changes, one could also include food.)


----------



## dande

Do they ever update and/or replace sleeper cars? The ones we just had on the Silver Service both north and southbound were pretty worn


----------



## Ryan

Qapla said:


> I did use data ... I used the data I located online using Google. Maybe it doesn't agree with the data you found - but,like they say : "Statistics - the only math that does lie"



Perhaps you can share that data, so that we can understand why you perceive there to be a difference and ensure that we're comparing apples to apples.



Qapla said:


> I have no intention or desire of continuing to discuss the accident and/or death danger/rates between plane/train/cars- especially since that is not the subject of this thread.



Or not, if you're not actually interested in facts and reason. Relative safety is a reason for choosing one or the other, which is very much the topic of this thread.


----------



## jloewen

lordsigma said:


> Let's not forget both are infinitely more safe than driving your own vehicle which all of us do routinely. But for most people fear of flying isn't about rationality its about lack of control and the inability to escape in a situation where you aren't in control. Rail being on the ground gives you at least a more perceived chance of being able to escape than being 30,000 feet in the air. Im not saying its rational, but its still a very real thing when you have it. And take this from someone who does have discomforts with flying. I know it isn't rational, I know statistically its safest, but for me its still the scariest.



For some routes, such as DC to CHI, DC to ATL, DC to N FL, and doubtless other routes in other parts of the country, it's efficient to take the train. I can leave DC at 6:30PM and be in, say, Savannah the next AM at 6:40AM (if on time), downtown, after a shower and after breakfast, ready to do stuff. The only way to do that by plane is fly in the night before, get in from the airport, and rent a hotel room.
And then you sit three abreast. Humankind was not MEANT to sit three abreast!


----------



## Ryan

If I'm going to ATL, I'm spending the night at home in my own bed and heading to the airport for a morning flight down. WN1298 gets me there before 9. If 0430 is too early for me to leave the house (I'm out the door at 0530 weekdays, so it isn't a hardship for me), then I defer to WN2399. A more gentlemanly 0800 departure still has me on the ground before 10. If I truly have to be there ready to go first thing in the AM, then I have a leisurely dinner at home, head to the airport and catch one of the evening flights down before a good night's sleep in a hotel.

Similar story for DC-CHI or to JAX (used to be a frequent work trip).


----------



## I like rolling hotels

All of the above, plus restaurant-grade food and being allowed to keep the Swiss army knife I carry all day every day.


----------



## jis

Ryan said:


> If I'm going to ATL, I'm spending the night at home in my own bed and heading to the airport for a morning flight down. WN1298 gets me there before 9. If 0430 is too early for me to leave the house (I'm out the door at 0530 weekdays, so it isn't a hardship for me), then I defer to WN2399. A more gentlemanly 0800 departure still has me on the ground before 10. If I truly have to be there ready to go first thing in the AM, then I have a leisurely dinner at home, head to the airport and catch one of the evening flights down before a good night's sleep in a hotel.
> 
> Similar story for DC-CHI or to JAX (used to be a frequent work trip).



I am with you Ryan. It is usually my preference to sleep in a bed firmly attached to terra firma rather than bouncing around on unpredictable quality American rail tracks. I do the latter only for leisurely enjoyment, which I like BTW, not when I have critical work to attend to next morning.

There is no really usable overnight service from DC to CHI where you can get in full day's work at either end. The situation between DC and JAX is considerably better, but still not ideal. SAV is better. I have occasionally done NWK/TRE to SAV or JAX for a business trip. But I had to either do it over a weekend or take a vacation day to make it happen. Not ideal at all.


----------



## Ryan

I had a flight cancellation that almost led me to take the train WAS-JAX once last year. The late afternoon departure up here was fine, but the 0640 arrival into JAX left me in the middle of nowhere without a rental car (none of the local places are open that early) and none of my traveling companions were going to be on site yet to help. Train station to the Naval Station is a bit too much of a haul to ask of one of the locals.


----------



## Chey

Caro said:


> I also agree - I’m coming to the States from the UK in part just for the fun of riding the trains (Texas Eagle then Coast Starlight) I could easily have flown from Austin to Seattle in a day for sure but decided a trainride would be a good way for me as a solo traveller to see parts of the States I otherwise wouldn’t see and meet people I wouldn’t otherwise meet hopefully in a safe environment.



May your trip be a pleasure! Amtrak isn't perfect but it's the only way I want to travel.


----------



## Chey

lordsigma said:


> Let's not forget both are infinitely more safe than driving your own vehicle which all of us do routinely. But for most people fear of flying isn't about rationality its about lack of control and the inability to escape in a situation where you aren't in control. Rail being on the ground gives you at least a more perceived chance of being able to escape than being 30,000 feet in the air. Im not saying its rational, but its still a very real thing when you have it. And take this from someone who does have discomforts with flying. I know it isn't rational, I know statistically its safest, but for me its still the scariest.



Yes. If I'm in a train wreck, I'm not likely to have seen it coming. If a plane fails, I'll know it all the way down. That's the worst nightmare ever for me.


----------



## jis

At the remarkable apparent rate at which freight trains seem to derail in the US, there seems to be very little to comfort oneself when a zillion freight trains pass by you two feet away from your window. Each mode has its moments.


----------



## Trogdor

Chey said:


> Yes. If I'm in a train wreck, I'm not likely to have seen it coming. If a plane fails, I'll know it all the way down. That's the worst nightmare ever for me.



That’s another myth. By far, most incidents that occur at cruising altitude give the crew more than enough time to make it down safely. The ones that are most dangerous are the ones that happen close to the ground, simply because they don’t give the crew enough time to react.

Unless you’re referring to the (maybe) once-per-decade occurrence of an airplane blowing up in mid-air.


----------



## Chey

SarahZ said:


> You'll be relieved to know this isn't true. 90% of those involved in plane crashes survive.
> 
> So, if you combine the odds of actually being involved in a plane crash with the odds of _surviving_ that plane crash, there really is very little to be concerned about.
> 
> People get into their cars every day and think, "I'm on the ground, and I'm in control if something goes wrong, so it makes me feel better."
> 
> Your odds of dying in a car accident are 1 in 77.
> 
> Your odds of dying in a plane crash are 1 in 5,000,000.
> 
> This app can help those who are scared. I find it amusing, but not in a way that pokes fun at people with a genuine phobia. I just like the data. Hopefully, it will help some of those people: https://www.fearofflying.app/



I appreciate the app and what it attempts to do. Back in the 80's I spent a lot of time educating myself about the way planes work, why most of them stay aloft. It didn't help. I got hypnosis to try to deal with my fear, that didn't help either. That's when I realized it was a phobia that would never respond to reason or education. 

I'm a military brat, I've flown all my life. But in my teens the fear kicked in and it grew to the point I just couldn't fly anymore. The last time I flew anywhere was 1997 , a short trip from Phoenix to Las Vegas for Comdex. The way back it took 4 valiums and 4 drinks just to get on the plane. In normal circumstances that would've been suicide. My adrenaline, my blood pressure were so high it took that much... and that's even riskier than what I fear about flying... and this was all before 9/11, before the TSA. BTW, My daughter flies a lot - she's big-chested and ALWAYS gets groped. If they tried that with me, I'd be in jail for a long time. That's on top of the phobia. I just don't want to deal with it. So I haven't flown in over 20 years and I still get to where I need to go. Lucky me, all the rest of my family lives near an Amtrak station.

I have loved trains since I was a little girl, though I never rode one until we were stationed in Europe. When I was a pre-kindergartner we always got out of the car and waved to the freight train we always had to stop for every Sunday. My father was a civil engineer, but when I was little I couldn't understand why, if he was an engineer, I couldn't ride his train. Always made me mad!

One day in 1993 I rode Amtrak for the first time - I was hooked.

If it means I can't see Europe, okay, I've seen a lot of it already. Maybe I will have the money someday to take an ocean liner there, I'd like to see Ireland again. And Switzerland. Places I loved.

It's not that I don't understand the dangers inherent in any other form of travel. I just don't have a phobia about any of them except flying. I don't know why, but that's how it is. I work around it.


----------



## Maglev

I like trains because they give an understanding of this great land that one cannot get from an airplane. I also love the ability to do this from the comfort of a private room, with decent quality food and beverages available nearby. When I do have to fly, I go first class, so the price differential for taking a sleeper on Amtrak is not that great.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Bluejet said:


> I don’t know that long distance train travel is necessary a more “green” travel experience then a jet.


Being green is more than raw efficiency and load factors. A big part of the problem with commercial aircraft is that their exhaust is expelled at an altitude that substantially amplifies the impact relative to ground level exhaust. There may indeed be cases where the latest generation aircraft flying ideal mission profiles at extremely high load factors can compete favorably with an outdated diesel locomotive dragging ancient rolling stock through a circuitous rail route, but I don't think cherry-picked exceptions should drive our decision making. Even a lowly pickup truck can pull a Superliner rail car across typical rail grades, despite having little hope of dragging an A321n to FL400. You can buy conventional off-the-shelf passenger trains that can approach zero emissions when fueled with renewable energy today. There are no commercial scale zero emission passenger aircraft anywhere on the horizon.


----------



## Winecliff Station

1. Comfort- even in coach there is more room, plus the ability to walk without running into someone or a beverage cart, and getting out of your seat isn't a major hike.
2. Convenience- I live 15 minutes from an Amtrak station, but an hour from a small domestic airport and 2 hours from a major hub. Anything under a 10-12 hour train ride is almost as long if you fly, when you consider waiting time, security, connection layovers, and getting transportation from the airport which is never within the city. Even the longer distances, I love that I can board a train so close to my home and be in downtown New Orleans, Chicago or Miami the next day.
3. Enjoyment- I'm one of those nutty people that would rather sail across an ocean than fly over it. My hope for retirement is to just be a surface traveler all over the planet, using trains and ships only. This vacation I'm now finishing included a cruise with a long distance train ride on either end. No planes, so no tiny bottles or disrobing during security, and no stupid rules about what I can and can't take with me. It was pure bliss. The more ways they find to make air travel unpleasant, the less I want to take part in it. And there is more to see out the window


----------



## jebr

Devil's Advocate said:


> You can buy conventional off-the-shelf passenger trains that can approach zero emissions when fueled with renewable energy today. There are no commercial scale zero emission passenger aircraft anywhere on the horizon.



This, to me, is why the train wins on the environmental front. Sure, the electrical grid isn't emissions-free today, but there's a lot of effort being placed into doing so, and electrified rail lines can very easily take advantage of that work simply by electrifying rail lines. There's a cost to that, but the path is there and certainly doable with enough money. Commercial passenger airplanes simply don't have a simple conversion to electric that I've seen, especially for longer distances.

That said, I fly quite a bit more than I take the train. There are far too many markets where a two-hour flight is multiple days by train due to low speed, low frequency, and out-of-the-way routes. Since I do enjoy flying as well as taking the train, there isn't a strong hesitation against flying, and I simply don't have the time far too often to take the train. If I had the time and the money, I'd probably take the train; it's certainly more comfortable and there's security hassles that I have to work around when flying that simply aren't an issue when taking the train. (For example, I usually check a bag when flying because I use a safety razor, and the blades for it can't be brought on board. I also like bringing a few cans of beer or cider home with me, which again requires checking a bag if I want to do so.) But given the time constraints and the frustrating intercity rail network, I've found ways to work around the issues with flying and will typically do that on longer trips unless I have extra time and want to make the train trip part of the vacation.


----------



## Winecliff Station

railiner said:


> I agree that the journey is the destination, but unlike most folks on this forum, that includes any thing that rolls, flies, or floats....
> To paraphrase the Cunard Line old slogan...”Getting there is half the fun”, to which I add...Coming back, is the other half...



I love Cunard.... did the final crossing on QE2 in 2008 before she was sold to Dubai. I don’t even mind the formal nights!


----------



## SarahZ

Chey said:


> It's not that I don't understand the dangers inherent in any other form of travel. I just don't have a phobia about any of them except flying. I don't know why, but that's how it is. I work around it.


I get it. Most of the people I know with a fear of flying link it to a fear of heights. It's not so much the risk of a plane crashing as the terrifying feeling of being 25,000 feet in the air. There's not much that can be done about that since all of the statistics in the world won't help a feeling of vertigo at high altitudes.

I'm claustrophobic, so if Amtrak traveled via an underground tunnel, you'd never see me on a train again.


----------



## SarahZ

jebr said:


> I fly quite a bit more than I take the train. There are far too many markets where a two-hour flight is multiple days by train due to low speed, low frequency, and out-of-the-way routes. Since I do enjoy flying as well as taking the train, there isn't a strong hesitation against flying, and I simply don't have the time far too often to take the train.
> 
> If I had the time and the money, I'd probably take the train [...]
> 
> But given the time constraints and the frustrating intercity rail network, I've found ways to work around the issues with flying and will typically do that on longer trips unless I have extra time and want to make the train trip part of the vacation.


Jeb summed up my position really well. I use whichever mode of transportation works best with my schedule and finances. I usually only take a train long distances when it's part of my vacation and I'm doing it for the scenery. It's much more convenient to fly.

As far as regional trips, I have a lot of frustration with the current Michigan Services schedule. I find myself driving to/from Chicago and Detroit more often than not. I would prefer to take the train, but the schedule simply does not work for me.

I feel the same way about traveling to the east coast. As much as I'd love to take the train, the schedule is terrible. If I could board at 9 a.m. and be there around 9 p.m, I'd be all for it.


----------



## Bluejet

Devil's Advocate said:


> Being green is more than raw efficiency and load factors. A big part of the problem with commercial aircraft is that their exhaust is expelled at an altitude that substantially amplifies the impact relative to ground level exhaust. There may indeed be cases where the latest generation aircraft flying ideal mission profiles at extremely high load factors can compete favorably with an outdated diesel locomotive dragging ancient rolling stock through a circuitous rail route, but I don't think cherry-picked exceptions should drive our decision making. Even a lowly pickup truck can pull a Superliner rail car across typical rail grades, despite having little hope of dragging an A321n to FL400. You can buy conventional off-the-shelf passenger trains that can approach zero emissions when fueled with renewable energy today. There are no commercial scale zero emission passenger aircraft anywhere on the horizon.




Again, I don't disagree that trains CAN be more efficient, but the quote I was responding to was giving skewed data to the argument and was just flat out wrong. The 35000lbs of JET-A is a typical westbound, not eastbound, fuel burn at 100% load factor. Eastbound the fuel burn will be about 5000lbs less with typical tail winds. The current generation amtrak P42/superliner combo is quoted by Amtrak as getting roughly .4 MPG. (that's all long distance, i did not give a fuel credit to the likely lighter east of the chicago trains) Doing some math, the original poster was incorrect to assume that the jet airliner burned a significant amount of fossil fuels above what's being used today by long distance trains, in fact its quite the opposite, the jet is often more efficient then trains on longer segments. The train burns 7000 gallons of Diesel both ways, the jet is burning 5000 gallons westbound and 4300 gallons eastbound. While yes it is possible to make trains close to zero emissions, that would involve billions of dollars in capital infrastructure to upgrade our rail lines outside of the northeast corridor to use overhead catenary, which is never going to happen. Obviously freight rail handily destroys air freight on tonnage cost, but between lack of investment, onerous safety regulations that prohibit or at the very least discourage the use of lighter weight off the shelf equipment, the jet is not only competitive on fuel burn, but might down right beat the train on segments greater then 1000 miles.


----------



## jiml

Trogdor said:


> That’s another myth. By far, most incidents that occur at cruising altitude give the crew more than enough time to make it down safely. The ones that are most dangerous are the ones that happen close to the ground, simply because they don’t give the crew enough time to react.
> 
> Unless you’re referring to the (maybe) once-per-decade occurrence of an airplane blowing up in mid-air.


This is a point well-taken. There was a study several years (maybe 20?) ago that statistically 60% of aircraft "events" happened during take-off, 35% during landing and the remaining 5% covered all other causes including mid-air collision, decompression and terrorist attacks.

There isn't much point in debating whether rail or air travel is safer; they're both so much safer than taking your car to the corner store.


----------



## Bluejet

jiml said:


> This is a point well-taken. There was a study several years (maybe 20?) ago that statistically 60% of aircraft "events" happened during take-off, 35% during landing and the remaining 5% covered all other causes including mid-air collision, decompression and terrorist attacks.
> 
> There isn't much point in debating whether rail or air travel is safer; they're both so much safer than taking your car to the corner store.



Interestingly enough one of the main causes of cruise accidents has been high altitude aerodynamic stalls. Air France 447 is one of many examples of pilots being taught wrong technique for many years. In years past with statistics like you posted, the FAA and NTSB were far more concerned about low altitude stalls rather then high altitude stalls. Jet engines have far higher thrust output and airframes have far higher normal operating ranges at lower altitudes then higher ones. The FAA taught pilots to essentially maintain attitude and "power out" of stalls. Thats fine and good at low altitudes where you have excess thrust to deal with, but at higher altitudes it proved to be deadly. Having under wing mounted engines, the pitch moment of the wing with relation to the engines wants to push the wing into a greater angle of attack, and actually can deepen aerodynamic stalls. When a stall deepens the wing tips on swept wing jets are the first to stall, leading to a lack of controllability. The NTSB had to intervene and push for new stall recovery training for all swept wing jets at altitude which tells operators to push the nose over and reduce power, ergo inducing a pitch down moment and allowing the airplane to decrease angle of attack. During the next 3 years every airline pilot in the united states will undergo multiple hours of stall training in simulators in these regimes to correct what was unfortunately poor training protocol ordered by the FAA.


----------



## Qapla

Ryan said:


> the 0640 arrival into JAX left me in the middle of nowhere without a rental car (none of the local places are open that early)



Ain't that the truth ... Jax used to have a downtown depot years ago ... that building is now a Convention Center. The Amtrak station is not in the most convenient location and the signage to find it by car, if you don't already know where it is, does not make it easy to locate - you could drive right past the drive back to the building.



Ryan said:


> Train station to the Naval Station is a bit too much of a haul to ask of one of the locals.



And that is the case with either Navy Base ... if you are going to NAS the train goes right past the main entrance but there is no stop there like there once was. The town that once stood across from NAS no longer exists ... today, the next stop from JAX is Palatka.


> Yukon was established in the mid 1800's as the "Blackpoint Settlement". The community, along with a 300 home development called Dewey Park, sat across from NAS Jax between Roosevelt Blvd and the Ortega River.
> During its heyday, the community had gridded paved streets, sidewalks, a downtown business district, homes and a railroad depot.
> Designated as a flight and safety hazard, the Navy closed the town in July 1963.



There is not much left of the old depot. When I was young the building still existed. These days, all that's left is the slab. My brother and sister were born in the old hospital at NAS ... back when Yukon was still considered a town ... their birth certificates had them listed as being born in Yukon, Fl.

Mayport is even further.


Anyway - back to the thread ...


SarahZ said:


> Most of the people I know with a fear of flying link it to a fear of heights. It's not so much the risk of a plane crashing as the terrifying feeling of being 25,000 feet in the air. There's not much that can be done about that since all of the statistics in the world won't help a feeling of vertigo at high altitudes.



That's me! Just the thought of getting into a plane that is going to take me that far up keeps me from trying it.

Even though I know that, statistically speaking, I am much more likely to be involved in a car crash than a plane crash - it doesn't bother me at all to get into a car/truck and drive down a busy Interstate ... but, get in the plane - not on your life!

The train is right in between - even though I know that a train is mega-tons of steel and people hurdling along at speeds up to 80MPH (outside the NEC) on steel wheels riding on steel tracks that are only 4'8½" apart with nothing but gravity holding it down - it doesn't bother me like thinking about being up in a plane does.


----------



## Paul CHI

So easy to board the train. Comfortable seats. Great views, though I also enjoy seeing the country from the air (but more and more flyers are closing the shades so they can watch movies). By and large, though, planes are more on time and cheaper than sleepers. Either can be affected by severe weather, just in different ways.


----------



## Way2Kewl

With regards to feeling safer on a train vs plane…
My thoughts are that anyone that gets in a car should not be concerned at all about taking a train or a plane.

There was an article publishing comparable statistics a few years back.
It listed deaths per Billion miles:
Motorcycle 217 per Billion miles
Cars & Trucks 5.75 per Billion miles
Commuter rails & Amtrak 0.47 per Billion miles (does not distinguish between rail crossings vs. passengers.)
Subway & Metro rail 0.24 per Billion miles
Bus 0.14 per Billion miles
Plane 0.06 per Billion miles
Reference: https://money.cnn.com/2015/05/13/news/economy/train-plane-car-deaths/

This Wiki lists references American Railroad Accidents with a bit more detail of each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_railroad_accidents#21st_century

Here are some DOT hard statistics on the DOT website.
https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/TenYearAccidentIncidentOverview.aspx
Filtering “Railroad Group“ to “AMTRAK AND COMMUTER RAILROADS” and then “Generate Report” lists Passenger Rail Deaths.
I can’t find any distinction from rails crossing accidents vs. riding passengers here either.


----------



## Duane Witte

I have flown a couple dozen times (all for work, all before 9/11) in my life but due to my size it was uncomfortable. With the extra security and small seats you wont get me on a plane unless it's an emergency. Usually if I can't drive there I don't go. Thursday I leave on my first long distance train trip we'll see how that goes.


----------



## v v

Bluejet said:


> So I’m going to preface my response here that I am a frequent traveler by train and grew up in a household where I had family in the railroad buisness. Also, long time lurker, first time caller.
> 
> I’m an airline pilot for a major airline. And I believe the numbers here are a bit off. I believe on short trips, a train certainly is more efficient then an airliner, especially under catenary. That said, where airliners can win the efficiency game is on transcontinental flights. No narrowbody airliner since the 707, and likely not even that aircraft, will burn 20,000 gallons of jet a crossing the country. An Airbus 321-200 with sharklets and V2500 powerplants will burn roughly 35,000lbs on a trip from New York to Los Angeles. At 6.8lbs/ gallon, the Airbus will burn 5150 gallons carrying 159 people in a low density configuration with 16 or those seats in buisness class. The a321neos coming online burn 20% less fuel, so about 4100 gallons. By Amtrak’s reporting (and if I’m wrong here, apologies) long distance trains average .4m mpg, so considering a trip from NYC to Los Angeles the train will burn roughly 7000 gallons. Now, I do realize that the train has a bit more capacity, but likely significantly lower load factor, so there can’t really be a direct burn per hour total comparison, but my guess is the loads are likely similar. Our NYC to LAX flights run 12x daily and have 90+% load factors.
> 
> I’ll be the first to say that raw tonnage is obviously moved more efficiently via rail, but the problem is the tare weight is so high that there is a phenomenally higher tonnage that is being moved that doesn’t necessarily have to be. A full a321 with fuel weighs about 200,000lb, not significantly higher then a single super liner car.
> 
> In conclusion, I don’t know that long distance train travel is necessary a more “green” travel experience then a jet.



I don't dispute any of your data and must point out I wasn't comparing US trains with flying. Read a comprehensive article last week about the self same planes verses European high speed trains vs European electric trains vs diesel trains. The shock was that diesel trains (in Europe) were not as markedly efficient compared to planes as I thought. Electric trains on local to moderate distance trains were definitely a bit more efficient, but the high speed (200 mph) trains were so much more efficient and they carry a higher passenger load than say a regular express train either diesel or electric.

I wasn't comparing like with like as of course this is a US forum so not a fair comparison from me, but I would say that if the US built a real high speed rail network it would make it very tough for airlines to compete on environmental grounds.

Noticed above that someone wrote that a high speed rail network will never get built in the US, it can't be available space compared to Europe and Japan for example, anyone know the reason(s)?


----------



## Anderson

Generally, my rule (as of a few years ago) was this: I live in VA. If I'm going somewhere east of the Mississippi* (and not in Canada), I take the train. Otherwise, I fly. It's really down to distance/time.

Now, things are rather squirrely at this point because of the Starvation mess (killing that as an SB option to Florida and making the prospect of juggling an overnight connection at New York or Albany *ahem* problematic) to say nothing of the Meteor's situation. But VA is also well-placed to run overnight in either direction (once 66/67 gets its sleeper back I'll probably use that to/from the Adirondack), so I've taken the train to/from Chicago, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and Georgia on "pure" overnight trips (i.e. no intermediate stays in hotels).

With the axing of the Meteor's diner, however, I am in a painful spot since I'm to the point that I can (in terms of service amenities) comfortably route ORF/RIC-JFK-Florida and get a good meal _en route _on Delta. It isn't that I demand _great_ food (the Amtrak steak was always quite enough), it's that I want edible food with a decent presentation, etc.


----------



## Anderson

Way2Kewl said:


> With regards to feeling safer on a train vs plane…
> My thoughts are that anyone that gets in a car should not be concerned at all about taking a train or a plane.
> 
> There was an article publishing comparable statistics a few years back.
> It listed deaths per Billion miles:
> Motorcycle 217 per Billion miles
> Cars & Trucks 5.75 per Billion miles
> Commuter rails & Amtrak 0.47 per Billion miles (does not distinguish between rail crossings vs. passengers.)
> Subway & Metro rail 0.24 per Billion miles
> Bus 0.14 per Billion miles
> Plane 0.06 per Billion miles
> Reference: https://money.cnn.com/2015/05/13/news/economy/train-plane-car-deaths/
> 
> This Wiki lists references American Railroad Accidents with a bit more detail of each.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_railroad_accidents#21st_century
> 
> Here are some DOT hard statistics on the DOT website.
> https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/TenYearAccidentIncidentOverview.aspx
> Filtering “Railroad Group“ to “AMTRAK AND COMMUTER RAILROADS” and then “Generate Report” lists Passenger Rail Deaths.
> I can’t find any distinction from rails crossing accidents vs. riding passengers here either.
> View attachment 15335


Worth noting is that on the NEC (where grade crossings _mostly _don't exist), Amtrak went something like 28 years without a passenger fatality (the derailment outside Philly was the first passenger-fatal Amtrak crash since early January 1987, and _that_ incident was due to a Conrail locomotive team that was high at the time). There has _never_ been a fatality on board an Acela train, for example.

Replicating the conditions of the NEC elsewhere would be...tricky, at least in terms of closing grade crossings, but it does seem that trains can be substantially safer than the other methids under the right operating conditions (and that the failure of those conditions, if established, is likely to be much less deadly than...oh, I dunno, a malfunctioning autopilot system).


----------



## railiner

Bluejet said:


> I’m an airline pilot for a major airline



Wow, another airline pilot on AU...welcome to our forum!
How many does that now make?


----------



## Willbridge

I might be called a "geography fan" so I like the view and the people of rail and some bus travel better than air travel. Exceptions have been the interesting low-altitude circling of Chicago due to air traffic and circling divided Berlin for the Army's low-budget method of getting photos of our opponents.

I've noticed that the anecdotes about Vietnam veterans being abused often take place in airports. Coming home to Oregon from Berlin in 1971 the only rudeness I experienced was in JFK airport. On my rail journey through the chaos of early Amtrak I was treated to "no tip, please" by a NY cabbie and people bought me drinks and meals. The station master in Portland arranged for my family to be on the platform to greet me, just like in the movies.

When working for Oregon DOT, my colleagues noticed that train passengers wrote the most literate comments about their travel experiences and needs!


----------



## Willbridge

railiner said:


> Wow, another airline pilot on AU...welcome to our forum!
> How many does that now make?


In the past year I've met two TSA staffers on western transcons (Trains 3 and 11). Not sure what that means!


----------



## Bluejet

railiner said:


> Wow, another airline pilot on AU...welcome to our forum!
> How many does that now make?



That’s interesting that there are a couple. I will say I tend to use the train a fair bit lately. I live on the southeast Connecticut shoreline so to Boston or New York it sure beats the drive.


----------



## basketmaker

Been flying since infancy (dad had a plane) and then 45 years in the aviation industry. Everything passenger and cargo except pilot (but including being a flight attendant). I avoid commercial aviation like the plague. I abhor TSA security checks (not the TSA!) and sitting in a seat that is like a rock and too small (and I'm scrawny) with my knees in my chest. Then staring out the window at just the "pretty white clouds". Now I do enjoy flying if it is in a small plane like a Cessna or Piper and my favorite aircraft the venerable Douglas DC-3. Give me a train any day of the week!


----------



## railiner

As an AA retiree, (not a pilot, I was a bus driver), I have used my free flight benefit to ride trains....like last year's Coast Starlight detour over Tehachapi. And I have concluded two recent cruises by coming home on first the Crescent, next on the Meteor, and in January will use the California Zephyr, part of the way, and then fly...
We have at least three other airline pilots that are member's of our forum, that make valuable contribution's sharing their professional knowledge over on the non-rail threads...


----------



## plane2train

Whenever I travel by train, I always combine it with air travel. Often, I will fly one way and return via train or vice-versa. I love taking the train long-distance and seeing our beautiful country. Being in ATL, however, I really can only use it to go to NOL, WAS or NYP. The cities I visit in North Carolina only have Crescent service in the middle of the night. When in California or New Mexico, however, I often try to get one trip in just to see the scenery. Nothing like seeing nature in the absence of an interstate.


----------



## basketmaker

Willbridge said:


> In the past year I've met two TSA staffers on western transcons (Trains 3 and 11). Not sure what that means!


Were they working/on-duty? I know Reno Police Drug Task Force does the CZ #5 between RNO and TRU and pretty sure they do #6 as well. As I was "profiled" as a drug/money runner on one trip. Which I absolutely loved and fully support their efforts. Seems since I booked a roomette from FMG to SAC the night before and the return the following connection after an overnight I guess I fit the description to the computer system. I was in the trans/dorm but rarely stayed in the room. But they hunted me down finally in the lounge. SCA said they were driving her nuts! She said they wanted my description which she gave them. She apologized for it and I told her no worries whatsoever and glad she did. 

Well I was sitting in the lounge taking pics when a bearded guy came up behind me in a tattered t-shirt and cut-off shorts and ask me if I was Karl Innes and I said I was. He lifted his t-shirt and showed me his Reno PD badge clipped to his waistband. My first thought they thought I may have taken a picture of some illegal activity and wanted to maybe see my camera to review. But he explained that he was a member of the Drug Task Force along with 4 other officers onboard. And that my name hit because of my last minute quick round trip. He asked if I had any issues with them checking my baggage and belongings. Which I had no problem with at all. Told him I was in the trans/dorm and we headed that way. He radioed another officer to head up too. Got to the room and he again asked if okay to search and if I had anything illegal they should know about. Said oh hell no problem at all. Then a quick frisk (for weapons I guess)? Since I only had one small overnight bag and a camera bag. He looked through them and of course didn't find anything. He and the other officer both apologized to me for the trouble. Just like I told the SCA that it was no bother whatsoever. And I very glad and grateful for the job they do. One of my more memorable Amtrak journeys!


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> A few other reasons for riding the trains:
> 
> Don't have to stop to use the Restroom


Oh yeah. None of this business with the "fasten seat belt" sign on for 20-30 minutes while you're bouncing around over a thunderstorm, and you really, reall have to go. Also, fasten seat belt sign keeping you strapped into your seats for the 20 minutes after leaving the airport and the 20 minutes before arrival.

Not to mention the fact that an Amfleet 2 car has 2 restroom per ~60 passengers, whereas the Southwest Boeing 737s that I'm most familiar with have only 3 restroom for about 150 passengers.


----------



## MARC Rider

I like rolling hotels said:


> All of the above, plus restaurant-grade food and being allowed to keep the Swiss army knife I carry all day every day.


"Restaurant grade food?" Ah, you must have just popped through a time warp from the previous decade. 
But they still let you bring on the Swiss army knife. In fact, I do it to, as I find it useful to cut up the fine cheese I bring aboard to enjoy with my choice of wine that I can also bring aboard. (NOTE: Applies to sleeper passengers only.)


----------



## Siegmund

Bluejet said:


> By Amtrak’s reporting (and if I’m wrong here, apologies) long distance trains average .4m mpg, so considering a trip from NYC to Los Angeles the train will burn roughly 7000 gallons.



A good rule of thumb for modern locomotives is 500 ton-miles per gallon. That would indeed come out somewhere near 0.4 mpg for the heaviest long-distance trains (~140 tons per engine and ~80 tons per superliner) - if it is a 12-car train you'd at least hope it has something closer to 400 than 200 people aboard. 

I tend to agree with your point that the fuel efficiency issue is about a wash, in the case of an off-season or more lightly patronized train. 

I think a lot of us believe that we could quite easily fill 2 trains per day with several hundred riders on most of the routes, given good on-time performance, good equipment, and good onboard service. Just need someone willing to make that investment -- rather than building expensive but very low-capacity Acelas.


----------



## keelhauled

MARC Rider said:


> But they still let you bring on the Swiss army knife. In fact, I do it to, as I find it useful to cut up the fine cheese I bring aboard to enjoy with my choice of wine that I can also bring aboard. (NOTE: Applies to sleeper passengers only.)



Unless Amtrak Police happen to spot it. Then they will confiscate it.


----------



## oregon pioneer

A lot of the above applies to me, though I am not afraid of heights. In fact, I kind of enjoy looking down from planes when I do have to fly. I far prefer trains, though. In addition to the scenery, comfort, someone else doing the driving, and 24 hour progress, my big thing is the ability to do what I want while watching the landscape roll by, including:

knitting or crocheting 

reading
work on my computer (one trip, I wrote the timeline and script for a five minute video. I always write details for a trip report as stuff happens)
sipping a hot beverage in the SSL while watching scenery, wildlife, backyards, and other trains
keeping warm inside while it snows outside the train, and not having to worry about road conditions
sleeping, and waking up every now and then to see where we are
So, while I will fly when I need to (for reasons of time or distance), I much prefer the train. I have a feeling of luxury every time I step on the train because the journey is, in fact, a large part of my vacation.


----------



## dlagrua

Bluejet said:


> Again, I don't disagree that trains CAN be more efficient, but the quote I was responding to was giving skewed data to the argument and was just flat out wrong. The 35000lbs of JET-A is a typical westbound, not eastbound, fuel burn at 100% load factor. Eastbound the fuel burn will be about 5000lbs less with typical tail winds. The current generation amtrak P42/superliner combo is quoted by Amtrak as getting roughly .4 MPG. (that's all long distance, i did not give a fuel credit to the likely lighter east of the chicago trains) Doing some math, the original poster was incorrect to assume that the jet airliner burned a significant amount of fossil fuels above what's being used today by long distance trains, in fact its quite the opposite, the jet is often more efficient then trains on longer segments. The train burns 7000 gallons of Diesel both ways, the jet is burning 5000 gallons westbound and 4300 gallons eastbound. While yes it is possible to make trains close to zero emissions, that would involve billions of dollars in capital infrastructure to upgrade our rail lines outside of the northeast corridor to use overhead catenary, which is never going to happen. Obviously freight rail handily destroys air freight on tonnage cost, but between lack of investment, onerous safety regulations that prohibit or at the very least discourage the use of lighter weight off the shelf equipment, the jet is not only competitive on fuel burn, but might down right beat the train on segments greater then 1000 miles.



I read different stats on how much fuel a plane consumes as opposed to a train. Diesel engines also pollute far less than Jet engines. Go near an airport and you can smell the stench. Thinking farther the equation must consider the amount of passengers that a train will carry in a cross country trip. Very few passengers go starting to end point and get on and off the train all along the way. If you factor that in, the train makes far less pollution per rail passenger. Now with hybrid locomotives are being introduced the efficiency will skyrocket.


----------



## Larry H.

Tom Booth said:


> Better departure times more true near major cities, not all. See Salt Lake, Cincinnati, Cleveland and lots more. Agree with the rest though.



This is why you need two trains a day, one morning and one evening to hit all cities at convient times.. We have the same thing here in Centralia, if we want to take the City of New Orleans we have to be at the station at about 1 in the morning and going to Chicago you need to be out of bed by 3am to meet it at 4:20.. That wasn't true when we had the Panama Limited the evening train an the City ran as a day trip to New Orleans, and both were far faster at the trip and rarely late compared to now. Several time we wanted to go shopping in Chicago as people tend to do here at the holidays and the train from New Orleans might be six hours late, or worse. Needless to say you trip is wrecked at that point


----------



## Ryan

dlagrua said:


> I read different stats on how much fuel a plane consumes as opposed to a train.


Can you share those stats, or should we just imagine them?



dlagrua said:


> Go near an airport and you can smell the stench.


Are you claiming that you can't smell a locomotive?



dlagrua said:


> If you factor that in, the train makes far less pollution per rail passenger.


[citation needed]



dlagrua said:


> Now with hybrid locomotives are being introduced the efficiency will skyrocket.


[citation also needed]


----------



## Larry H.

lordsigma said:


> Let's not forget both are infinitely more safe than driving your own vehicle which all of us do routinely. But for most people fear of flying isn't about rationality its about lack of control and the inability to escape in a situation where you aren't in control. Rail being on the ground gives you at least a more perceived chance of being able to escape than being 30,000 feet in the air. Im not saying its rational, but its still a very real thing when you have it. And take this from someone who does have discomforts with flying. I know it isn't rational, I know statistically its safest, but for me its still the scariest.



Used to be that when Pullman ran their cars on the rails they had a sign in the sleepers on the wall you faced when going from bedrooms to the roomettes that told how many years it had been since a fatality happened to their passengers.. Last one I recall being up was a sign that said it had been 8 years.. Its mostly location, the pullman company almost always was the last set of cars on the rails.. Unfortunately for Coach passengers they took the brunt of a terrible accident as trains running into another from behind was pretty rare. I have never felt as secure in an Amtrak Sleeper for that very reason. I hate being up front..


----------



## Larry H.

I too don't care to fly.. I had flow across the ocean once but didn't like it, and quite a few other coastal locations from the midwest when I was pretty young. Still I loved trains and rode them when ever possible. I must say the degrading of the dinners has reduced my enthusiasm for the trains, and the sad condition as someone one else mentioned of the sleepers is also a problem considering what they charge. My last plane fight was in the mid 60's for work and the return trip no one, not even the stewards were able to get up. The wings were flopping up and down the plane would move up and down erratically and quite scary. After that I swore I would never take another plane and so far 60 years or so later I have kept that promise.


----------



## jis

I came across this Abstract of a paper on the subject of pollution caused by airplanes near airports compared to ambient urban pollution, which seems to have some bearing on claims being made by some here.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15093276

The full paper will probably require mucho dinero to obtain, since it is Elsevier after all! 

Note that this is about relative pollution at ground level. DA has already pointed out that the NOx emitted in stratosphere has a more immediate effect on the atmosphere than those emitted at ground level, though the latter helps create the icky yellow smog.

Here is an interesting article from National Geographic on deaths caused by particulate pollution caused by airplanes. I was actually surprised by how low those numbers are, and how much can be easily done to lower them further.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/


----------



## DonNewcomb

Barb Stout said:


> ......2. I don't have to take my shoes off and unpack a bunch of stuff going through TSA and thus don't have to put up with other passengers (or TSA) getting mad at me when I'm slow.
> 3. Passengers and crew aren't as cranky on trains as they are on airplanes....


My brother-in-law gave up flying because of what he goes through with the TSA. He's been rebuilt several time, mostly metal, always in pain. A metal detecting wand goes off like a burgler alarm when it gets anywhere near him. The alternative "pat down" is extremely painful. 
I've met some pretty cranky crew members on trains. People are people and you find A.H.s everywhere. People shouting in the sleeping car passageway and slamming doors in the middle of the night comes to mind.


----------



## Chey

SarahZ said:


> I get it. Most of the people I know with a fear of flying link it to a fear of heights. It's not so much the risk of a plane crashing as the terrifying feeling of being 25,000 feet in the air. There's not much that can be done about that since all of the statistics in the world won't help a feeling of vertigo at high altitudes.
> 
> I'm claustrophobic, so if Amtrak traveled via an underground tunnel, you'd never see me on a train again.



Sarah:
Thank you for understanding. I expected an angry reply; most 'normal' people don't understand... I have a friend who is afraid of bridges. I love them but after researching their failings I get why she feels that way.

I used to love the Sunshine Skyway when I lived near it but to see the photos of the car that stopped within a few feet of death still puts the fear of g_d in me and I was nowhere near it at the time. The last time I crossed it I was shaking, at least 20 years after its reconstruction , I was really scared and wished I hadn't been driving. 

Which was probably mercy for the one who would've been driving if I hadn't.


----------



## daybeers

basketmaker said:


> Were they working/on-duty? I know Reno Police Drug Task Force does the CZ #5 between RNO and TRU and pretty sure they do #6 as well. As I was "profiled" as a drug/money runner on one trip. Which I absolutely loved and fully support their efforts. Seems since I booked a roomette from FMG to SAC the night before and the return the following connection after an overnight I guess I fit the description to the computer system. I was in the trans/dorm but rarely stayed in the room. But they hunted me down finally in the lounge. SCA said they were driving her nuts! She said they wanted my description which she gave them. She apologized for it and I told her no worries whatsoever and glad she did.
> 
> Well I was sitting in the lounge taking pics when a bearded guy came up behind me in a tattered t-shirt and cut-off shorts and ask me if I was Karl Innes and I said I was. He lifted his t-shirt and showed me his Reno PD badge clipped to his waistband. My first thought they thought I may have taken a picture of some illegal activity and wanted to maybe see my camera to review. But he explained that he was a member of the Drug Task Force along with 4 other officers onboard. And that my name hit because of my last minute quick round trip. He asked if I had any issues with them checking my baggage and belongings. Which I had no problem with at all. Told him I was in the trans/dorm and we headed that way. He radioed another officer to head up too. Got to the room and he again asked if okay to search and if I had anything illegal they should know about. Said oh hell no problem at all. Then a quick frisk (for weapons I guess)? Since I only had one small overnight bag and a camera bag. He looked through them and of course didn't find anything. He and the other officer both apologized to me for the trouble. Just like I told the SCA that it was no bother whatsoever. And I very glad and grateful for the job they do. One of my more memorable Amtrak journeys!


May I ask why you agreed to the search?


----------



## Anderson

daybeers said:


> May I ask why you agreed to the search?


I'll step in and point out that many people don't feel as though they can refuse, whether out of a lack of knowledge of the rules, a sense of intimidation, or some quirk of perceived social rules.


----------



## SarahZ

Chey said:


> Sarah:
> Thank you for understanding. I expected an angry reply; most 'normal' people don't understand.


Nah. I don't get angry about phobias. I get angry about misinformation, speaker phones, and people who drive slowly in the left lane.


----------



## Asher

For me it's all about time and convenience. You can fly to a vacation, but flying is no vacation. Meanwhile, a train ride can be a vacation in itself.


----------



## Winecliff Station

SarahZ said:


> Nah. I don't get angry about phobias. I get angry about misinformation, speaker phones, and people who drive slowly in the left lane.



My "triggers" as they are called today are animal cruelty, fat shaming and people who use the present tense to describe past events. A close fourth is the slow left lane driving as you mentioned, but it's tied with those people who insist on driving side-by-side with me.


----------



## MARC Rider

Anderson said:


> I'll step in and point out that many people don't feel as though they can refuse, whether out of a lack of knowledge of the rules, a sense of intimidation, or some quirk of perceived social rules.


Actually, the cops can, at the least, severely inconvenience you, and it's no comfort that at some time in the future you could prevail in the courts. Before that, they could hold you, take you off the train, etc. You have to balance that against the possibility that they could plant fake evidence. The best thing to do is to ask the car attendant to be present when your bag is inspected, so that there are witnesses resent.

In the long term, the best thing is to agitate with your elected officials to end the counterproductive "war on drugs," and otherwise reduce the amount of material considered to be "contraband." This reduces the career incentives for law enforcement to want to conduct random or targeted searches. They should also stop rewarding officers for making a lot of arrests.


----------



## jiml

daybeers said:


> May I ask why you agreed to the search?


This is a cloudy area in North America. You may have the right to refuse, but at what cost to you? The escalation of refusing could very well lead to further discussion "down at the precinct" and the loss of the rest of your trip. Non-compliance is also viewed by many - not just the police - as "having something to hide". The right to refuse, even in a free society, does not always equal the best result. A current non-train example is a police officer asking you to hand over your cellphone and password to prove you haven't been texting while driving. You can refuse, just as long as you have plenty of time to get where you're going.

Edited to add: I didn't see MARC Rider's post immediately above, but similar point.


----------



## iplaybass

The train is just... nicer. No TSA, no sardine/cattle car feeling.

1) I fly when I have to be there by X and I can't account for the increased travel time. I had a business trip to Dallas last year and I took the train. Left Saturday evening instead of Sunday morning. Had dinner as soon as we left STL, slept in a roomette, got to Dallas at noon the next day within walking distance of the hotel. Saved $100 as well. Flew back. Thinking of doing the train to DC for a similar trip, despite the 6 hour layover. The Art Institute or aquarium are great places to spend a few hours. Beats any any club in an airport/railroad station. 

2) As many have said, vacation starts when I board the train, not when I get there. I don't truly relax until I get to the hotel when I fly.

3) Convenience. STL to CHI/KCY is a longer trip by train. But the ride from ORD/MCI to downtown removes some of that advantage. Plus, the added check-in time removes even more. Add to that the cost savings, the ability to move around during transit, and the much more comfortable seats, it's an easy decision.


----------



## Qapla

In an episode of "Modern Marvels" from 2008 that I saw on TV today they had this comment:



> A diesel-electric can move one ton of freight an average of 202 miles on a gallon of diesel while an 18 wheeler truck can only move a ton of freight 59 miles on the same galon


----------



## Willbridge

basketmaker said:


> Were they working/on-duty? I know Reno Police Drug Task Force does the CZ #5 between RNO and TRU and pretty sure they do #6 as well.


One was on vacation. The other was headed to teach a class. Both were affable company.

The only time I've been affected by drug enforcement was on Greyhound in 1998. Between Denver and Portland a dog smelled marijuana on the handle of my checked suitcase and it was delayed for 24 hours, requiring an extra trip to the depot in order to get the clothes I was expecting to wear for my college reunion.

I'm not sure what would happen now. ALL suitcase handles coming out of Colorado and entering Oregon probably smell of marijuana and in Portland there no longer is a Greyhound station. (Maybe the bag would go to their city ticket office?)


----------



## adamj023

if there was a high speed train from NYC to Chicago, it would vastly improve Amtrak for long distance trains. I realize its impossible to do nationwide high speed right now but NYC to Chicago would really open up the network and make long distance trains more viable.

i was looking at doing NYC to out west on the Southwest chief. I would need to connect in Chicago and the train options to Chicago could be better. Trains could be made just as fast if not faster than airplanes but the interstate highway system took years to finish with the last gap of I95 only filled in recently. Our transportation system is antiquated and hasn’t kept up with technological capabilities.


----------



## MARC Rider

Even with high speed rail, I think East Coast - Chicago is pushing it on being time competitive. I suspect that the most likely HSR would have an end to end average of 80 - 100 mph (the Acela end-to-end average between New York and DC is about 80 mph), which means that the trip would be shortened from the current 18 - 20 hours to maybe 8 - 10 hours. Even with driving to the airport, TSA lines, waiting at the baggage carousel, etc., the 2 hour flights between the east coast and Chicago are still way faster. 

And, of course, high speed rail would need brand new infrastructure that costs billions, especially the Philadelphia - Pittsburgh and Washington to Pittsburgh routes that have to cross the Appalachian Mountains. All kinds of crazy expensive viaducts, cuttings and tunnels would be needed to straighten out the route to allow for high speed running. On top of the fancy trackwork and specialized signaling needed for high speed operations. The New York to Chicago Water Level Route via Albany and Buffalo doesn't have the topograhical problems, but it is longer, so the point to point times won't be as fast, and the trains wouldn't serve Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington (plus everything in between), the the market would be more limited.

If you were going to bite the financial bullet and do real high speed rail, the optimal way would be to base the route on the old Broadway limited, running it through Philly and Harrisburg and routing the new high speed rail track through State College, bypassing Huntingdon. 

Probably the best option to improving service on this corridor is incremental improvements (like extra tracks and improved signaling) to allow a 60 mph end-to-end average speed (as opposed to the current 45 - 50 mph) on all three corridors (Water Level Route, old PRR Maine Line, and the B&O route from Washington), and extra service timed at the opposite ends of the days from the current service. This would allow daylight service between Ohio and the East Coast (which might be competitive with flying -- at our work, we started driving to visit our contractors in the Akron area rather than flying, it was much more convenient, as well as cheaper), as well as daylight service between Ohio and Chicago. Also, frequent corridor service between Pittsburgh -- Cleveland -- Toledo, and maybe Cleveland-Buffalo, too, though I've never driven that interstate and don't know how heavy the traffic is.


----------



## MARC Rider

Willbridge said:


> I'm not sure what would happen now. ALL suitcase handles coming out of Colorado and entering Oregon probably smell of marijuana and in Portland there no longer is a Greyhound station. (Maybe the bag would go to their city ticket office?)


You know, with legalized cannabis in a lot of states, I wonder whether the mere reaction of a drug-sniffing dog is really enough to be considered "probable cause" that a person is possessing drugs anymore. I guess that will have to be thrashed out in the courts.


----------



## tricia

MARC Rider said:


> You know, with legalized cannabis in a lot of states, I wonder whether the mere reaction of a drug-sniffing dog is really enough to be considered "probable cause" that a person is possessing drugs anymore. I guess that will have to be thrashed out in the courts.



Ditto with legalized industrial hemp (no THC, but smells exactly like marijuana--it's a different variety of the same species). It's being grown and processed in many states (including NC) where marijuana's still not legal.


----------



## nti1094

So many reasons... Firstly, it is a more responsible way of travel for those of us that care about global warming. (flygskam) Also anything is better than the dehumanizing experience of the TSA “security theater.” Also I can get work done or catch up on reading. The country is truly a remarkable beauty and I enjoy seeing America . Price is not really an issue for me. and of course it just feels right, feel like it has more class. Every train has a colorful historic past that is exciting to re-live even if only a fraction of what it once was. 

I arrive refreshed, relaxed, and usually sorry the trip didn’t take even longer.


----------



## nti1094

Did I mention the scenery?


----------



## Amtrakfflyer

With 2 kids under 2 it’s a whole lot easier getting on the SWC in Galesburg and getting off 36 hours later in Fullerton blocks from the inlaws.

Flying from Moline changing in Den, Ord, Dfw never goes smooth especially in the winter. Over the years, 35 percent of the time we’ve got stuck overnight or missed a connection and had a 6 hour plus layover. The last 12 months alone 2 overnights at ord and one 6 hour missed connection in Denver. These all are issues with paid tickets not standby. So even as an airline pilot Amtrak is easier to me from any city that requires a change of planes when traveling with a young family.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> which means that the trip would be shortened from the current 18 - 20 hours to maybe 8 - 10 hours. Even with driving to the airport, TSA lines, waiting at the baggage carousel, etc., the 2 hour flights between the east coast and Chicago are still way faster.



It takes about an hour to get from Manhattan to JFK.... allow 30 minutes to get to your correct terminal, allow 30 minutes for security, and plan on being through security an hour before your flight boards. That's 3 hours right there... 2 hour flight.... and an hour to get into downtown chicago. That's looking at 6 hours city center to city center. 

I just took the train into, and flew out of, NYC. The train is SO much easier. It's right there. When I looked at flying to NYC or taking the train (Silver Meteor) when the price was similar I chose the train. Coming back I would have to take the crescent and Delta first class was 1/2 the price of a roomette. So naturally Delta won. 

There's a certain amount of wondering and what if's when going to major airports... I felt like I wasted most of my day when I flew because I allowed even more time than necessary because I didn't want to miss my flight and I knew JFK was a big place. Maybe if I wasn't so familiar with NYP I'd waste a similar amount of time but I know I can show up 20 minutes before train time and not be even remotely worried about missing my train out of NYP. 

(On a positive note.. I got to JFK so early I got to take a few joy rides on the Air Train.. pretty fun to get a "cab ride" at 60 mph!


----------



## SarahZ

crescent-zephyr said:


> It takes about an hour to get from Manhattan to JFK.... allow 30 minutes to get to your correct terminal, allow 30 minutes for security, and plan on being through security an hour before your flight boards. That's 3 hours right there... 2 hour flight.... and an hour to get into downtown chicago. That's looking at 6 hours city center to city center.


The biggest problem (for me) is that it's an overnight trip. Plus, there's the hassle of either backtracking or boarding in the middle of the night.

If I could leave in the morning and arrive in the evening, then yes, no contest. I would take the train almost every time, depending on the price difference. I would LOVE to be able to hop a train to NYC for a long weekend if the price were low enough.

Given the terrible schedule, it makes much more sense (for me) to either drive 10-11 hours to the east coast or hop a plane in Kzoo or Detroit. If they can figure out a way to run an early-morning train from Chicago to points east, I am ALL FOR IT.


----------



## tricia

SarahZ said:


> The biggest problem (for me) is that it's an overnight trip. Plus, there's the hassle of either backtracking or boarding in the middle of the night.
> 
> If I could leave in the morning and arrive in the evening, then yes, no contest. I would take the train almost every time, depending on the price difference. I would LOVE to be able to hop a train to NYC for a long weekend if the price were low enough.
> 
> Given the terrible schedule, it makes much more sense (for me) to either drive 10-11 hours to the east coast or hop a plane in Kzoo or Detroit. If they can figure out a way to run an early-morning train from Chicago to points east, I am ALL FOR IT.



As folks have noted umpteen times here: Most or all of Amtrak's LD trains need a second frequency with departures/arrivals around 12 hours offset from the current schedules. I generally prefer overnight trains--wake up in the AM and be where I'm going, but sometimes for me (and perhaps more often for other travellers), daytime scheduling works better.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Trogdor said:


> That’s another myth. By far, most incidents that occur at cruising altitude give the crew more than enough time to make it down safely. The ones that are most dangerous are the ones that happen close to the ground, simply because they don’t give the crew enough time to react.
> 
> Unless you’re referring to the (maybe) once-per-decade occurrence of an airplane blowing up in mid-air.



That is exactly the point.

Wasn't it that the TWA flight continued to fly, for what, 20 more minutes after the gas tank explosion blew the cockpit off the front of the plane? The loss of the cockpit changed the center of gravity, causing the paint to tilt up, and actually gain altitude for a while.

Then there was those flights (Asia? Japan?) where they lost their tail fin due to decompression fatigue? The plane just continued to fly until it ran out of fuel or hit the side of a mountain.

In these types of cases, the doomed plane was fatally damaged, but the passengers had a very long prolonged death, allowing them to send, record, or write "good bye" messages to love ones.

Don't even get me into software errors, which may annoy Windows, Android, and iOS users, but kill those on planes like the 737MAX.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Willbridge said:


> ALL suitcase handles coming out of Colorado and entering Oregon probably smell of marijuana


It's rather doubtful that "ALL" suitcases in two states have been subjected to measurable contamination. That's not to say there are no issues with canine drug detection, but they generally involve insufficient training, improper usage or interpretation, and subtle communication of predisposition. Some studies have indicated that canine detection schemes may average a success rate as low as 30% due to these and other factors.



Cho Cho Charlie said:


> TWA flight continued to fly...for...20 more minutes after the gas tank explosion


A large passenger aircraft with a giant gaping hole where the nose should be and no active control systems would be incapable of sustaining flight for 20+ minutes. Such an aircraft could climb and bob briefly but lack of aerodynamic integrity would result in a rapidly deteriorating flight path. Even if sustained flight was somehow possible, human passengers would be unable to maintain prolonged consciousness under such conditions.



Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Then there was those flights (Asia? Japan?) where they lost their tail fin due to decompression fatigue? The plane just continued to fly until it ran out of fuel or hit the side of a mountain.


It's true that JL123 was a pretty bad way to go. Passengers who survived the harrowing flight and eventual crash on the mountain ended up dying anyway due to lack of a timely rescue effort. We're talking shockingly bad luck combined with incredibly poor decision making. Several rules and regulations were eventually changed as a result. Unfortunately, as we've seen with the 737 Max and other incidents, just because you identify and resolve a problem doesn't mean your solutions won't be removed or ignored in the future.



Cho Cho Charlie said:


> In these types of cases, the doomed plane was fatally damaged, but the passengers had a very long prolonged death, allowing them to send, record, or write "good bye" messages to love ones.


The vast majority of plane crashes occur suddenly during takeoff and landing. These events generally happen very quickly and without advance warning to passengers. It's true that sometimes passengers will know or have reason to believe they are going to die for several minutes or even hours, but this remains statistically rare despite recent events.


----------



## adamj023

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> That is exactly the point.
> 
> Wasn't it that the TWA flight continued to fly, for what, 20 more minutes after the gas tank explosion blew the cockpit off the front of the plane? The loss of the cockpit changed the center of gravity, causing the paint to tilt up, and actually gain altitude for a while.
> 
> Then there was those flights (Asia? Japan?) where they lost their tail fin due to decompression fatigue? The plane just continued to fly until it ran out of fuel or hit the side of a mountain.
> 
> In these types of cases, the doomed plane was fatally damaged, but the passengers had a very long prolonged death, allowing them to send, record, or write "good bye" messages to love ones.
> 
> Don't even get me into software errors, which may annoy Windows, Android, and iOS users, but kill those on planes like the 737MAX.



i am not a conspiracy theorist but am well versed in physics, mathematics and transportation technologies and the government and the state of knowledge we are at today. There was no design failure specific to the 737 Max contrary to what we have been told. And TWA 800 was a missile strike as we saw on MSNBC and the video was confiscated by the FBI. Only someone who recorded what they saw on MSNBC during that time would have the actual footage. The physics of TWA 800 was manipulated by the CIA. If you create the modeling yourself, understand physics and also run a simulator of a 747, you find the government story to be impossible. 

We have not seen much innovation on rail in modern times in the USA, but we did see a lot of innovations under an economic derived model back during the days of the private railroads. The USA used to be at the forefront of rail technology during the private railroads but later on other nations spend a lot more capital on it while the Automobile became more commonplace inside the USA. Governmental airplane designs are way ahead of what commercial airlines provide in the existing petroleum based economy.

Private sector rail growth is coming gradually from Virgin Trains and hopefully government will spin off the Northeast Corridor and privatize it. If Americans want higher speed rail, it will come but people still love the automobile and personal transportation on the overall basis as well as commercial air travel for longer haul routes.

If the petroleum market wasn’t controlling the economy, we could do super quick speeds that far exceed what we have now for air and ground based transportation. NYC to London in less than an hour of travel time is not a pipe dream for instance based on technology levels we have achieved but powerful interests keep this away from making this available.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

adamj023 said:


> If Americans want higher speed rail, it will come but people still love the automobile and personal transportation on the overall basis as well as commercial air travel for longer haul routes



Umm... that’s all that’s available for the majority of Americans. To say that’s what people prefer implies they have a choice.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

adamj023 said:


> i am not a conspiracy theorist but...There was no design failure specific to the 737 Max...And TWA 800 was a missile strike as we saw on MSNBC and the video was confiscated by the FBI.


Whenever someone feels the need to start a discussion with "I am not an X, but..." You can reasonably predict that person does indeed possess traits typically associated with X. Unurprisingly you immediately contradicted your initial claim with two examples of conspiracy logic. So you already know the final outcome of the ongoing 73M investigation despite providing zero evidence or details? And you say the FBI "stole" a post-broadcast video from MSNBC, presumably along with numerous content aggregators like LexisNexis, and yet _nobody_ felt compelled to report on _that_ story? The only thing that draws more eyeballs than a horribly tragic event is a government coverup of said event. Unless you're a rabid conspiracy theorist, in which case details and evidence don't really matter unless they support your preconceived narrative.


----------



## Ryan

adamj023 said:


> i am not a conspiracy theorist





adamj023 said:


> TWA 800 was a missile strike



You're going to have to pick one and stick with it.


----------



## Bob Dylan

It's the Deep State! The Black Helicopters are coming to get us, and then the Government will take away all of our Guns as the Socialists take over the Country!!!


----------



## Lissa

Way2Kewl said:


> Scenary.
> A plane takes me to my vacation, a train "is" my vacation.



I agree with this, plus I'll add that when flying to my destination, I feel a lot of stress and hassle at both ends of my trip. I find far less stress and hassle with a train ride at the beginning and end of my trip.  

I don't hate actually being in the air. I hate the hassle with airlines, airports, TSA, measuring and weighing and fussing over my luggage, etc., plus I feel more cramped than ever on planes these days. And I don't want to be away somewhere and have it in the back of my mind that I have to go deal with all of that again. I want to be away somewhere and know that at the end I'm going to board a train, with pretty much any luggage I personally feel the need to bring along, I'm going to settle into a private roomette, rest all day if I want, watch lovely scenery if I want. I can go sit out with other folks if I feel like it, or I can hide away the whole trip if that's my current mood.  So much nicer thing to look forward to on my way back home.


----------



## ehbowen

adamj023 said:


> And TWA 800 was a missile strike as we saw on MSNBC and the video was confiscated by the FBI. Only someone who recorded what they saw on MSNBC during that time would have the actual footage. The physics of TWA 800 was manipulated by the CIA. If you create the modeling yourself, understand physics and also run a simulator of a 747, you find the government story to be impossible.


Actually, I don't find it at all impossible to believe that deteriorated wiring in a 25-year-old aircraft short-circuited and caused a spark which ignited vapors in an un-inerted fuel tank. I find that story easier to believe than the possibility that, whether deliberately or accidentally, a US Navy warship fired a missile which downed a civilian airliner and that none of the sailors aboard that ship ever spilled the beans for 23 years and counting now. I've been a sailor. Sailors talk. Compare the _USS Vincennes_ and Iran Air flight 655.


----------



## Bluejet

So


adamj023 said:


> i am not a conspiracy theorist but am well versed in physics, mathematics and transportation technologies and the government and the state of knowledge we are at today. There was no design failure specific to the 737 Max contrary to what we have been told. And TWA 800 was a missile strike as we saw on MSNBC and the video was confiscated by the FBI. Only someone who recorded what they saw on MSNBC during that time would have the actual footage. The physics of TWA 800 was manipulated by the CIA. If you create the modeling yourself, understand physics and also run a simulator of a 747, you find the government story to be impossible.
> 
> We have not seen much innovation on rail in modern times in the USA, but we did see a lot of innovations under an economic derived model back during the days of the private railroads. The USA used to be at the forefront of rail technology during the private railroads but later on other nations spend a lot more capital on it while the Automobile became more commonplace inside the USA. Governmental airplane designs are way ahead of what commercial airlines provide in the existing petroleum based economy.
> 
> Private sector rail growth is coming gradually from Virgin Trains and hopefully government will spin off the Northeast Corridor and privatize it. If Americans want higher speed rail, it will come but people still love the automobile and personal transportation on the overall basis as well as commercial air travel for longer haul routes.
> 
> If the petroleum market wasn’t controlling the economy, we could do super quick speeds that far exceed what we have now for air and ground based transportation. NYC to London in less than an hour of travel time is not a pipe dream for instance based on technology levels we have achieved but powerful interests keep this away from making this available.



I don’t see TWA 800 as a missile, it’s been debunked too many times. I can positively say that McAS and double redundancy of the aoa vanes was a design flaw, and boring lied about it.


----------



## jiml

Bob Dylan said:


> Socialists take over the Country!!!


Sounds like our election yesterday.


----------



## adamj023

This is an Amtrak forum and not an aviation forum, and we went offtopic. As far as Amtrak long distance is concerned, speed needs to be improved as well as capital investment and I believe in private sector. Amtrak is more competitive than bus but needs locomotive and train car upgrades. If we wanted an ideal transit system, Amtrak would be privatized and we would see new concepts for ground or near ground technologies. The old system is antiquated of passenger rail as is. Right now we have vehicles based on rubber tires or rail based technologies and both concepts are decades old. Vehicles have seen design changes and technological improvements but still retain the same basic principles. The freight railroads and Amtrak own valuable right of way assets and in the freight railroads themselves, due to lack of competition, real innovation has not happened. Jay Walder, former chairman of the MTA is at Hyperloop right now who understands the existing rail assets so we are seeing some migration on that front for the future.


----------



## Anderson

So, I ran into this issue this week. At the present moment I'm holding a Delta ticket to Florida and an Amtrak ticket to Florida for this weekend. Here's the rough calculation:
-At $390-400 for a roomette, I prefer the _Meteor_. It departs at about 2145, gets in a bit after noon.
-Delta, by contrast, offered the following options in First:
--DCA-MCO: $276
--RIC-MCO: $311
--PHF-MCO: $366
--ORF-MCO: $348 (then suddenly $611).

Each option has pros and cons:
--PHF forces a direct routing via ATL (so no _en route_ meal nor ability to use facilities at JFK).
--RIC would effectively require parking at RIC or a particularly clumsy train trip, Uber from RVR/RVM, etc. I've done that before and it is a PITA.
--DCA requires taking Amtrak up to ALX, but is otherwise probably the best of the flight options as-is.
--ORF...well, at $348 it might have won out on routing flexibility, but at $611 for basically everyone I'll drive elsewhere.

If I had been stuck at the price that had showed up for a bit (about $475 for the roomette), Delta would have won. That extra $80-90 is my "pain point" since at that stage a walk-up Business Class ticket NPN/NFK-ALX plus an Uber is still cheaper, and since with my tangle of status and credit cards, I get some nice lounge access (particularly at JFK, sort-of also at ATL).

Last month, I'd probably have still done Amtrak (since I could look forward to decent meals). I may be packing a breakfast MRE instead and cook it on the platform at JAX (if I wanted a sausage McMuffin with Egg, I'd go to McDonald's; this year's Menus 17 and 20 look doable instead). I'll _probably _sample the lunch/dinner food option; whether I _finish_ it is another story.

(Point of complaint: Since all they have to do is throw the entree in the frakking microwave, would it have killed them to make the dinner available as long as the cafe was open? Being able to pull dinner at 2200 would actually have been a reasonable offset to the rest of this mess for that particular reservation.)

Anyhow...this is a sense of my calculus on a frequent trip for me. In the past, taking 97 to NYC has generally been a slam dunk (being able to get a nice omelette and bacon en route to NYP was always nice). Now...the roomette has the edge if the price is right, but not otherwise given the timing, etc.


----------



## Ryan

adamj023 said:


> This is an Amtrak forum and not an aviation forum, and we went offtopic.



Given that the topic is a comparison of trains and planes and way people choose them, the aviation portion is in bounds.

(not that I'm surprised you would want to steer the conversation away from your clearly debunked conspiracy theories)

((self appointed moderator of what's on/off topic after only 17 posts here may be a record, though. congrats))

Another real world example. My presence is "required" in San Diego for meetings next Monday-Wednesday. I have plans with the family on the preceding Saturday, and would like to be home on Thursday for Halloween festivities with the children. Only way that happens is by climbing on the big silver bird for a few hours.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Here’s a recent example.... I needed to travel from Orlando to Lancaster PA. 

I could.... spend another night in Orlando (hotel) and take a morning flight to Newark NJ and take a train from Newark to Lancaster. (By far the easiest transfer to get a train to Lancaster but obviously some others would work). 

Or....

Hop the meteor in Orlando, sleep on the train, wake up and transfer in Philly and arrive in Lancaster around the same time or perhaps a bit earlier. 

First class plane vs. Meteor Roomette was about the same price so that saved me money vs. getting an extra hotel room in Orlando. 

Returning home I would be taking the Crescent and a roomette was double the price of first class delta so I flew. Plus Delta flys into my actual town, Amtrak would have required a bus ride from Atlanta.


----------



## MARC Rider

adamj023 said:


> As far as Amtrak long distance is concerned, speed needs to be improved as well as capital investment and I believe in private sector.



The problem with private-sector railroad infrastructure is that railroads require a lot of overhead whether business is good or not. When business drops, as what happened after World War 2 when cars, trucks, and planes cut into railroad market share, the railroads financed by private capital responded by cutting back their infrastructure so severely that they have been having all sorts of problems with capacity and antiquated equipment, issues with deferred maintenance, etc. now that business has rebounded.

Clearly, it would make more sense to have railroad infrastructure, like all other transportation infrastructure in this country, publicly owned and financed, with perhaps some of the operating companies being private enterprises.



> Amtrak is more competitive than bus but needs locomotive and train car upgrades. If we wanted an ideal transit system, Amtrak would be privatized and we would see new concepts for ground or near ground technologies.



Why would a privatized Amtrak spend big bucks on expensive cutting edge technologies when they can barely afford to buy desperately need new passenger cars and locomotives based on the readily available existing technology? Heck, they can't even afford to serve edible food to sleeping car passengers. And that's with a government subsidy.



> The old system is antiquated of passenger rail as is. Right now we have vehicles based on rubber tires or rail based technologies and both concepts are decades old. Vehicles have seen design changes and technological improvements but still retain the same basic principles.



So what? The basic concept of flanged steel wheels on steel rails is simple, efficient and time tested. Rubber pneumatic tires on paved roads is also a very stable well-understood technology. Cost and performance are very predictable. Why the need to innovate for innovation's sake?



> The freight railroads and Amtrak own valuable right of way assets and in the freight railroads themselves, due to lack of competition, real innovation has not happened.



"Lack of competition" for railroads? What do you call cars, buses, trucks, planes, and barges?



> Jay Walder, former chairman of the MTA is at Hyperloop right now who understands the existing rail assets so we are seeing some migration on that front for the future.



What "migration?" The last talk I heard from someone working on a Hyperloop project indicated that all anyone has in operation is a short-distance small-scale model. Most of the real barriers to a practical passenger Hyperloop have not been overcome and may never be. Anyway, what's the point? If you want to travel at airline speeds, take an airliner. Again, airplanes are a very reliable technology, and they're widely available right now. Why re-invent the wheel? The same goes for maglev, even though there are working systems. They're more complicated and expensive to build and operate than a traditional railroad. Why bother? Innovation for innovation's sake? I'll admit I'm a bit of curmudgeon about this issue. In my view, most of the technological innovation that I've seen during my lifetime has made life more stressful and environmentally unsustainable than the technology available in my younger days.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> Again, airplanes are a very reliable technology, and they're widely available right now. Why re-invent the wheel? The same goes for maglev, even though there are working systems. They're more complicated and expensive to build and operate than a traditional railroad. Why bother? Innovation for innovation's sake? I'll admit I'm a bit of curmudgeon about this issue. In my view, most of the technological innovation that I've seen during my lifetime has made life more stressful and environmentally unsustainable than the technology available in my younger days.



In general I agree with your point. But Maglev is proven technology. Expensive... but proven. Hyperloop is not. So we are talking about 2 different things. 

Maglev can make a lot of sense... it's just super expensive. 

Taking an airlplane from Atlanta to Los Angeles is always going to make sense as building a maglev train that distance is crazy impractical. 

But taking an airplane from Atlanta to Nashville is pretty silly, you spend more time boarding the plane than in the air. An Atlanta to Nashville Maglev would make alot of sense. Now would high speed rail? yes.... as would conventional rail... but right now we have.. nothing. Your options are fly... or drive 4 hours. A maglev could do it in 1 hour.


----------



## Qapla

crescent-zephyr said:


> Maglev can make a lot of sense... "it's just super expensive".
> 
> Taking an airplane from Atlanta to Los Angeles is always going to make sense as "building a maglev train that distance is crazy impractical".



"Super expensive and impractical" - The same thing could have been said when the Interstate Highway System was proposed and the early stages were started. The same could have been said about efficient airports with equipment in the air traffic control facilities.

If the Gov't officials had taken the same view and direction with the Interstate System and airports that they have taken with passenger rail (or all rail,for that matter) we would still be driving on dirt roads and using grass runways at small private airports.

The rail system is really no more expensive or impractical then most of the other infrastructure in the US ... just not as popular amongst those who control the purse strings.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Qapla said:


> "Super expensive and impractical" - The same thing could have been said when the Interstate Highway System was proposed and the early stages were started. The same could have been said about efficient airports with equipment in the air traffic control facilities.
> 
> If the Gov't officials had taken the same view and direction with the Interstate System and airports that they have taken with passenger rail (or all rail,for that matter) we would still be driving on dirt roads and using grass runways at small private airports.
> 
> The rail system is really no more expensive or impractical then most of the other infrastructure in the US ... just not as popular amongst those who control the purse strings.



Totally agree. I think it's not that rail is unpopular as much as to an extent we have given up. Our infrustructure is literally falling apart. We SHOULD be investing in our future and building new systems but anytime we try to it becomes a big political mess (Orlando to Tampa HSR, California HSR, The NJ Tunnel projects, etc.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate

crescent-zephyr said:


> Maglev can make a lot of sense... it's just super expensive. Taking an airlplane from Atlanta to Los Angeles is always going to make sense as building a maglev train that distance is crazy impractical.





Qapla said:


> "Super expensive and impractical" - The same thing could have been said when the Interstate Highway System was proposed and the early stages were started. The same could have been said about efficient airports with equipment in the air traffic control facilities.


Maybe you missed this detail, but magnetic levitation _really is_ very expensive, extremely inefficient, and highly impractical compared to conventional high speed passenger rail.


----------



## Qapla

Nope - didn't miss that part at all ... I guess it all depends on how you view "expensive"


> While high-speed maglev infrastructure is relatively expensive to build, maglev trains are less expensive to operate and maintain than traditional high-speed trains, planes or intercity buses. Most of the power needed is used to overcome air drag, as with any other high speed train.
> Maglev systems can operate at very high speeds almost without deterioration and are therefore more economical to operate than wheel/rail rapid transit systems that require regular intensive maintenance and experience exponentially increasing erosion with increasing speed. The fundamental freedom from mechanical erosion is one of the main advantages of maglev high-speed systems. (https://www.maglevboard.net/en/facts/economics)





> Maintenance: Maglev trains currently in operation have demonstrated the need for minimal guideway maintenance. Vehicle maintenance is also minimal (based on hours of operation, rather than on speed or distance traveled). Traditional rail is subject to mechanical wear and tear that increases exponentially with speed, also increasing maintenance.
> Weather: Maglev trains are little affected by snow, ice, severe cold, rain or high winds.
> Maglev vehicles accelerate and decelerate faster than mechanical systems regardless of the slickness of the guideway or the slope of the grade because they are non-contact systems. Energy from non contact braking may be recovered and used to accelerate the train again. (https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Maglev...ion-of-liquid-nitrogen-offset-by-low-friction)



And since there have been very few deaths with maglev - that is also a cost to consider

I agree, it would be expensive to build ... but then, so were the space shuttles


----------



## adamj023

Ryan said:


> Given that the topic is a comparison of trains and planes and way people choose them, the aviation portion is in bounds.
> 
> (not that I'm surprised you would want to steer the conversation away from your clearly debunked conspiracy theories)
> 
> ((self appointed moderator of what's on/off topic after only 17 posts here may be a record, though. congrats))
> 
> Another real world example. My presence is "required" in San Diego for meetings next Monday-Wednesday. I have plans with the family on the preceding Saturday, and would like to be home on Thursday for Halloween festivities with the children. Only way that happens is by climbing on the big silver bird for a few hours.



False. I stand my my statements and multiple people who have actually looked into it know my statement is correct. Some have been on the record and can be found on an internet search. Others are senior government officials including current and retired off the record and others off the record as well.

As far as high speed trains go, rails themselves add friction and reduce the maximum speed of trains. Propulsion technologies that we have available that government has already achieved are far beyond what exists as of now in the commercial sector. Costs of building infrastructure are negligible in right to work states but are significantly more in other states and the technologies can be mass produced cheaply. Change is hard because it means a lot of job losses for what is no longer needed and is especially harder in the unionized states.


----------



## Bob Dylan

I'll have some of what you're Smoking!!!

Seriously????


----------



## Anderson

Qapla said:


> "Super expensive and impractical" - The same thing could have been said when the Interstate Highway System was proposed and the early stages were started. The same could have been said about efficient airports with equipment in the air traffic control facilities.
> 
> If the Gov't officials had taken the same view and direction with the Interstate System and airports that they have taken with passenger rail (or all rail,for that matter) we would still be driving on dirt roads and using grass runways at small private airports.
> 
> The rail system is really no more expensive or impractical then most of the other infrastructure in the US ... just not as popular amongst those who control the purse strings.


I'd argue that the cost/benefit of a totally non-interoperable system with an expensive, and at present bespoke, technology is questionable. Ditto hyperloop.

The difference between either of those and the Interstate Highway System is that almost all personal vehicles could use it as-is. Note that in most of the world, HSR tends to start out with various chunks of lines being upgraded while (for example) conventional tracks are used for the approaches to major cities, at least to start with. France is a pretty good example of this.

Having to basically start "fresh" with a system that's 150-250 miles long and that can't "play well" with others is tricky (and requires a lot of up-front investment for a dedicated ROW, stations, etc.). Shorter "demonstration" systems can also end up with highly outsized costs (e.g. the estimated costs of the NEC Maglev run, at the low end, in the $250-400m/mile range. NGL, I would expect that cost to go up...costs always seem to.).

As to some of the hyperbole in here...no, what we would likely have is a series of partially-disconnected but decent highway systems (some financed by specific interests, some financed by businesses wanting links to elsewhere, and some financed by state/local governments, and plausibly some random connections thrown in when enough business interests decided that a shipping link made sense) in line with what was evolving in the 1920s and 1930s (e.g. the Baltimore-Washington Parkway was being developed from the 1920s). By the same token, you'd probably see decent airports in major cities...but that would be about it: Either an airline cabal would get together and build the airport, local interests would do so, or it mostly wouldn't happen[1].

Also, don't forget that large-scale federal investment in highway infrastructure as an end (versus as a means to an end, as was the case with a number of Depression-era projects) was very much a lagging indicator: Household automobile ownership was up to 60% as early as 1929, and the Interstate Highway System didn't sort out for another 25 years.

The sad thing is that I'm not entirely convinced that the resulting world wouldn't be better than what we have now in many places...we'd at least have less suburban sprawl and a bunch of cities wouldn't have been trashed in the process. Even if "better" would very much be subjective, it would definitely be different...but again, I'm not sure you could argue that it would be objectively worse.


[1] Of course, a major asterisk here is that a lot of the airports that popped up in the 50s and 60s were ex-military airfields from WW2. Orlando is a pretty good example of this. Others resulted from post-WW2 land transfers (Newport News' airport comes to mind) and still others were probably helped out by performing "double duty" for the military.


----------



## Qapla

China’s first high-speed railway track was officially inaugurated in August 2008. Connecting the capital Beijing and the city of Tianjin in about 30 minutes - they now have the largest HS Rail system in the world - 

China has laid about 12,000 miles of HSR line in just nine years. And it has done so while pioneering new techniques and overcoming challenging obstacles, such as tunneling through mountains beneath the Great Wall. To learn more, we examined the country’s still rapidly expanding HSR infrastructure.

So, it is possible if the effort and money are spent. It may be expensive at the outset ... but the long-term cost savings and environmental issues could outweigh the initial cost - and it does not need to take decade after decade to build.

When the phone company first started to bury all their phone lines it was a costly endeavor for the time and some people wondered if it even made sense - since there were already utility poles with phone lines already on them that the phone company decided to abandon. Now it is common practice for utilities to be buried - and not just phone lines.


----------



## Anderson

Qapla said:


> China’s first high-speed railway track was officially inaugurated in August 2008. Connecting the capital Beijing and the city of Tianjin in about 30 minutes - they now have the largest HS Rail system in the world -
> 
> China has laid about 12,000 miles of HSR line in just nine years. And it has done so while pioneering new techniques and overcoming challenging obstacles, such as tunneling through mountains beneath the Great Wall. To learn more, we examined the country’s still rapidly expanding HSR infrastructure.
> 
> So, it is possible if the effort and money are spent. It may be expensive at the outset ... but the long-term cost savings and environmental issues could outweigh the initial cost - and it does not need to take decade after decade to build.
> 
> When the phone company first started to bury all their phone lines it was a costly endeavor for the time and some people wondered if it even made sense - since there were already utility poles with phone lines already on them that the phone company decided to abandon. Now it is common practice for utilities to be buried - and not just phone lines.


(1) In re China: That's also a situation where the government can just turn people into a paste and/or harvest their organs if they protest.
(2) Per the phone companies: Again, underground lines weren't incompatible with above-ground wires.


----------



## Qapla

Still ... if it were not for the many lawsuits, lack of funding and Gov't backing along with "private interest" that is contrary to national mass transit the US could still have the world's leading rail system - the fact is, they do not!

And while underground wires were not incompatible with existing wires ... the change to fiber optics meant all new cables had to be buried ... that was done.


----------



## tricia

Qapla said:


> Still ... if it were not for the many lawsuits, lack of funding and Gov't backing along with "private interest" that is contrary to national mass transit the US could still have the world's leading rail system - the fact is, they do not!



I'd rather have all of that than have a government empowered to do whatever it chooses, unencumbered by lawsuits, no matter how many of its citizens suffer whatever outrages it chooses to inflict in the name of national policy.

What we have is bad in many ways. It could be worse.


----------



## jis

And yet it is the US that destroyed an entire civilization to build stuff at one point. But this line of argument is basically "sour grapes" argument I think, and also it is way beyond issues that are appropriate to debate on this forum anyway. The fact of the matter is that we have serious problems at present in managing construction of anything within budget and on schedule, and legal issues are not the most pressing one I'd submit. We have a choice of hiding behind "our laws are so wonderful" argument or face facts that we have set ourselves up to fail and try to figure out a way to change that.


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> build.
> 
> Now it is common practice for utilities to be buried - and not just phone lines.


Not in my city. And also not, apparently in California, where the electric company would rather shut off power on windy days to prevent sparking and wildfires rather than bury the cables and not have to worry about the wind at all.


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> "Super expensive and impractical" - The same thing could have been said when the Interstate Highway System was proposed and the early stages were started. The same could have been said about efficient airports with equipment in the air traffic control facilities.
> 
> If the Gov't officials had taken the same view and direction with the Interstate System and airports that they have taken with passenger rail (or all rail,for that matter) we would still be driving on dirt roads and using grass runways at small private airports.



Actually, that's not true, we had a perfectly good network of paved highways across the country in 1950 before the Interstate system was dreamed up. In fact, one could argue that the building of the interstate Highway System was one of the most foolish allocation of resources in history as it enabled suburban sprawl and led directly to our current environmentally unsustainable lifestyle that's going to lead to an environmental apocalypse once developing countries like China and India emulate our lifestyle. Which they seem to be on track to doing.


----------



## tricia

jis said:


> And yet it is the US that destroyed an entire civilization to build stuff at one point. But this line of argument is basically "sour grapes" argument I think, and also it is way beyond issues that are appropriate to debate on this forum anyway. The fact of the matter is that we have serious problems at present in managing construction of anything within budget and on schedule, and legal issues are not the most pressing one I'd submit. We have a choice of hiding behind "our laws are so wonderful" argument or face facts that we have set ourselves up to fail and try to figure out a way to change that.



Yep. I sometimes think that one morning we're going to wake up and find that NOTHING works--that everything we depend on (from traffic lights to telephones, and Amtrak too of course) has ground to a halt because it's become too encrusted with technology that's become way too complicated and interdependent to function, especially with all the modern world's ever-increasing gotta's and can't-do-that's.


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

I think the same way, tricia.

Just a small example--a few years ago, I was in a library and asked if they had a particular book. The young person at the desk just stared at me and said "I don't know--the computers are down." Then I gave him, in addition to the title and author I'd already given, the category I was sure it was in (history, I think). And said "Where can I find that category in your library?"

And he said, "I don't know. The computers are down so I can't tell where it is."

Apparently it had never occurred to him to actually walk around the library he was working in and become familiar with the layout.


----------



## ehbowen

Mystic River Dragon said:


> I think the same way, tricia.
> 
> Just a small example--a few years ago, I was in a library and asked if they had a particular book. The young person at the desk just stared at me and said "I don't know--the computers are down." Then I gave him, in addition to the title and author I'd already given, the category I was sure it was in (history, I think). And said "Where can I find that category in your library?"
> 
> And he said, "I don't know. The computers are down so I can't tell where it is."
> 
> Apparently it had never occurred to him to actually walk around the library he was working in and become familiar with the layout.


For me, it was driven home the day I purchased a combo meal at McDonald's. The total with tax was $4.81. I already had enough change floating around in my pocket, so I handed the girl a $5 bill, a nickel, and a penny. She took the $5 bill, but stared dumbfounded at the nickel and the penny. "What do I do with this?" I explained to her that I had too many pennies as it was and didn't want more, so I was hoping for a solid quarter in change. She didn't get it. "But your total is $4.81!"

I eventually ended up getting my nickel, my penny, and nineteen cents change back. Sigh.


----------



## Bob Dylan

ehbowen said:


> For me, it was driven home the day I purchased a combo meal at McDonald's. The total with tax was $4.81. I already had enough change floating around in my pocket, so I handed the girl a $5 bill, a nickel, and a penny. She took the $5 bill, but stared dumbfounded at the nickel and the penny. "What do I do with this?" I explained to her that I had too many pennies as it was and didn't want more, so I was hoping for a solid quarter in change. She didn't get it. "But your total is $4.81!"
> 
> I eventually ended up getting my nickel, my penny, and nineteen cents change back. Sigh.


If the Computerized Registers go down now, the poor Cashiers are Lost and have to call for help!!!

In lots of stores they have Registers that dont accept Cash, so making Change ( Do the Math!) is a Lost Art!!!


----------



## crescent-zephyr

ehbowen said:


> For me, it was driven home the day I purchased a combo meal at McDonald's. The total with tax was $4.81. I already had enough change floating around in my pocket, so I handed the girl a $5 bill, a nickel, and a penny. She took the $5 bill, but stared dumbfounded at the nickel and the penny. "What do I do with this?" I explained to her that I had too many pennies as it was and didn't want more, so I was hoping for a solid quarter in change. She didn't get it. "But your total is $4.81!"
> 
> I eventually ended up getting my nickel, my penny, and nineteen cents change back. Sigh.



Have you ever worked a register in a fast-paced envioronment? I have and it would always drive me crazy when people would hand me a penny AFTER I had entered in the total into the register and started counting the change.... once I’ve counted the change my mind has moved on to the next thing I need to do. 

Now on the flip side... I once worked next to a girl who would give out 5 dimes instead of 2 quarters in change.... I ran the “bank” for the store and I was like “how come you’re going through so many dimes?” And she said “cause there’s a lot of total that go to 50 cents” - I’m like....


----------



## Qapla

When I ran a register they did not calculate the change for you ... you had to be able to count change back.


----------



## Anderson

Since we're discussing goofy technological changes, I've taken to regularly bitching out banks for the "flat" credit cards (since there are a modest number of cases where I've run into merchants using imprint machines). I actually seem to have stared down Bank of America on my Virgin Atlantic card (they said they couldn't do anything but after the call in question I miraculously got a replacement with raised numbers).

So much of this honestly makes me wish I could just take the future out back and shoot it (edit: And that's on a good day. Some days what I'd like to do with the future would get me taken to the Hague).


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Qapla said:


> When I ran a register they did not calculate the change for you ... you had to be able to count change back.



Wow.. you must be nearing 100 years of age. Hope you're healthy! (That's been a common feature on even the most basic cash registers for decades. You may not have used the feature... but I'm pretty certain it was there.) 

Everywhere I have worked requires us to enter in the amount because it displays for the customer the correct amount of change he should be receiving.


----------



## pennyk

Please return the discussion to the topic of trains vs planes for long distance. If anyone wants to discuss cash register technology, please do so in the AU Lounge.
Thanks.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Qapla said:


> China has laid about 12,000 miles of HSR line in just nine years. And it has done so while pioneering new techniques and overcoming challenging obstacles, such as tunneling through mountains beneath the Great Wall....So, it is possible if the effort and money are spent. It may be expensive at the outset...but the long-term cost savings and environmental issues could outweigh the initial cost - and it does not need to take decade after decade to build.


I have no problem supporting a _conventional_ HSR system with proven technology at a reasonable cost, but it would take us a lot longer to build than China because our public budgets are saddled with debt and we give private land owners substantial power over the sale and use of their land and surrounding areas.



Anderson said:


> wish I could just take the future out back and shoot it


Has anyone ever introduced you to *The Doomsday Clock?*


----------



## MARC Rider

Devil's Advocate said:


> I have no problem supporting a _conventional_ HSR system with proven technology at a reasonable cost, but it would take us a lot longer to build than China because our public budgets are saddled with debt and we give private land owners significant power over the sale and use of their land and surrounding areas. It's true that smaller and poorer owners are sometimes bullied off their own property, but larger and wealthier owners can use their legal clout and political connections to dispute, delay, and disrupt and almost any project.



Heck, I'd be happy with conventional "fast frequent rail" service with 60 mph end-to-end average speeds and reliable on-time performance using existing rail corridors. And it might be what's necessary to get more people riding trains and build support for real HSR.


----------



## ehbowen

MARC Rider said:


> Heck, I'd be happy with conventional "fast frequent rail" service with 60 mph end-to-end average speeds and reliable on-time performance using existing rail corridors. And it might be what's necessary to get more people riding trains and build support for real HSR.


Unfortunately, 1950s technology is too far beyond our capabilities now....


----------



## crescent-zephyr

ehbowen said:


> Unfortunately, 1950s technology is too far beyond our capabilities now....



Having just gotten back from rides on the keystone corridor and the Acela I would disagree with you. It’s not beyond our capabilities.... it just costs money.


----------



## Ryan

Agreed. Capability isn't the problem, it's the desire to do something decent. 

(or more correctly an inability to agree over what is "decent")


----------



## v v

In the UK we are world famous for our short termism, is this a problem in the US re long term projects?


----------



## neroden

(1) For my girlfriend, rheumatoid arthritis. Plane flights are *bad* for her -- very unhealthy. The altitude change alone is a problem but the cramped seating makes it much worse.
(2) For me, the TSA. I have to bring a pile of special food, liquid, and lotions to deal with my medical problems. Despite these being medically necessary, TSA policies mean I couldn't take them as carryons and I'd have to check them (risking loss in transit). And the TSA has stolen stuff from my Dad's luggage. I could ship it all in advance by FedEx or the equivalent, but yeeargh.

There are lots of other things I prefer about train travel but those are the biggies.


----------



## oregon pioneer

v v said:


> In the UK we are world famous for our short termism, is this a problem in the US re long term projects?



You mean the inability to plan beyond the next quarter, or at most the next fiscal year? Yes, that seems to be a problem in this country, as well. I often worry that long-term payoffs are just not attractive enough for most people.


----------



## William

I have been riding on Amtrak for many years now, and vastly prefer it to flying.I live in NY (Long Island), and often take an Amtrak train to Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Toronto, New Orleans, Houston,etc. Flying, even on short flights, is stressful, and I will only fly in the case of an extreme emergency. 
The reasons I prefer to travel on Amtrak are many. The seats, even in coach are very roomy and comfortable. I get a sleeper/roomette when I am on an overnight train and I thoroughly enjoy it.
Once we get moving, I relax in my roomette, take my shoes off, put my feet up, pour myself a cocktail, and read a book or a magazine, while enjoying watching the scenery go by.
It is also fun to talk to other Amtrak travelers either in the dining car, lounge/cafe car or sightseer lounge.
I used to have a lot of fun the in old Sunset Limited smoking car. It was a party on wheels!
The whole Amtrak experience is to me very relaxing, and I always arrive at my destination relaxed and refreshed. I also sleep very well in the roomette, actually better than at home.
My only complaints about Amtrak travel are the usual grumpy cafe car attendant, and the sleeping car attendant that vanishes once your trip begins, never to be seen again during the entire trip.
As for the scenery, I just love being able to see different parts of the country. I love the view on the Crescent when it crosses over Lake Ponchartrain.
There is also a beautiful spot for scenery on the Texas Eagle. A bit before it gets to Longview, the train makes a curve and all of a sudden you can see a beautiful little lake with all kinds of beautiful birds, especially these big white egrets all over. 
I'll take Amtrak over flying any day. 

Bill P.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

A few posters have mentioned the cramped seating on airplanes vs. the train and most have mentioned how roomy a roomette is. Umm that seems a little unfair. A roomette should only be compared to a first class domestic seat. 

That’s really the only way I fly unless Southwest is offering a super great deal or better flight times. 

I still enjoy the train better of course, but I find domestic first class to be quite comfortable.


----------



## Asher

v v said:


> In the UK we are world famous for our short termism, is this a problem in the US re long term projects?


Compared to the UK, the US is short term.


----------



## jis

anumberone said:


> Compared to the UK, the US is short term.


Yeah. 243 years is really not all that long...


----------



## BALtoNYPtraveler

If I need to get off the train for some reason, I can do so at the next stop. In fact, everyone can, should there be an emergency. In an extreme emergency, we can get off wherever the train stops (excepting bridges and tunnels and a few other exceptions.) I like being on the ground, in other words.


----------



## v v

anumberone said:


> Compared to the UK, the US is short term.



Oh dear! Our long term is about 3 years, where's our soon to be ex neighbours in Europe are often closer to 20 years which allows proper well thought through infrastructure to be built. The UK is currently falling apart in regard to transportation, it's a very sorry sight to behold now.


----------



## v v

jis said:


> Yeah. 243 years is really not all that long...



You have the advantage of youth.


----------



## jis

v v said:


> You have the advantage of youth.


Feeling a bit creaky of late though


----------



## v v

jis said:


> Feeling a bit creaky of late though



I couldn't possibly comment


----------



## CelticWhisper

The prime motivator behind my riding Amtrak is the TSA. I despise everything about the TSA - I despise the agency, I detest its employees, and I have nothing but the deepest, blackest, most venomous loathing for its practices. As long as it's in our airports, I won't be, and I don't care if I never fly again. I hate security and I hate forced safety - I will keep *myself* safe, to a degree that I deem appropriate for myself, by measures that I deem appropriate for myself. I refuse to give up my privacy, dignity or rights for safety and, thanks to TSA, have come to regard "safety and security" as the worst reason to require anyone to do anything.

Incidental but not inconsiderable contributing factors are comfort, quiet, scenery, food (yeah...we'll see how that one persists), and a feeling of adventure. Take all of those away, however, and I'd happily ride on the floor in the baggage car if it meant there was still no security screening.


----------



## adamj023

With the expansion of Frontier Airlines, the price of flying has come down to more areas of the country. They have a promo of 75% off. 

Amtrak requires federal and even state subsidies on some routes to stay afloat while Frontier Airlines is a private company as are all other airlines after government deregulated the industry. 

The TSA is the biggest hassle to flying which makes Amtrak more viable for the Northeastern Corridor for instance which is a shorter haul route. 

If I went from NYC to Chicago, IL, plane ticket costs are lower than Amtrak and even with the TSA, travel time is faster.


----------



## Ryan

CelticWhisper said:


> I refuse to give up my privacy, dignity or rights for safety


Strangely, I fly without giving any of that up.



adamj023 said:


> Amtrak requires federal and even state subsidies on some routes to stay afloat while Frontier Airlines is a private company as are all other airlines after government deregulated the industry.


They (like every other airline) are private companies that are (occasionally) profitable while being kept safe by an ATC system partially funded by taxpayers and landing and taking off from airports paid for by taxpayers.


----------



## adamj023

Ryan said:


> Strangely, I fly without giving any of that up.
> 
> They (like every other airline) are private companies that are (occasionally) profitable while being kept safe by an ATC system partially funded by taxpayers and landing and taking off from airports paid for by taxpayers.



There are many people who want that changed which includes the current executive branch of government. In a modern new system, all airport based towers would be obsolete and automation would take over and reduce the number of personnel needed which would save on costs and be privately funded.


----------



## daybeers

Ryan said:


> CelticWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refuse to give up my privacy, dignity or rights for safety
> 
> 
> 
> Strangely, I fly without giving any of that up.
Click to expand...

You think you don't give up any privacy to be allowed to fly commercially, meaning passing through TSA checkpoints?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

daybeers said:


> You think you don't give up any privacy to be allowed to fly commercially, meaning passing through TSA checkpoints?


If you can use one of the paid access lanes they tend to back off a lot. You can keep your clothes on, including shoes and belts, and only have to pass through a much less sensitive metal detector. You can often leave your electronics packed and they tend to treat you nicer and hassle you less about obeying all the rules. It's also rare to get secondary screening if you have frequent traveler status and an approved citizen number. Some folks see paid dignity lanes as a solution while others see them as a symptom of a greater problem.


----------



## Anderson

Ryan said:


> Strangely, I fly without giving any of that up.
> 
> They (like every other airline) are private companies that are (occasionally) profitable while being kept safe by an ATC system partially funded by taxpayers and landing and taking off from airports paid for by taxpayers.


(1) With respect to DA's comment above, I view those paid lanes as both a hotfix _and_ a symptom of a greater problem. I'd be interested, conceptually, to know what could lead to a "normal" person being denied access to said systems (incidental de-selection notwithstanding) and, depending on how that is determined, have to wonder why a substantial portion of the population isn't just given said access? To be fair, I find the "Precheck Family" (PreCheck, Global Entry, and Nexus) to be less inherently offensive than Clear (which is, IMO, blatant racketeering off of the rest of this mess).
(2) It is also worth noting that even with said subsidies (and sometimes with federal, state, and/or local government support...my local airport authority got into a _big_ mess with a failed startup and folks are in the process of going to jail, and there's always the EAS) quite a few places either lack significant service or lack service at all.


----------



## v v

Devil's Advocate said:


> If you can use one of the paid access lanes they tend to back off a lot. You can keep your clothes on, including shoes and belts, and only have to pass through a much less sensitive metal detector. You can often leave your electronics packed and they tend to treat you nicer and hassle you less about obeying all the rules. It's also rare to get secondary screening if you have frequent traveler status and an approved citizen number. Some narrow minded folks see paid dignity lanes as a solution while others see them as a symptom of a greater problem.



Never heard of paid access lanes, how does that facilitate security if you can buy an easier search?

BTW, are they only for internal flights or international too?

Thanks


----------



## Way2Kewl

When you sign up for TSA-Pre "https://www.tsa.gov/precheck" (about $17 a year) you agree to fingerprinting and a background check and this places you in a lower rick category and allows you to pass thru a more streamlined security check where you don't have to pull the belt, shoes or laptop.

Its a bit funny when I go thru DFW security to fly to LAX or SFO to catch the Chief or Zephyr... my bag is loaded with GPS, radio, surge protector, ton of power cords and even a memory foam tush pillow for the chair. I almost always get a second check for this bag if I try to go thru the standard TSA lines. I pass thru TSA-Pre without ever being stopped.

<corrected> Global Entry provides expedited US customs screening for *international* air travelers when entering the United States


If you fly a lot it's well worth it if only for time savings.


----------



## jis

You don’t get expedited Customs and Immigration with TSA-Pre. For that you have to sign up for Global Entry, which incidentally also gives you TSA-Pre.


----------



## Way2Kewl

jis said:


> You don’t get expedited Customs and Immigration with TSA-Pre. For that you have to sign up for Global Entry, which incidentally also gives you TSA-Pre.



Corrected... 
Thanks jis. 
"TSA Pre✓® provides expedited security screening benefits for flights departing from U.S. Airports. Global Entry provides the TSA Pre✓® benefit plus expedited US customs screening for international air travelers when entering the United States. TSA Pre✓® costs $85 and Global Entry costs $100 for a five year membership."


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Devil's Advocate said:


> It's also rare to get secondary screening if you have frequent traveler status and an approved citizen number



At least for a time.... Nashville’s pre check line gave a full pat down to a certain number of random travelers. So like every 15th person (or whatever the number was) got the full or down. 

I don’t have pre-check but for some reason I used to get it in Nashville when flying southwest. I can’t tell you why, it would just appear on my ticket. That was when I was flying a lot for work.


----------



## Way2Kewl

True. I often see the TSA license checker give a “random” card to the TSA-Pre traveler for a standard check.
I’m a million miler on AA and had TSA-Pre since launch and I’ve never been selected for the deeper search…
I’ve wondered many times as I pass thru the line just how random, random is and asked a bored TSA agent a year or so ago if they profile when randomly selecting TSA-Pre for the deeper check. He smiled and said it was random.

Ever loose your Drivers License while traveling? I did in KC. and had to get home… Boy was that a personal pat down…  TSA-Pre no help here.

On the flip side, over 30 years of Amtrak travel I’ve never been asked for an ID when boarding Amtrak, only the ticket. And never had my bags checked. Amtrak has always been simple boarding.


----------



## jis

I once inadvertently packed my driver’s license in my checked baggage in San Francisco. They just asked for a bunch of other identifying documents (Credit Card, Medical Insurance Card and such) and then just let me through. Just had to wait for a supervisor to process the id verification. But no additional pat down or anything. 

Since then I keep a second acceptable Id in my wallet - either the Global Entry Card or the Passport Card.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

v v said:


> Never heard of paid access lanes, how does that facilitate security if you can buy an easier search?



You’ve never heard of TSA pre Check? 

It does eliminate my biggest problem with tsa.... I don’t think a citizen with no record should be required to partially undress, and stand spread eagle with arms up for a very... personal scan, simply for wanting to travel within his own country. 

At least with precheck you leave your shoes and belt on and simply walk through a metal detector.


----------



## I like rolling hotels

Now that the scanners with naked images are gone, and with my aging father generating occasional emergencies, I've flown again. Flying remains a second choice because Amtrak is just a better experience every other way.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> I once inadvertently packed my driver’s license in my checked baggage in San Francisco. They just asked for a bunch of other identifying documents (Credit Card, Medical Insurance Card and such) and then just let me through. Just had to wait for a supervisor to process the id verification. But no additional pat down or anything.
> 
> Since then I keep a second acceptable Id in my wallet - either the Global Entry Card or the Passport Card.


I once read an account by a journalist who left her purse with all her ID and tickets in the cab to the airport. Fortunately, she had taken pictures of everything with her phone, and although it was a nuisance, she got home on schedule.

I really should take a pictures of my IDs, etc. Maybe I'll do it now, while the Cardinal is stuck outside the station at Hinton and a CSX coal train is blocking my view of the New River. A pity, we had been on schedule up to this point. Hope there's enough padding to get me to Baltimore on time.


----------



## jis

I do have a photo of my DL and Passport handy. Needed them for various other reasons including applying for eVisas, and of all things, proof of residential address for my State Bank of India account(s).


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I like rolling hotels said:


> Now that the scanners with naked images are gone, and with my aging father generating occasional emergencies, I've flown again. Flying remains a second choice because Amtrak is just a better experience every other way.



Umm who says they are gone!?


----------



## Way2Kewl

I believe DFW removed them about 6 years ago ... around the time of this article.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...oved-full-body-scanners-rep-article-1.1360143
Scanner looks the same but the image is a generic body.


----------



## jis

Way2Kewl said:


> I believe DFW removed them about 6 years ago ... around the time of this article.
> https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...oved-full-body-scanners-rep-article-1.1360143
> Scanner looks the same but the image is a generic body.



Correct. TSA got rid of all the old style ones and also all backscatter X-ray scanners. They only have millimeter scanners with generic diagrammatic images.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Well that’s good to know... so I am a little less likely to have cancer from those machines!


----------



## adamj023

First class on domestic airlines combined with fast flight times make train obsolete even on the NYC to Chicago route. United, AA, Delta and Spirit all compete at LGA to ORD. Train just can’t compete on routes of this distance and Chicago is their main connection hub and you would have expected Amtrak to high speed this route to establish a future high speed presence. I still see Amtrak as competitive on Northeastern Corridor routes and for people going shorter distances on the other route networks and inside California especially if they develop high speed rail there. Also Auto Train still makes sense as well if they can improve profitability on the line as people like shorter car rides as people migrate from as far north as Canada to as far south as Florida to shorten their driving time but the service still tends to be very seasonal.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

adamj023 said:


> First class on domestic airlines combined with fast flight times make train obsolete even on the NYC to Chicago route. United, AA, Delta and Spirit all compete at LGA to ORD. Train just can’t compete on routes of this distance and Chicago is their main connection hub and you would have expected Amtrak to high speed this route to establish a future high speed presence. I still see Amtrak as competitive on Northeastern Corridor routes and for people going shorter distances on the other route networks and inside California especially if they develop high speed rail there. Also Auto Train still makes sense as well if they can improve profitability on the line as people like shorter car rides as people migrate from as far north as Canada to as far south as Florida to shorten their driving time but the service still tends to be very seasonal.



I disagree. My recent trip Orlando to Lancaster PA made much more sense via Amtrak than flying. Sleeper was about the same price of first class domestic, and it saved me a night in a hotel so actually came out cheaper. 

Flying out of NYC was a hassle and I felt like I wasted the entire day waiting in the airport. Partly that was me allowing extra time cause I’m not familiar with JFK.


----------



## PRR 60

crescent-zephyr said:


> I disagree. My recent trip Orlando to Lancaster PA made much more sense via Amtrak than flying. Sleeper was about the same price of first class domestic, and it saved me a night in a hotel so actually came out cheaper.
> 
> Flying out of NYC was a hassle and I felt like I wasted the entire day waiting in the airport. Partly that was me allowing extra time cause I’m not familiar with JFK.


Why would you use a New York airport for a trip from Orlando to Lancaster? PHL makes much more sense. AA or WN to PHL, SEPTA to 30th Street, Keystone to Lancaster. Am I missing something?


----------



## Pere Flyer

crescent-zephyr said:


> I disagree. My recent trip Orlando to Lancaster PA made much more sense via Amtrak than flying. Sleeper was about the same price of first class domestic, and it saved me a night in a hotel so actually came out cheaper.
> 
> Flying out of NYC was a hassle and I felt like I wasted the entire day waiting in the airport. Partly that was me allowing extra time cause I’m not familiar with JFK.



I recently booked travel for next month and early January, and the saver fare BOS-CHI-GRR via 449/370 was $124. This was cheaper than most flights from Logan to the Chicago airports! Maybe I just got lucky with the low bucket.
Attending dance training programs every summer and university nearly 1,000 miles away from home, I’ve flown 4-8 times per year (domestic and int’l) for the past decade, often with connections and layovers. I’m tired of flying domestic in general, but if I do fly domestic, I choose to only fly nonstop and only once in an itinerary. My upcoming trip originates and ends in PVD, which has no direct flights to GRR, so it made more sense for me to take a train to Boston, to Chicago, to Grand Rapids.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

PRR 60 said:


> Why would you use a New York airport for a trip from Orlando to Lancaster? PHL makes much more sense. AA or WN to PHL, SEPTA to 30th Street, Keystone to Lancaster. Am I missing something?



Sorry... started my trip in Lancaster area to see 611 and went up to NYC for a few days following that. Was perfect weather up there and unusually cheap hotels by nyc standards. 

So I was returning from NYC.


----------



## dogbert617

Gemuser said:


> 1) More room & walking around space. DVT not likely to be a problem on trains, can't ne ignored on 14/16 hour sectors, let alone the coming 22 hour sectors.
> 2) Much better scenary.
> 3) Often more convient arrival/departure time.
> 4) Arrives/departs closer to home.
> 5) No security lines.
> 6) Less baggage hassels.
> 
> Just off the top of my head.
> .



And to add onto 5), you thankfully DON'T have to deal with all the security theater and all the annoying BS rules that TSA has! I.e. 'you must take off your shoes and belts before passing through security', 'no water in your carry on bag through security, or other liquids(i.e. soda, beer, whatever else) in your bag when passing through security, and you'll have a choice to either throw that out or dump all that liquid!', etc. Honestly the TSA rules are so annoying and over the top, thank I'm thankful as f that Amtrak exists as a less stressful way to travel! I don't care that it takes longer than flying, since to me it's a LOT more damn enjoyable to do vs. flying!

And also screw the fact you get less legroom on a flight, vs. with Amtrak!


----------



## adamj023

The TSA really needs to be either eliminated and replaced with private security or severely modified to speed up the process and eliminate the intrusiveness. Trusted travel programs ought to have an easier application and not require renewal unless there is a security risk.


----------



## MARC Rider

dogbert617 said:


> And to add onto 5), you thankfully DON'T have to deal with all the security theater and all the annoying BS rules that TSA has!



Of course, on the other hand, you might have to consent to police officers searching your bags halfway through your trip or risk getting taken off the train in some out of the way place while the police search around for a warrant or a drug dog.  When you fly, once you get through TSA, you're usually left alone.


----------



## MARC Rider

adamj023 said:


> The TSA really needs to be either eliminated and replaced with private security or severely modified to speed up the process and eliminate the intrusiveness. Trusted travel programs ought to have an easier application and not require renewal unless there is a security risk.



What makes you think that a private security operation would be more efficient or effective than TSA? Before 9/11, airport security was a private operation, and we all know what happened. As far as the "trusted traveler" programs, of course they need renewals, as your "security risk" may change over time.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

MARC Rider said:


> What makes you think that a private security operation would be more efficient or effective than TSA? Before 9/11, airport security was a private operation, and we all know what happened. As far as the "trusted traveler" programs, of course they need renewals, as your "security risk" may change over time.



Didn’t the 9/11 attackers use items that were permitted to be carried on?

I don’t have a problem with the TSA. I just don’t think I should have to even partially undress and stand spread eagle for a scan in order to travel in my own country. Just go back to the metal detectors and let citizens with no record, and no concern keep shoes and belts on. 

Everything else I’m fine with. Taking my laptop out of my bag is no big deal.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MARC Rider said:


> Of course, on the other hand, you might have to consent to police officers searching your bags halfway through your trip or risk getting taken off the train in some out of the way place while the police search around for a warrant or a drug dog.


If the dog is needed to establish probable cause then in theory they should still need reasonable _and_ definable suspicion to detain you against your will for the purpose of securing a dog. Or maybe the real threat is that they have a reasonable expectation that a conductor they've worked with dozens or hundreds of times will show no loyalty to his customers and will happily remove you without cause if anyone in a uniform asks.



MARC Rider said:


> Before 9/11, airport security was a private operation, and we all know what happened.


_Some_ of us know they followed the rules in place at the time, which did _not_ include the prohibition and confiscation of box cutters. Which makes me wonder what else you think "we all know."


----------



## MARC Rider

You can't set up like this on a plane:


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Devil's Advocate said:


> If the dog is needed to establish probable cause then at that point shouldn't they'd still need reasonable _and_ definable suspicion to detain you against your will? Or maybe the real threat is that they know the conductor would remove you without cuase if anyone in a uniform asked them to?



That’s what I couldn’t figure out. They can’t search your bags without consent or probable cause... but they can detain you without probable cause while they ask for a dog to see if there is probable cause to search your bag.


----------



## MARC Rider

Devil's Advocate said:


> _Some_ of us know they followed the rules in place at the time, which did _not_ include the prohibition and confiscation of box cutters. Which makes me wonder what else you think "we all know."



What does that have to do with whether or not security screening is best done by a private company? It seems that the private security screening companies at the time were perfectly happy to just "follow the rules in place at the time," and did not provide any kind of added value proposition to their function.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MARC Rider said:


> What does that have to do with whether or not security screening is best done by a private company? It seems that the private security screening companies at the time were perfectly happy to just "follow the rules in place at the time," and did not provide any kind of added value proposition to their function.


Following the rules as written is precisely what I want from my security services. The TSA still struggles to fully define the rules, let alone actually follow them. As currently constructed the TSA functions as a institutional workaround for the Fourth Amendment, as a willing and participatory conduit for civil asset forfeiture, and a self-dealing bridge troll charging airlines and travelers arbitrary fees to pass through unmolested. I see no added value here.


----------



## adamj023

MARC Rider said:


> What makes you think that a private security operation would be more efficient or effective than TSA? Before 9/11, airport security was a private operation, and we all know what happened. As far as the "trusted traveler" programs, of course they need renewals, as your "security risk" may change over time.



i know too much about 9/11 and don’t want to veer this off topic or get attacked by anyone else in flame wars. I will say this: El Al has their own private security and it is the best in the world as they had to adapt to constant threats. Having private security is definitely a successful option. Private sector jobs pay more and reward merit. The problem is pulling back the TSA is hard to do and so if its kept, as least make it better for people.


----------



## v v

A few months after 9/11 in February 2002 I was passing through Minneapolis using Greyhound buses on a week long zig zag across the US. Had a long layover at MSP and decided to walk for a couple of hours but to get out of and to get back in the bus station we all had to go through an early version of the TSA checks with an actual barrier to pass through.
At this point of these travels MSP was the first bus station with any form of security, and the last too.

One of the themes that surfaced after a week on Greyhound was the amount of people of EVERY type who were riding Greyhound for the first time. All the ones I spoke with said they were frightened to fly.


----------



## MARC Rider

adamj023 said:


> i know too much about 9/11 and don’t want to veer this off topic or get attacked by anyone else in flame wars. I will say this: El Al has their own private security and it is the best in the world as they had to adapt to constant threats. Having private security is definitely a successful option. Private sector jobs pay more and reward merit. The problem is pulling back the TSA is hard to do and so if its kept, as least make it better for people.


El Al has unique threats and feels it needs special upgraded security that is not needed for most airlines flying out of US airports. And the security provided at Israeli airports is provided by government employees. Oh, and you have to arrive at Ben Gurion Airport (or your El Al flight at JFK) three hours, not two, before flight time.

The whole discussion about establishing TSA after 9/11 was based on the idea that the private security contractors handling airport security before 9/11 were hiring low-paid non-professional staff who weren't performing up to standard. I was around at the time and reading the news reports. There must have been something to the idea if a conservative pro-privatization Administration was willing to establish a large new Federal bureaucracy for this purposes,

Finally, the idea that "private sector jobs pay more and reward merit" is such abject nonsense that it's hard to even argue against it. It's an insult to diligent public servants world wide.

Personally, I don't think the TSA inspection is as awful as a lot of people make it out to be. The main problem I have with it is that they don't have enough inspectors, and the lines get long. Some of the procedures are probably more theater than effective, too, but privatization won't make that any better.


----------



## drdumont

What annoyed me the most was that each airport and sometimes each airline within the airport had different TSA "rules". And it seemed that they changed almost daily. coats on/off, laptops in/out, shoes on/off, body xray yes/no, etc.
A logical mind would seem to ask "Why not one set of rules, so I can plan accordingly"?
Then it occurred to me that the very randomness and seeming incompetence is part of the idea. Seems the bad guys might have more difficulty gaming the system if the system is the Game With No Rules. 
So I'm still at a loss to explain it, but I do still detest the system.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

drdumont said:


> What annoyed me the most was that each airport and sometimes each airline within the airport had different TSA "rules". And it seemed that they changed almost daily. coats on/off, laptops in/out, shoes on/off, body xray yes/no, etc.
> A logical mind would seem to ask "Why not one set of rules, so I can plan accordingly"?
> Then it occurred to me that the very randomness and seeming incompetence is part of the idea. Seems the bad guys might have more difficulty gaming the system if the system is the Game With No Rules.
> So I'm still at a loss to explain it, but I do still detest the system.



Yup. One time at the Nashville airport this summer a tsa agent goes “whoa whoa whoa don’t take your shoes off” I said “why not” and she goes “cause we have a dog out” 

Can’t make it up.


----------



## drdumont

ISTR for while that a table would be set up at the top of the stairs in 30th St. Station in Philadelphia, and two or three "agents" asked to look into briefcase and whatnot, but other than checking for a valid ticket, there were no other ID requirements. Didn't seem to delay things much.
Since then, in all my Amtrak travels, I've never been through any form of security check other than to present a valid ticket or bar code on my phone.
I'd like to see a real legal opinion on just who has the authority to detain me and why, and who has the authority to demand a search of my person or impedimenta, including an actual commissioned peace officer, armed or not.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I’ve been asked for my ID on Amtrak trains and at stations when picking up tickets. One conductor years ago was unhappy that my state id had expired two days prior (it expired during the trip and my replacement had not arrived in the mail before I left) and insisted i show a valid ID. She was good with an employee ID card that I had.


----------



## drdumont

This doesn't have all that much to do with Amtrak, but I've always wondered why an expired ID is not accepted. I haven't expired, I haven't changed, the ID was OK until a certain date...

But I guess the term "Valid ID" means one which has not expired, since for example, an expired driver's license is not "valid" for the purpose of allowing one to drive. 

Maybe the items should self destruct on the expiration date, Mr. Phelps style...


----------



## Way2Kewl

Amtrak Passenger Identification
https://www.amtrak.com/planning-booking/tickets-id-safety-security/passenger-identification.html
Amtrak customers 18 years of age and older must produce valid photo identification when:

Exchanging, refunding or reprinting Amtrak travel documents
Purchasing documents with a stored eVoucher or Transportation Credit
Traveling as a Pass Rider (active or retired)
Storing baggage at stations
Checking baggage (including firearms)
Sending Amtrak Express shipments
Asked onboard trains by train crew members, other Amtrak or operating railroad employees
Asked any time by Amtrak police or any law enforcement officer
Traveling into Canada
Guardian purchasing an unaccompanied minor travel documents or signing the release form
So basicaly Amtrak says it's officialy required... 
However, in practice if you've printed your ticket (with barcode) or use the Amtrak App, the chances you'll be asked by the conductor on the train is slim. 
In all my trips I've never been asked for ID on the train and only been asked at the ticket counter when picking up a ticket or storing bags.


----------



## drdumont

So these are AMTRAK's rules, specifically posted and I presume failure to comply can result in your not being able to travel. A Company's rules for clients or those using their service. Sounds good to me.
I don't see a legal basis for an AMTRAK employee to detain or demand to search your possessions. 
Are AMTRAK "police" sworn/deputized/commissioned peace officers empowered with the legal right to search or detain? On AMTRAK controlled/owned property? Elsewhere?
I don't remember - do they carry firearms? On the other hand, I'm not sure when was the last time I noticed an AMTRAK police.


----------



## Way2Kewl

http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Security_Fact_Sheet_5-5-16.pdf
Dated 2016
RANDOM PASSENGER AND BAGGAGE SCREENING
With due respect to passengers' privacy, the random and unannounced screening and inspection of passengers and
their personal items is completed as quickly as possible - usually in less than a minute. Passengers failing to consent
to security procedures will be denied access to trains and refused carriage, and a refund will be offered.

Same as ID, I've never been asked to have my bags searched. But that doesn't mean it won't happen sometime.


----------



## Qapla

I have not personally been asked to show any ID for Amtrak ... but, I have seen the conductor ask to see the ID for some boarding with a "senior" ticket that did not "look like a senior".

I usually travel with a senior ticket when alone or with my brother (he is older than me) - although I will travel as "disabled" when I have a companion so we can both get the discount ... I have not been asked to produce a placard (although I do carry it with me) - I guess the cane has sufficed.


----------



## Woodcut60

”Journeys have value in themselves, and are not just a device for saving time.” – E.B. White

My train trip itself IS my vacation. And - there are of course very nice destinations...


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Missouri



Virginia


----------



## crescent-zephyr

And...


----------



## RichieRich

drdumont said:


> ... I'm not sure when was the last time I noticed an AMTRAK police.


I see them at LOR and SFA with dogs a lot.


----------



## adamj023

Lake Shore Limited 19 hours 10 minutes without accounting for delays.
New York City to Chicago

La Guardia Airport NYC to Chicago, Ohare. 2 hours 35 minutes flight time not accounting for delays and TSA Security. 

I mention this cause its their main hub for going cross country.

With Acela, the time differential is shorter and you don’t need to get to the station as early. 

The airlines are profitable while Amtrak still faces losses even as losses are being reduced.

I will not take the train on long routes like this. I have no problem with connection flights to save money and/or get more flight availability and additional routes as LGA is distance limited but closer for many.


----------



## MARC Rider

drdumont said:


> Are AMTRAK "police" sworn/deputized/commissioned peace officers empowered with the legal right to search or detain? On AMTRAK controlled/owned property? Elsewhere?
> I don't remember - do they carry firearms? On the other hand, I'm not sure when was the last time I noticed an AMTRAK police.



They are real cops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Police_Department

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States


----------



## crescent-zephyr

adamj023 said:


> The airlines are profitable



Very debatable.


----------



## MARC Rider

Although it's true that flying is definitely faster for long distance trips of greater than 500 miles, that's only true most of the time.

About 20 years ago, my brother took three days to fly from Chicago to Washington DC. Well, what actually happened was three days of thunderstorms in the Chicago area that caused mass flight cancellations. My brother was instructed to go home twice to spend the night and come back to the airport the next day. Fortunately, he didn't have those delays on the trip home.

I myself once took two days to fly from BWI to Reno. What happened was that the first leg of our trip was cancelled due to mechanical reasons after we had taken off and were in the air for about 20 minutes. Took another 20-30 minutes to burn off enough fuel to allow us to return to BWI, where we were booked for a flight the next day and sent home. 

When I was in college, my girlfriend booked a flight from Newark to Auburn, Maine where I was going to meet her. When I got to the Auburn airport, I found it was closed because they were rebuilding the runway. Eventually they got her on a DC-3 that flew her to Augusta. She was really ticked off when she got to the Air New England counter at Logan and they said, "Auburn? There's no flight to Auburn?" She probably would have gotten there faster if she had taken Amtrak to Boston and a bus into Maine.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I’m also not sure why people use the “in the air” time as any measure of transit time. In large terminals you can add 1 hour to that just for the taxi to and from the gate, plus 30 minutes early to the gate for boarding plus an hour to get through security.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Very debatable.


By normal legal definition of "profitable" (stuff that they must report to Wall Street or be sent off to luxury jails  ) they are indeed quite profitable these days. Of course if you cook up your own other definition then all bets are off.


----------



## adamj023

crescent-zephyr said:


> Very debatable.



Not debatable. Amtrak provides revenue figures as do the airlines. Profits are way up even after taking into account the 737 Max issues for the airlines which are affected. Also the number of airline passengers are disclosed as are the number of Amtrak passengers. Airlines have way more routes available and much greater passenger counts. Airlines have replaced long haul rail for most people but there are still a group of people willing to use long haul trains. Don’t get me wrong, I like competition but I don’t like government subsidies. If Amtrak can get long haul routes revenues enough to cover expenses then it should just keep doing that but it needs to get to that point.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Without government subsidies virtually all Amtrak routes would go away. Don’t state subsidies help cover NEC?


----------



## SarahZ

crescent-zephyr said:


> I’m also not sure why people use the “in the air” time as any measure of transit time.


I don't think they are? When I say it takes just shy of five hours to fly from Chicago to Seattle, that's the actual flight time from my ticket. The flight time includes taxiing from the gate to the runway and vice versa.

Anyone who uses the actual time in the air isn't doing it correctly. The plane doesn't magically teleport to 30,000 feet.


----------



## Qapla

SarahZ said:


> The flight time includes taxiing from the gate to the runway and vice versa.
> 
> Anyone who uses the actual time in the air isn't doing it correctly. The plane doesn't magically teleport to 30,000 feet.



I think what was meant is counting the time

navigating the road into the parking area and then into the terminal
dealing with TSA security issues
making your way to the gate
getting out of the airport at your destination since most airports are considerably larger than train stations 
in other words, the "entire trip" - not just the flight time


----------



## jis

Qapla said:


> I think what was meant is counting the time
> 
> navigating the road into the parking area and then into the terminal
> dealing with TSA security issues
> making your way to the gate
> getting out of the airport at your destination since most airports are considerably larger than train stations
> in other words, the "entire trip" - not just the flight time


That is the sort of stuff that makes comparisons hard sometimes. For example for me to get to an Amtrak train in Orlando coming from home, I have to plan at least an extra tension filled 45 mins from when I park my car at a long term lot to getting to the Orlando Amtrak station. For Orlando Airport it is 5 mins. Getting through TSA at Orlando usually takes me 10 mins or so, so I can almost predictably be at the boarding gate within less than 30 mins from when I park my car. OTOH, for getting to an Amtrak train I have to schedule an hour from parking the car to be on the safe side.

These end to end numbers can be highly variable if one starts counting parking time etc. I know that rail aficionados like to add all that hoping it is to their advantage, but depending on where one is coming from locally and where one is actually going to at the other end, and relative locations of the airport or train station, sometimes it is advantageous and sometimes not.


----------



## SarahZ

Qapla said:


> I think what was meant is counting the time
> 
> navigating the road into the parking area and then into the terminal
> dealing with TSA security issues
> making your way to the gate
> getting out of the airport at your destination since most airports are considerably larger than train stations
> in other words, the "entire trip" - not just the flight time


I believe you misread my statement. I was responding to his point that you can't just use "in the air" time. You have to use the time it takes to taxi to/from the gate (which he mentioned).

Here's his quote: "In large terminals you can add 1 hour to that just for the taxi to and from the gate, plus 30 minutes early to the gate for boarding plus an hour to get through security."

Some people use only the time spent in the air, which is wildly incorrect.


----------



## jiml

Trips around 400 miles or one hour time in the air is basically the break-even point. Case in point: my company used to fly us in coach between Toronto and Montreal, but would pay business class on VIA Rail and CN before them. The two routings take basically the same time. You are supposed to be at the airport at least 90 minutes before your flight (yes, I know plenty of people will claim this is unnecessary, but it is an enforceable requirement), the flight takes just over an hour - more if de-icing and extended taxiing are required at either end, and the airports are both at least 30 minutes from downtown. Taking the train was a 5-minute walk from my office in Toronto and a 5-minute cab ride from our building in Montreal. Unless you lived near either airport the train was the popular choice.

There are several examples of exactly the same situation in the US, including a few outside the NEC.


----------



## Trollopian

"Trips around 400 miles or one hour time in the air is basically the break-even point."

That's true even for me on one of Amtrak's pokiest routes. My DC office is 4 blocks from Washington's Union Station, my little Pittsburgh apartment (I split my time between the two cities) at the iconic Pennsylvanian, the former western HQ of the Pennsylvania RR and just atop Pittsburgh's shameful little Amshack.

Scenario #1: leave office at 3:20, arrive Union Station 10 minutes later, pick up a sandwich and mini-split of wine to enjoy later on the train, join the queue for the Capitol Limited, chug out of the station at 4:05. Enjoy a slow but scenic trip as long as daylight lasts. Arrive Pittsburgh at 11:48 if C.L. is on schedule (it's often early), be in my apartment 5 minutes later. One travel segment. Gorgeous scenery.

Scenario #2: leave office at 3:20, take two subway lines (always nerve-wracking) to DCA, arrive _with luck_ by 4:00, budget a half-hour to clear security, take off at 5, land about 6:15, take the PAT 28X Airport Flyer bus (one of Pittsburgh's great bargains!) at 6:40, arrive downtown 1 hour later, walk 3 blocks. Four travel segments (=4 chances for something to go wrong). Mostly ugly scenery. Time savings four hours.

I bet this list would choose the train, too.


----------



## Qapla

Yes, for each of us things can be different.

I can be at a train depot in 45 minutes (35 in light traffic) and park next to the station ... it takes at least 1½-2 hours for me to get to JIA and I can't park anywhere close to the terminal.

That's why we tend to "prefer" one method over another for what can amount to "intangible reasons".


If there was still a train that went to the depot near me - I could be at one in 5 minutes and park next to the building ... but, Alas!, Amtrak no longer services that depot.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> By normal legal definition of "profitable" (stuff that they must report to Wall Street or be sent off to luxury jails  ) they are indeed quite profitable these days. Of course if you cook up your own other definition then all bets are off.





adamj023 said:


> Not debatable. Amtrak provides revenue figures as do the airlines. Profits are way up even after taking into account the 737 Max issues for the airlines which are affected. Also the number of airline passengers are disclosed as are the number of Amtrak passengers. Airlines have way more routes available and much greater passenger counts. Airlines have replaced long haul rail for most people but there are still a group of people willing to use long haul trains. Don’t get me wrong, I like competition but I don’t like government subsidies. If Amtrak can get long haul routes revenues enough to cover expenses then it should just keep doing that but it needs to get to that point.



Have.. if thirdrail can change the definition of "hourly pay" I think I can change the definition "profitable"  . 
You are correct.. as businesses they are indeed profitable. That I can't debate. The debate is, how many expenses does someone else foot the bill for to make them profitable. TSA, Airport construction and maintenance, Air Traffic Control, not to mention how much of that profit are they making off of subsidized flights.

It's kind of like when people say the passenger railroads in Europe make money. Again, technically the passenger railroad companies do run at a profit.


----------



## jloewen

jiml said:


> Trips around 400 miles or one hour time in the air is basically the break-even point. Case in point: my company used to fly us in coach between Toronto and Montreal, but would pay business class on VIA Rail and CN before them. The two routings take basically the same time. You are supposed to be at the airport at least 90 minutes before your flight (yes, I know plenty of people will claim this is unnecessary, but it is an enforceable requirement), the flight takes just over an hour - more if de-icing and extended taxiing are required at either end, and the airports are both at least 30 minutes from downtown. Taking the train was a 5-minute walk from my office in Toronto and a 5-minute cab ride from our building in Montreal. Unless you lived near either airport the train was the popular choice.
> 
> There are several examples of exactly the same situation in the US, including a few outside the NEC.


In addition, I consider the time I'm asleep, or eating breakfast, showering, etc., to be "multitasking" on Amtrak, because we're also moving. Therefore, I calculate like this, from my home in DC to, say, Chicago:
by rail, leave home at 3:05PM, walk to Metro by 3:20PM, arr. Union Station by 3:40 PM, board train 3:45PM, depart 4:05PM, arrive Chicago downtown c.8:40AM after breakfast and after a shower. 
by air: leave home 6PM, walk to Metro by 6:15PM, arr. DCA by 7:15 PM, board plane 8:15PM (I have TSA Global Entry, which speeds security a bit.) depart 8:40PM, arrive Chicago c.9:40PM, get to CSA subway 9:50PM, get to Loop c.10:25PM, walk to hotel by 10:35PM, go to sleep, and in the morning, after breakfast and after a shower, it'll be about 8:40AM.
Points of stress by flying include: will I make the flight (I don't build in much cushion.)? Sitting three abreast. Some chance of catching a cold or cough (happened on my last flight, actually), dealing with CTA, booking a hotel (ahead of time).
Points of fun by rail include: seeing the Potomac, especially in winter, and imagine how I might canoe it, given the water level; seeing beautiful Harpers Ferry, seeing "prehistoric" railroad ruins at the next station stop, enjoying the scenery until dark, working in my cabin, bringing my wife along almost for free if she wants to come, walking the length of the train just for the heck of it, maybe meeting other passengers and having interesting conversations, etc.
So, yes, I have to leave home three hours earlier, but much of those hours are scenic (Harpers Ferry etc.), so it's worth it to me!


----------



## Chessie

Trollopian said:


> "Trips around 400 miles or one hour time in the air is basically the break-even point."
> 
> That's true even for me on one of Amtrak's pokiest routes. My DC office is 4 blocks from Washington's Union Station, my little Pittsburgh apartment (I split my time between the two cities) at the iconic Pennsylvanian, the former western HQ of the Pennsylvania RR and just atop Pittsburgh's shameful little Amshack.
> 
> Scenario #1: leave office at 3:20, arrive Union Station 10 minutes later, pick up a sandwich and mini-split of wine to enjoy later on the train, join the queue for the Capitol Limited, chug out of the station at 4:05. Enjoy a slow but scenic trip as long as daylight lasts. Arrive Pittsburgh at 11:48 if C.L. is on schedule (it's often early), be in my apartment 5 minutes later. One travel segment. Gorgeous scenery.
> 
> Scenario #2: leave office at 3:20, take two subway lines (always nerve-wracking) to DCA, arrive _with luck_ by 4:00, budget a half-hour to clear security, take off at 5, land about 6:15, take the PAT 28X Airport Flyer bus (one of Pittsburgh's great bargains!) at 6:40, arrive downtown 1 hour later, walk 3 blocks. Four travel segments (=4 chances for something to go wrong). Mostly ugly scenery. Time savings four hours.
> 
> I bet this list would choose the train, too.



Grew up in Pittsburgh in the late 90’s and always wanted to see the inside of the Pennsylvanian. I thought it looked like a castle.


----------



## oregon pioneer

Qapla said:


> If there was still a train that went to the depot near me - I could be at one in 5 minutes and park next to the building ... but, Alas!, Amtrak no longer services that depot.



Ha, the closest train to me used to be the Pioneer -- only two hours! Now it's three hours to the AmBus (for the Coast Starlight) in Bend, four hours to WIH or PSC (Empire Builder), or five hours to WIN (California Zephyr. Slightly less than three hours to the airport at RDM, and four hours to BOI, so pick your poison. The only local connection goes to RDM (airport) or BND (AmBus to Chemult). If you live in the middle of nowhere, you choose your transportation options by what you really WANT to do, not what's most convenient.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

Qapla said:


> If there was still a train that went to the depot near me - I could be at one in 5 minutes and park next to the building ... but, Alas!, Amtrak no longer services that depot.



Of course, if your local station had service, there might be no parking adjacent to the building because it would be too busy.


----------



## pennyk

I live between 2 stations (ORL and WPK) and have walked to both, although my walk to WPK was without luggage. When departing, I normally get a ride, take a bus or walk to a SunRail station and take SunRail to the Orlando Station. When returning home, if train 97 is on time, I usually detrain in WPK, take SunRail 2 stops and walk about .6 miles home. If SunRail is not running, I will either get a ride or take a bus. Amtrak is extremely convenient for me. (I am so close to the tracks that I can see my condo building from the train and can hear the horns).

The Orlando airport is a longer ride and impossible walk for me.


----------



## Qapla

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Of course, if your local station had service, there might be no parking adjacent to the building because it would be too busy.



Since the depot building is only about 20' X 40' and the parking lot is dirt - I doubt it would be all that busy ... although, it wasn't closed due to lack of business - it was closed after they rerouted the train off these tracks.


----------



## MARC Rider

Penn Station Baltimore is a 15-20 minute drive from my house, depending on traffic. BWI airport is about a 35 minute drive in normal traffic, but if I'm parking and not being dropped off, I'd have to add at least another 15 minutes to park at the long-term lot and ride the shuttle to the terminal. Penn Station has a parking garage (expensive) on site and a parking lot across the tracks on Lanvale St.

Of course, if I lived in Linthicum, BWI airport would be much closer to home than Penn Station, but I don't live in Linthicum.


----------



## jebr

Here in St. Paul, Union Depot is a bit easier to get to (20 minute train ride vs. either 45 minute bus + train or 1 hour train + train.) However, both still require transit to get there (or parking on-site, but I don't want to pay for that,) and the transfer is easy enough that it's not a deciding factor for me (the trains and buses that I use all run every 10-15 minutes throughout the day.)

The biggest problem for me is that there's only one train a day, and the train is so often late (especially eastbound) that I have to play guesswork as to when it'll arrive. I'm not a huge fan of waking up at 6 AM just to find out that the train lost 4 hours overnight, so my train won't be leaving until noon. There's also been times where alternate transportation was offered over the phone, but when I arrive I find out that no alternate transportation is available for my trip. 

The train is wonderful when I have the time to take it. But with limited PTO, a modest budget (modest enough that sleepers aren't worthwhile unless I have points, and a hotel night in Chicago to guarantee connections is also undesirable both time and cost-wise,) and only one train a day, the train often isn't a viable option. It works well enough for flexible short-distance trips, where I'm not too concerned about lateness or simply rescheduling for another day. But in terms of long-distance travel, I'd probably only consider it truly competing for me against flying for Chicago and possibly out to North Dakota or Montana. I used to consider it worthwhile enough to the east coast when I had the points, but with the delays and missed connection issues that's far less desirable for me than flying.


----------



## Qapla

The weather this week is another reason to take the train.

There are massive road closures and backups with some devastating wrecks. There are hundreds of delayed and cancelled flights.

So far, the trains are still running.


----------



## chakk

crescent-zephyr said:


> Well that’s good to know... so I am a little less likely to have cancer from those machines!



The larger cancer risk has always been all of that gamma ray exposure while flying at 35,000 feet.


----------



## neroden

Way2Kewl said:


> http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Security_Fact_Sheet_5-5-16.pdf
> Dated 2016
> RANDOM PASSENGER AND BAGGAGE SCREENING
> With due respect to passengers' privacy, the random and unannounced screening and inspection of passengers and
> their personal items is completed as quickly as possible - usually in less than a minute. Passengers failing to consent
> to security procedures will be denied access to trains and refused carriage, and a refund will be offered.
> 
> Same as ID, I've never been asked to have my bags searched. But that doesn't mean it won't happen sometime.



FYI, this terms-of-service provision is why when I got "randomly" harassed by the DEA (it wasn't random, it was because I'd bought a really-weird-looking ticket on very short notice... I was railfanning a detour route) -- I told the DEA agent that I did not consent to *him* searching my bags, but I would be fine with *Amtrak Police* searching my bags. I agreed to Amtrak searching my bags when I bought a ticket, but I never agreed to let the DEA do anything and I had no way of verifying that he was really a DEA agent. The DEA guy had an Amtrak policeman with him (as he should have), so it worked out.

When I told them the train was going on a detour route, the DEA guy said "I did not know that", and the Amtrak policeman suddenly had this "he's a railfan, we are not going to find anything" look.


----------



## neroden

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, that's not true, we had a perfectly good network of paved highways across the country in 1950 before the Interstate system was dreamed up. In fact, one could argue that the building of the interstate Highway System was one of the most foolish allocation of resources in history as it enabled suburban sprawl and led directly to our current environmentally unsustainable lifestyle that's going to lead to an environmental apocalypse once developing countries like China and India emulate our lifestyle. Which they seem to be on track to doing.



.... having researched the history, I found out that it was deliberate government policy during the 1950s to disperse the population across the countryside. That is, suburban sprawl was specifically promoted, regardless of whether people wanted it or not. A propaganda campaign was set up to promote it, and laws were changed to outlaw the construction of urban, dense development!

Why? Because of the nuclear bomb. It was believed by the idiots-in-charge in the 1950s that a nuclear attack would destroy all the cities but would not destroy the countryside. This is, of course, totally incorrect, because the idiots-in-charge were not paying attention to radioactive fallout, which is now considered the primary danger of nuclear bombs. Right now, nobody really gives a damn whether they blow up big, it's the fallout we worry about. The fallout would destroy the suburbs just as much as the cities. But the people in charge in the 1950s were super dumb and were not listening to the biologists; they imagined that these were just very large bombs. They had no excuse, since the Radium Girls cases were front page news in the 1930s. This insane attitude didn't change until substantial amounts of radioactive toxins were found in baby teeth and JFK and Krushchev were alerted in the 1960s, at which point the Partial Test Ban Treaty was passed.

And *not coincidentally*, that's right around when the aggressive government support for suburban sprawl starts to go away and there's some attempt to reinvest in cities.

I've wondered why everyone in power was insane in the 1950s, and my current hypothesis is that there was a culture of constant alcohol drinking combined with taking (doctor-prescribed) amphetamines and barbituates and other drugs, nearly all of which were *legal* at the time. While I don't approve of the War on Drugs, having many top government officials high while on the job was probably a bad idea; people should be sober on the job.

Of course, the racism leading to the "white-only suburbs" was another phenomenon promoting suburban sprawl, one which persisted much longer than the everyone-in-power-is-insane 1950s. It led to zoning codes which were designed to exclude poor people, including the infamous "single family" districts which cover suburbia, as well as the more explicit attempts to exclude black people (which were declared unconstitutional more often than the attempts to exclude poor people).

So there's some really big-picture background. If not for the nutters running the government in the 1950s, we probably would have had a lot more streetcar suburbs, which seem to be eternally popular. And if not for racism, we probably would have had a lot more high-density and medium-density development, which would support train service better.


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> .... having researched the history, I found out that it was deliberate government policy during the 1950s to disperse the population across the countryside. That is, suburban sprawl was specifically promoted, regardless of whether people wanted it or not. A propaganda campaign was set up to promote it, and laws were changed to outlaw the construction of urban, dense development!
> 
> Why? Because of the nuclear bomb. It was believed by the idiots-in-charge in the 1950s that a nuclear attack would destroy all the cities but would not destroy the countryside.



You'll have to reference the source to have me believe that. The best popular history of suburban sprawl that I've read comes from the books of James Howard Kunstler. (_The Geography of Nowhere, Home from Nowhere_) He seems to have researched the history of this pretty thoroughly, and nowhere does he say anything about nuclear bombs. In fact the drivers of this go all the way back into the first half of the 19th century, when mechanized transport (trains, steamboats) made it possible for (wealthy) people to live at some distance from where they worked.

Kunstler's theory is that this is driven by what you might call cultural mythos -- the idea that Americans have some deep psychological need to believe that they are either "lords of the manor" or "brave pioneers settling the wilderness," and thus want to live a simulacrum of the the lifestyle involved. You obviously can't do that in an inner city tenement (or even a fancy apartment) in a walkable neighborhood. That fact that the physical condition of cities got shabby because of the Depression didn't help either. Once everybody got enough money to buy cars after World War 2, there was really no way to stop such an irresistible cultural and psychological force, especially when abetted by powerful commercial interests that stood to make a lot of money from said force. No conspiracy theories about atomic bombs and drunk drugged out political leaders are needed.



> Right now, nobody really gives a damn whether they blow up big, it's the fallout we worry about. The fallout would destroy the suburbs just as much as the cities. But the people in charge in the 1950s were super dumb and were not listening to the biologists; they imagined that these were just very large bombs. . . . This insane attitude didn't change until substantial amounts of radioactive toxins were found in baby teeth and JFK and Krushchev were alerted in the 1960s, at which point the Partial Test Ban Treaty was passed.



As someone who endured what we called "retention drills" at my elementary school in the early 1960s (before the Test Ban Treaty was signed), I can assure you that even us 2nd graders knew about fallout. The word around was that if the bomb hit us, we were toast, even going to the cellar wouldn't help. The point of our assembling in the inner hallways of the school, which is what the "retention drill" was, was to protect us from the fallout, in the more likely event that the actual bombs would be falling on strategic targets in the area, not our residential suburb a good distance away.

I remember that they told us that the radiation would subside in about a week or so, and I think schools and other shelter areas were equipped with enough survival supplies to last for that period. I actually think that rural areas would be much less affected by a nuclear attack, at least in terms of initial catastrophic casualties. The areas might have increased rates of cancer many years later from the radiation that drifted over, a la Chernobyl, but not mass deaths at the time of the attack a la Hiroshima. But I never remember hearing about any deliberate policies to disperse the population, though, of course, it's possible that some pundit or policy wonk did raise the issue.




> And *not coincidentally*, that's right around when the aggressive government support for suburban sprawl starts to go away and there's some attempt to reinvest in cities.



Maybe it's more the fact that the Democrats won the presidential election in 1960 and held the presidency for the next 8 years. The Democrats, had most of their support from the cities. And even after 1968, when another Republican was elected president, the Democrats remained in control of Congress.



> I've wondered why everyone in power was insane in the 1950s, and my current hypothesis is that there was a culture of constant alcohol drinking combined with taking (doctor-prescribed) amphetamines and barbituates and other drugs, nearly all of which were *legal* at the time. While I don't approve of the War on Drugs, having many top government officials high while on the job was probably a bad idea; people should be sober on the job.



That's ridiculous, "everybody in power" in the 1950's was not insane and you had better have some very good evidence that they were drunk on the job. If they were insane, we would have had World War 3 and we wouldn't be here today posting these messages on an internet discussion group. The political leadership back then handled their differences much better than is being done by the people in power today and they were able to make a lot of rational policy that has stood the test of time, even if they screwed up about suburban sprawl. If those leaders back then really were drunk and on drugs, I would respond like Lincoln did when people were complaining that General Grant drank too much. Lincoln apparently said, "Find out what brand he drinks and send a barrel of it to all my other generals." 

The origins of the suburban sprawl problem, indeed of our civilization's irrational imperative for over-consumption can not be blamed on a few simplistic bogeymen. It's based on our deep psychological needs, aided and abetted, of course, by those who stand to get rich meeting those needs. It's going to be very hard to reverse course until things get so bad that they fall apart and maybe something better can be built from the ruins.


----------



## Qapla

Some of the reason for the "sprawl" often depends on who is telling the story. 

I recently saw a program about some of the businessmen that "built America". Some of them were rail tycoons - but a few of them were auto tycoons and they launched a very progressive advertising campaign to encourage people to move to the suburbs so they would buy more cars. The oil people went along with this because more cars on the road meant more oil sales. The steel giants and the timber industry also encouraged the sprawl because they also sold more goods - and none of the powerful businessmen were drunk, on drugs or insane ... they were cunning, devious and greedy.

If someone with a military background was telling the story - they may attribute the sprawl to weapons and fear ... someone with a utility background might attribute the sprawl to "cheap electricity" .... it all depends on who is telling the story.

Those of us who lived through these times have a different view from those who have read about it.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

The time argument is always interesting to me. Chicago to LA for example “why take a 2 day train trip when you can be there in a few hours!” 

Chicago to LA is going to take up a full day of your time if you choose to fly, unless you take an overnight. It’s not some magical teleportation service.

Likewise, rail travelers who don’t fly usually act like flying is this crazy hassle which it really isn’t. The TSA is what it is. Just like the grumpy Amtrak crews, you play the game and get where you are going.

The difference is, our country has invested heavily in passenger air infrustructure. It would be great if we had better and more frequent rail service to both compliment and compete with air service.


----------



## ehbowen

I don't have the book at hand right now, but if you've read some of Heinlein's essays in _Expanded Universe _(IIRC) you'll find that there was serious political discussion at that time (early 1950s) of the need to "disperse" cities to increase survivability following a postulated nuclear attack. The congresscritters who were most strongly behind it pointed to Los Angeles (as it existed at that time) as the Model City. RAH was most skeptical of that initiative, favoring the creation of a true World State. Of course if that World State had ever become as dysfunctional as our current Federal Government has become...that's a pretty bleak future for the entire human race.


----------



## neroden

There were a few non-insane people in power in the 1950s, but they were trying to rein in people like Curtis LeMay. Um.

And it is unfortunately crystal clear that they were not considering fallout seriously during the 1940s and 1950s. The declassified documents are insanely clear about just not paying attention to it. They were hideously irresponsible about worker safety, too.


----------



## neroden

Qapla said:


> but a few of them were auto tycoons and they launched a very progressive advertising campaign to encourage people to move to the suburbs so they would buy more cars. The oil people went along with this because more cars on the road meant more oil sales. The steel giants and the timber industry also encouraged the sprawl because they also sold more goods



That is all true. That story, however, dates back to the 1920s. The federal government added its backing, for military reasons, in the 1950s.


----------



## neroden

MARC Rider said:


> you had better have some very good evidence that they were drunk on the job.



Three-martini lunches. Drinking at lunch was standard and acceptable.

Doctors prescribing amphetamines and barbituates routinely. This was "better living through chemistry", and it's actually extremely well documented if you care to look at it. My father remembers it well.

Nobody thought it was a *problem* during the 1950s. Someone who could "hold his liquor" was admired, and if your doctor prescribed pep pills and they gave you more energy, that was great. The Air Force was actually deliberately giving pilots amphetamines.

The fact that nobody worried about the possible damage to critical thinking -- that was the problem. Heavy drinking and heavy use of prescription drugs was absolutely normalized in the 1950s. My dad remembers it well. (He misses the barbituates. Said they were great.)


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> That is all true. That story, however, dates back to the 1920s. The federal government added its backing, for military reasons, in the 1950s.


Whatever military backing for the Interstate Highway system comes from President Eisenhower, who participated in the US Army Transcontinental truck convoy in 1919 and saw firsthand how lousy American roads were outside of parts of the East Coast and California. Then, when he invaded Germany, he was impressed how well the German autobahns help his army move across the country.

I think the military rationale for the interstates at the time was to allow the army to more easily move troops and materiel around in the event of an invasion. Of course, they would also help the invading army move _their_ troops and materiel.  You still sometimes see military convoys driving the interstates, though, I think it's less often than it was a couple of decades ago.


----------



## Skyline

Chessie said:


> Grew up in Pittsburgh in the late 90’s and always wanted to see the inside of the Pennsylvanian. I thought it looked like a castle.



I had a friend who moved into the Pennsylvanian after it first opened. His unit was basic and cramped. Not bad, and one of the first older downtown buildings repurposed for residential. That it was historic was a plus, I think. Fast forward to . . . now . . . buildings all over downtown plus the nearby North and South Sides are becoming residential or mixed residential. The Pennsylvanian was ahead of its time in its reincarnation!


----------



## Bob Dylan

Skyline said:


> I had a friend who moved into the Pennsylvanian after it first opened. His unit was basic and cramped. Not bad, and one of the first older downtown buildings repurposed for residential. That it was historic was a plus, I think. Fast forward to . . . now . . . buildings all over downtown plus the nearby North and South Sides are becoming residential or mixed residential. The Pennsylvanian was ahead of its time in its reincarnation!


It was much better when it was a Train Station!


----------



## Bluejet

crescent-zephyr said:


> The time argument is always interesting to me. Chicago to LA for example “why take a 2 day train trip when you can be there in a few hours!”
> 
> Chicago to LA is going to take up a full day of your time if you choose to fly, unless you take an overnight. It’s not some magical teleportation service.
> 
> Likewise, rail travelers who don’t fly usually act like flying is this crazy hassle which it really isn’t. The TSA is what it is. Just like the grumpy Amtrak crews, you play the game and get where you are going.
> 
> The difference is, our country has invested heavily in passenger air infrustructure. It would be great if we had better and more frequent rail service to both compliment and compete with air service.



While not a magic teleportation device, the plane doesn’t also take a full day to plod across the country. Flight time westbound ORD to SFO is about 4.5 hours, but with a time change so an 8am flight has you into San Fran by 10:30am with a whole day left. Eastbound an 8am flight with a 4 hour flight time arrives by 2 pm, a half day left. There isn’t a market for long range train travel that can really ever compete against the airlines except for unique passengers who want to see scenery or don’t have a time schedule or have a phobia of flying, because they simply can never and will never compete on the basis of time, and no amount of HSR will change that. Again, I’m not saying trains have no place, they certainly do. With proper HSR trains can compete up to and including segments of 500 miles. The problem is as a country we are so spread out that the number of economically feasible HSR markets are few. Obviously San Fran- Los Angeles - San Diego would have been perfect, but geography and politics inflated a bill upwards of 50 billion dollars, an amount even liberal Californians couldn’t stomach. So what are candidates for true competitive HSR? Chicago to MSP, DTW, STL, and maybe even NYC come to mind. The cost and density of real estate on the north east might be prohibitive. Inter connectivity in Florida, Texas, the gulf cities certainly have less barriers. Over all though, while the thought of a massive HSR infrastructure is a grand idea, economics, geography, population sprawl, and much cheaper alternatives (airlines) make it likely a non starter.


----------



## ehbowen

Bluejet said:


> While not a magic teleportation device, the plane doesn’t also take a full day to plod across the country. Flight time westbound ORD to SFO is about 4.5 hours, but with a time change so an 8am flight has you into San Fran by 10:30am with a whole day left. Eastbound an 8am flight with a 4 hour flight time arrives by 2 pm, a half day left. There isn’t a market for long range train travel that can really ever compete against the airlines except for unique passengers who want to see scenery or don’t have a time schedule or have a phobia of flying, because they simply can never and will never compete on the basis of time, and no amount of HSR will change that. Again, I’m not saying trains have no place, they certainly do. With proper HSR trains can compete up to and including segments of 500 miles. The problem is as a country we are so spread out that the number of economically feasible HSR markets are few. Obviously San Fran- Los Angeles - San Diego would have been perfect, but geography and politics inflated a bill upwards of 50 billion dollars, an amount even liberal Californians couldn’t stomach. So what are candidates for true competitive HSR? Chicago to MSP, DTW, STL, and maybe even NYC come to mind. The cost and density of real estate on the north east might be prohibitive. Inter connectivity in Florida, Texas, the gulf cities certainly have less barriers. Over all though, while the thought of a massive HSR infrastructure is a grand idea, economics, geography, population sprawl, and much cheaper alternatives (airlines) make it likely a non starter.


First off, let me say that I love what Japan and others have done with High Speed Rail. If we could replicate some of that success in this country, I'm all for it. But we've already proven (try to reserve a sleeper space on the _California Zephyr_ at the last minute in summer!) that there remains a substantial market for 79/90 mph passenger rail over freight tracks in this country...IF it's done right, IF the equipment is there, IF the dispatching is handled professionally, and lastly IF people know about the service and consider it consistent and reliable!

You can speak of more government takeovers (of the ROW, etc.) all you wish, but my preferred solution is to change the incentives by tax policy and an equalization subsidy to make it attractive for the private railroads, or contractors which they choose and have a good working relationship with, to provide passenger services which they are responsible for from top to bottom and to make (gasp!) an actual profit at if they do a good job. It may not be "cheap" in the Washington sense, but...well, the old saying is that the worst possible waste of money is on a second-rate military service....


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bluejet said:


> While not a magic teleportation device, the plane doesn’t also take a full day to plod across the country. Flight time westbound ORD to SFO is about 4.5 hours, but with a time change so an 8am flight has you into San Fran by 10:30am with a whole day left. Eastbound an 8am flight with a 4 hour flight time arrives by 2 pm, a half day left. There isn’t a market for long range train travel that can really ever compete against the airlines except for unique passengers who want to see scenery or don’t have a time schedule or have a phobia of flying, because they simply can never and will never compete on the basis of time, and no amount of HSR will change that. Again, I’m not saying trains have no place, they certainly do. With proper HSR trains can compete up to and including segments of 500 miles. The problem is as a country we are so spread out that the number of economically feasible HSR markets are few. Obviously San Fran- Los Angeles - San Diego would have been perfect, but geography and politics inflated a bill upwards of 50 billion dollars, an amount even liberal Californians couldn’t stomach. So what are candidates for true competitive HSR? Chicago to MSP, DTW, STL, and maybe even NYC come to mind. The cost and density of real estate on the north east might be prohibitive. Inter connectivity in Florida, Texas, the gulf cities certainly have less barriers. Over all though, while the thought of a massive HSR infrastructure is a grand idea, economics, geography, population sprawl, and much cheaper alternatives (airlines) make it likely a non starter.



4.5 hour flight is going to be a 7 hour process though. 

I totally disagree with you. The market is there. The trains are not there to serve the market. 

Also... has been said many times, it’s not just people with a phobia of flying. There are serious medical conditions that prohibit otherwise healthy people from flying. 

As for California HSR... yes it will cost money. It’s a massive project.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> 4.5 hour flight is going to be a 7 hour process though.


Not always. I have done ORD to SFO in less than 5.5 hours curb to curb. It all depends, like with everything else.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> Not always. I have done ORD to SFO in less than 5.5 hours curb to curb. It all depends, like with everything else.



Curb to curb and from O’hare? That’s impressive. I’m guessing the plane was a bit early into SFO? 

To be fair, I allow lots of extra time in the big airports, I’ll cut it way closer at airports I’m familiar with. 

But still 5.5 curb to curb is still a good chunk of a day... I’m not arguing it’s faster. I’ve flown out to California when the timing didn’t work out... but the way I calculate time the Chief really doesn’t take up that much more of my time than flying from Chicago would.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Curb to curb and from O’hare? That’s impressive. I’m guessing the plane was a bit early into SFO?
> 
> To be fair, I allow lots of extra time in the big airports, I’ll cut it way closer at airports I’m familiar with.
> 
> But still 5.5 curb to curb is still a good chunk of a day... I’m not arguing it’s faster. I’ve flown out to California when the timing didn’t work out... but the way I calculate time the Chief really doesn’t take up that much more of my time than flying from Chicago would.


BTW, what does the Chief have to do with San Francisco? I thought we were talking about ORD to SFO?

Anyway. Even for ORD to LAX, using your numbers, you are essentially claiming that leaving Chicago at 3pm CST and arriving in Los Angeles before 8pm PST the same day (7hrs - 2 hrs. time difference) vs. leaving Chicago at 3pm CST on day 1 and arriving in Los Angeles after two nights and a day early in the morning of day 3 somehow takes up the same amount of your time by some calculation? Is it because the day in the middle is vacation day to enjoy basking in the train instead of spending with friends in Los Angeles and nights one sleeps anyway? 

Just for a reality check of available flights United has a flight departing 3:54pm arriving 6:27pm, and another at 5:50pm arriving at 8:23pm. So close enough.

Admittedly quite puzzled...


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> BTW, what does the Chief have to do with San Francisco? I thought we were talking about ORD to SFO?
> 
> Anyway. Even for ORD to LAX, using your numbers, you are essentially claiming that leaving Chicago at 3pm CST and arriving in Los Angeles before 8pm PST the same day (7hrs - 2 hrs. time difference) vs. leaving Chicago at 3pm CST on day 1 and arriving in Los Angeles after two nights and a day early in the morning of day 3 somehow takes up the same amount of your time by some calculation? Is it because the day in the middle is vacation day to enjoy basking in the train instead of spending with friends in Los Angeles and nights one sleeps anyway?
> 
> Just for a reality check of available flights United has a flight departing 3:54pm arriving 6:27pm, and another at 5:50pm arriving at 8:23pm. So close enough.
> 
> Admittedly quite puzzled...



My original post that bluejet quoted was Chicago to LAX. 

For me, a day of travel is a day of travel. And I don’t count the overnights. So the extra time Chicago to lax is the first day. 

My general point was... people usually say it’s 2 days vs. 4.5 hours. To me it’s a 2 days vs. 1 day. A day of travel feels like a day of travel to me either way. 

Maybe that’s a silly point to make. For me, connections are easy to make at LA as well. Getting to my hotel by the Anaheim convention center is a $10 surfliner ticket vs. a $30 shuttle or $50 Uber from LAX or Ontario. (Well not anymore.... Uber doesn’t serve Ontario I’ve heard). 

so my personal experiences are all being thought of, and each persons experience is different.


----------



## jis

OK. I get it. So my personal experience of traveling from Rosemont, where my hotel for the first conference was to Long Beach where my next conference is will be very different from yours, and in my case even with your strange counting of time, the plane will win out. Makes sense. Thanks.

Interesting that you do not count the day of arrival in Los Angeles as a day of travel, eh?


----------



## ehbowen

crescent-zephyr said:


> My original post that bluejet quoted was Chicago to LAX.
> 
> For me, a day of travel is a day of travel. And I don’t count the overnights. So the extra time Chicago to lax is the first day.
> 
> My general point was... people usually say it’s 2 days vs. 4.5 hours. To me it’s a 2 days vs. 1 day. A day of travel feels like a day of travel to me either way.
> 
> Maybe that’s a silly point to make. For me, connections are easy to make at LA as well. Getting to my hotel by the Anaheim convention center is a $10 surfliner ticket vs. a $30 shuttle or $50 Uber from LAX or Ontario. (Well not anymore.... Uber doesn’t serve Ontario I’ve heard).
> 
> so my personal experiences are all being thought of, and each persons experience is different.


I have to agree. If I'm traveling from Houston to L.A., the day is essentially shot. The choice is between a night at home, a day spent arranging ground transportation, TSA lines, and flying; and then a night in a hotel to be ready for the next day. If I take the train then I leave Houston at dinner time (or should...reliability and OTP is a thing), have a day to spend relaxing, watching scenery, reading a favorite book or listening to music; and then I arrive in L.A. before breakfast ready to take care of business. It is (or, at least, should be) more competitive than you might think.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> Interesting that you do not count the day of arrival in Los Angeles as a day of travel, eh?



Waking up in my roomette and arriving in Union station? No I don’t count that as a day of travel. If I was waking up in coach after a terrible night of little sleep... I would have to count that day as a recover day!

Certainly the plane wins sometimes. For me as well. My last trip To California I simply had to fly because of the timing. And it was fine. Other times the train made as much if not more sense.


----------



## Qapla

When you factor in the cost of road construction and maintenance as well as airport construction and maintenance - those forms of transportation are not as "cheap" as they seem - but, since they are covered by a "Department" their "subsidy" is not as apparent as that of passenger rail. If the amount of money used to build, expand and maintain the nations highways was "granted" in the same way as Amtrak's funds - the amount of "subsidy" would baffle many who think Amtrak should receive less that they currently receive ... not to mention that the nation's highways do not generate any direct revenue - let alone be profitable - like they want Amtrak to be/do.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Bluejet said:


> While not a magic teleportation device, the plane doesn’t also take a full day to plod across the country. Flight time westbound ORD to SFO is about 4.5 hours, but with a time change so an 8am flight has you into San Fran by 10:30am with a whole day left. Eastbound an 8am flight with a 4 hour flight time arrives by 2 pm, a half day left.


Today's minimal airline staffing, long security lines, and tiny regional jets have made what could be a simple process take a lot longer than it should. When it comes to no-status coach passengers (the majority of travelers on any given day) you're leaving out a couple hours of check-in, luggage tagging, security screening, airport restroom use, and luggage retrieval. You're also leaving out a couple hours of connecting time for anyone who doesn't have a daytime price-competitive nonstop option. Most travelers do not have priority status, are not flying in a premium cabin, and do not have security pre-clearance. That extends their travel time a lot more than frequent fliers and airline staff seem to realize.



Bluejet said:


> With proper HSR trains can compete up to and including segments of 500 miles. The problem is as a country we are so spread out that the number of economically feasible HSR markets are few. Obviously San Fran- Los Angeles - San Diego would have been perfect, but geography and politics inflated a bill upwards of 50 billion dollars, an amount even liberal Californians couldn’t stomach. So what are candidates for true competitive HSR? Chicago to MSP, DTW, STL, and maybe even NYC come to mind. The cost and density of real estate on the north east might be prohibitive. Inter connectivity in Florida, Texas, the gulf cities certainly have less barriers. Over all though, while the thought of a massive HSR infrastructure is a grand idea, economics, geography, population sprawl, and much cheaper alternatives (airlines) make it likely a non starter.


So far as I am aware the 500 mile limit is little more than a hypothetical sweet spot that has never been seriously tested in the real world. If people are willing and able to fly 18+ hours, with no ability to leave the aircraft while in flight, I see little reason to assume comfortable and modern HSR service cannot reach into thousands of miles of range. Californians of all types voted for HSR. The governor said he was forced to scale the schedule back after numerous court delays, legal battles over carbon credits, increasing construction costs, and the Federal government's decision to rescind funding. It's hard to gauge the objective suitability of a project that has been as legally sabotaged and politically subverted as CAHSR has been.


----------



## jebr

crescent-zephyr said:


> Waking up in my roomette and arriving in Union station? No I don’t count that as a day of travel. If I was waking up in coach after a terrible night of little sleep... I would have to count that day as a recover day!



Then all travel days aren't equal, and so simply having to travel on a day doesn't necessarily mean that the whole day is written off. Having to deal with very late trains here in MSP, there's not a lot of trips that I can take that don't either require arriving in the middle of the night (per schedule) or having to write off the entire day - a trip from MSP to Portland, for example, could be on time (10:10 AM arrival on the third travel day) or could be multiple hours late, thus requiring me to cancel at least any afternoon plans. Even something as short as MSP - LSE may require writing off the whole day if the train is severely late (which is far more common than when I fly.) If I was doing CHI - LAX, I'd probably still have to write off at least a half-day; between the potential for a late train, still needing to check into a hotel, etc., that would likely make it difficult to plan anything before lunch time.

On the flight side, there's a lot more options for me to take that don't require writing off even one full day of travel. For the Gathering this past year, I did a 6 PM flight MSP - DFW. That only required taking a couple hours off of work (I took off at 2 PM to be on the safe side) and was ready to go the next morning for any activities. Sure, I had to write off the evening, but I'm not huge into night life, so that wasn't a big deal for me. Even an early morning flight isn't too bad; I usually at least can do something in the afternoon before I'm really wanting to go to bed. That's all in coach, occasionally checking a bag, with the only priority line that saves time being TSA Precheck. Rarely do I feel the need to write off an entire day for travel if I'm flying, at least domestically, but I almost always need to write off multiple days each way if I'm taking the train due to very limited routes, late trains, and poor options for recovery during IRROPs.

Now, if there was a comprehensive rail network, with numerous daily frequencies and decent speed, a lot more options would open up for taking the train. Maximize that with HSR and that becomes a much more realistic option, even on 500-1000 mile routes. Sure, NYC - LAX might not be competitive, but it doesn't need to be if there's a lot of short-to-medium distance options that open up (for me, even as far as DEN, DFW, or ATL seems semi-realistic to replace with a HSR train if it was fast enough.)


----------



## jiml

Time to agree to disagree? Flying works in certain situations and trains in others. While it is possible to fly from the Northeast or Chicago to the West coast and still conduct a day's business, the reverse is not true unless using a "red-eye". A lot of the discussion is predicated on non-stop flights, which are not available between many city pairs in today's hub-and-spoke reality of airline operations. HSR - if we see it in North America in our lifetimes - will make a difference in short-haul examples and will add some city pairs to the list that rivals air travel, just as some current rail service already does in the NEC and VIA corridor. Until then there is no rule that applies to every situation.


----------



## Bluejet

Devil's Advocate said:


> Today's minimal airline staffing, long security lines, and tiny regional jets have made what could be a simple process take a lot longer than it should. When it comes to no-status coach passengers (the majority of travelers on any given day) you're leaving out a couple hours of check-in, luggage tagging, security screening, airport restroom use, and luggage retrieval. You're also leaving out a couple hours of connecting time for anyone who doesn't have a daytime price-competitive nonstop option. Most travelers do not have priority status, are not flying in a premium cabin, and do not have security pre-clearance. That extends their travel time a lot more than frequent fliers and airline staff seem to realize.
> 
> 
> So far as I am aware the 500 mile limit is little more than a hypothetical sweet spot that has never been seriously tested in the real world. If people are willing and able to fly 18+ hours, with no ability to leave the aircraft while in flight, I see little reason to assume comfortable and modern HSR service cannot reach into thousands of miles of range. Californians of all types voted for HSR. The governor said he was forced to scale the schedule back after numerous court delays, legal battles over carbon credits, increasing construction costs, and the Federal government's decision to rescind funding. It's hard to gauge the objective suitability of a project that has been as legally sabotaged and politically subverted as CAHSR has been.



You’re arguing with me about cramped coach seats, multiple leg itineraries etc, but really you’re data mining the worst potential situation instead of looking at the most realistic one. I’m guessing that roomette costs more then a buisness class airline fare, so lets go ahead and use that. We were talking Chicago west coast... no regional jets between those major metro centers. Your buisness class fare gets you access to priority screening, priority check in, and potentially club access. If you consider a day totally shot by arriving on the west coast at 10am, I don’t know what to tell you.

As far as long range HSR, it’s just too expensive. A sub 500 network in California is gone because of the price tag, 50+ billion dollars. Now you want to have transcontinental HSR? It’d cost trillions, plus hundreds of billions of dollar in yearly maintenance, and it’d still be far slower then aviation.

Long range trains at this point are simply a boutique way of traveling, likely accounting for less then 1% of travelers between major city pairs on the coasts. If it works for you then great, but if you compare apples to apples in terms of how much you’re paying etc, I still don’t see it as competitive outside of some very unique personal situations.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bluejet said:


> We were talking Chicago west coast... no regional jets between those major metro centers. Your buisness class fare gets you access to priority screening, priority check in, and potentially club access. If you consider a day totally shot by arriving on the west coast at 10am, I don’t know what to tell you.



Business class doesn’t exist on most of those flights. It’s domestic first class or some form of premium coach. 

I’m pretty sure no domestic first class gets you lounge access to any airline... maybe a couple lax to nyc flights but nothing out of Chicago afaik. 


In order to land at 10 am, your have to be at the airport at least at 4 am local time. You’re using the time zones in your favor which you can do, but what time I land doesn’t matter if I’ve been awake for 8 hours before even checking into a hotel. 

Of course if you can sleep on the plane that can help counter that.


----------



## Bluejet

crescent-zephyr said:


> Business class doesn’t exist on most of those flights. It’s domestic first class or some form of premium coach.
> 
> I’m pretty sure no domestic first class gets you lounge access to any airline... maybe a couple lax to nyc flights but nothing out of Chicago afaik.
> 
> 
> In order to land at 10 am, your have to be at the airport at least at 4 am local time. You’re using the time zones in your favor which you can do, but what time I land doesn’t matter if I’ve been awake for 8 hours before even checking into a hotel.
> 
> Of course if you can sleep on the plane that can help counter that.



Domestic first is more then adequate for the 4.5 hour flight time. A 7:19 am flight gets you into LAX by 9:50, get to the airport on your premium fare by 6:00 and you’d be quite ok. The domestic first class fare is $505 on American for next Monday, a roomette is $770, so yes you need to buy club access but you still have plenty of money left over for that and any Uber/ cab needed to get downtown.


----------



## jis

Frankly, who needs Club access when you are trying to minimize time within the system? I do have Club access multiple ways at almost every airport that has reasonable Clubs, in the world, but I seldom use a Club at the originating airport when catching a 7am or earlier flight. A more typical scenario in which I use the Clubs is when I am done with the days work at 5pm and my flight out is at 9pm. The other use of clubs is at connecting hubs, but if it is a major hub depending on whether eating is involved or not, and what eateries are available in the concourse, I may or may not use a Club.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bluejet said:


> Domestic first is more then adequate for the 4.5 hour flight time. A 7:19 am flight gets you into LAX by 9:50, get to the airport on your premium fare by 6:00 and you’d be quite ok. The domestic first class fare is $505 on American for next Monday, a roomette is $770, so yes you need to buy club access but you still have plenty of money left over for that and any Uber/ cab needed to get downtown.



You're the one who said Business Class and free lounge access... now you're trying to make this a numbers game. I'm not saying air travel doesn't make sense, it certainly does for me sometimes. My last trip to the west coast had to be air travel because of the timing.

Your opinions on rail travel and HSR are simply that... opinion. I have a different opinion than you.


----------



## Bluejet

crescent-zephyr said:


> You're the one who said Business Class and free lounge access... now you're trying to make this a numbers game. I'm not saying air travel doesn't make sense, it certainly does for me sometimes. My last trip to the west coast had to be air travel because of the timing.
> 
> Your opinions on rail travel and HSR are simply that... opinion. I have a different opinion than you.



I sais buisness class before because I thought united and American had still run a fair amount of wide bodies (mostly for reposition purpose) between ORD and LAX. It seems they have likely W routed a lot of those flights now between their hubs and international markets instead of using positioning flights.

I’m also not anti rail here. I actually use Amtrak as much as many members of this forum, often 2-3 times a month. Albeit always in the NEC between Connecticut and Boston.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bluejet said:


> I’m also not anti rail here. I actually use Amtrak as much as many members of this forum, often 2-3 times a month. Albeit always in the NEC between Connecticut and Boston.



Have you ridden amtrak for long distance?


----------



## jis

Bluejet said:


> I sais buisness class before because I thought united and American had still run a fair amount of wide bodies (mostly for reposition purpose) between ORD and LAX. It seems they have likely W routed a lot of those flights now between their hubs and international markets instead of using positioning flights.


At least United and Delta (and possibly American too) deploy plenty of domestic configured wide bodies on domestic flights, some of them even with lie flat seats. But in domestic usage the front cabin is usually called First Class, and not designated as whatever they call the front cabin in two or three class planes in international configuration.

They also use international configured wide bodies and 757s for some short turn domestic flights, e.g. Newark to Orlando, in which case they sell the international lie flat business class seats as domestic first class.


----------



## Bluejet

crescent-zephyr said:


> Have you ridden amtrak for long distance?



I’ve ridden on long distance trains, but not over long distances. I’ve been on the Coast Starlight from Seattle to Portland, the Lake Shore Limited between Bos and Alb. Everyone has their own things they are adverse to, for me I gave up common shower rooms etc in college. I’m not judging, it’s just a personal preference. As such I understand aversions to flying, we all have our dislikes.


----------



## Bluejet

jis said:


> At least United and Delta (and possibly American too) deploy plenty of domestic configured wide bodies on domestic flights, some of them even with lie flat seats. But in domestic usage the front cabin is usually called First Class, and not designated as whatever they call the front cabin in two or three class planes in international configuration.
> 
> They also use international configured wide bodies and 757s for some short turn domestic flights, e.g. Newark to Orlando, in which case they sell the international lie flat business class seats as domestic first class.



Understood, the term buisness class is really a misnomer anyways. All the company’s except American are rebranding them anyways to try to differentiate their class products, hence Polaris, Delta One, Mint. Etc. I will say having ridden on all these services, they are quite good when available. As a commercial pilot I often get to ride in mint and overseas delta one... they are good products.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Bluejet said:


> You’re arguing with me about cramped coach seats, multiple leg itineraries etc, but really you’re data mining the worst potential situation instead of looking at the most realistic one.


No, I’m merely countering your rosy best-case scenario with a more common example. Most travelers don’t have advance knowledge of all the various service shortcuts, don’t have a long list of rules and resolutions memorized in their heads, don’t have priority status, and don’t have security pre-clearance. What they do have are stressed nerves, cranky kids, confused pets, and questionable luggage traveling through airports unfamiliar to them.



Bluejet said:


> I’m guessing that roomette costs more then a buisness class airline fare, so lets go ahead and use that. We were talking Chicago west coast... no regional jets between those major metro centers. Your buisness class fare gets you access to priority screening, priority check in, and potentially club access. If you consider a day totally shot by arriving on the west coast at 10am, I don’t know what to tell you.


Out of hundreds of trips I’ve never once been offered "business class" to anywhere in the continental US. What I have been offered, far more often than not, are regional jets and connections. This is true even when traveling to major cities along either coast. I'm not sure what you're talking about with days being shot since I made no such statement. I fly when it makes sense but I would still prefer to travel by high speed rail when and where possible. Your industry is making money right now but it has also lost money for decades and it's especially damaging to the environment. I would prefer to have the option to travel by HSR instead of polluting the atmosphere with even more fossil fuels. My main city pair has lots of wind power generation along the way that could make for a much more responsible method of travel at a perfectly reasonable speed if properly implemented.



Bluejet said:


> As far as long range HSR, it’s just too expensive. A sub 500 network in California is gone because of the price tag, 50+ billion dollars. Now you want to have transcontinental HSR? It’d cost trillions, plus hundreds of billions of dollar in yearly maintenance, and it’d still be far slower then aviation. Long range trains at this point are simply a boutique way of traveling, likely accounting for less then 1% of travelers between major city pairs on the coasts. If it works for you then great, but if you compare apples to apples in terms of how much you’re paying etc, I still don’t see it as competitive outside of some very unique personal situations.


CAHSR is not gone yet. It's been scaled back due to endless legal attacks and political sabotage. For some reason you keep ignoring this point and pretending it doesn't exist. If airports and airlines were under similar attacks they'd be just as difficult and expensive to defend from endless lawsuits and budget overruns. I could go on but you've made it clear that your primary reason for coming here is to bash long distance passenger rail and shill for the airline industry.


----------



## Bluejet

Devil's Advocate said:


> No, I’m merely countering your rosy best-case scenario with a more common example. Most travelers don’t have advance knowledge of all the various service shortcuts, don’t have a long list of rules and resolutions memorized in their heads, don’t have priority status, and don’t have security pre-clearance. What they do have are stressed nerves, tired kids, confused pets, and questionable luggage traveling through airports unfamiliar to them.
> 
> 
> Out of hundreds of trips I’ve never once been offered "business class" to anywhere in the continental US. What I have been offered, far more often than not, are regional jets and connections.
> 
> 
> CAHSR is not gone yet. It's been scaled back due to endless legal attacks and political sabotage. For some reason you keep ignoring this point and pretending it doesn't exist. If airports and airlines were under similar attacks they'd be just as difficult and expensive to defend from endless lawsuits and budget overruns. I could go on but you've made it clear that your primary reason for coming here is to bash long distance passenger rail and shill for the airline industry.



A shill for the airline industry? Ok, I was having a civil discussion that obviously ruffled your feathers. So gloves off. Trains make sense, I have sat here and ADVOCATED for them where they make sense, but sorry if my opinion is over long distances they make little sense unless you intend to spend TRILLIONS of dollars in infrastructure for something that STILL won’t compete against airfares. While we’re at it why don’t we just at build fleets of “high speed ocean liners” to get us to England. The train owns less then 1% of the long distance market, and that 1% requires significant government subsidies to operate in the first place. And I have no doubt one day some technological leap will make airlines look like, well, today’s long range trains. This whole thread was “why long distance trains vs aircraft,”, so as a pilot yeah I think I can chime in reasonably.

Buisness class domestic travel certainly exists. Look at the delta one network, the jetblue mint network. What I find disingenuous is you balking at priority lanes and premium travel while paying thousands for roomettes and bedrooms. If you want to compare a spade to a spade, coach tickets to coach tickets, see how you come out of you long distance train in coach class after 2 days without a shower. If you want to compare a premium experience then compare it to a premium airline experience. You cant data mine the worst of the airlines vs the best the railroad offers.

as for CAHSR, it’s “postponed” (basically dead unless you want to go where... Bakersfield?!?!) Its not political.... it’s MONEY. Even liberal wealthy California won’t pay its up to 90 billion dollar tab.


Lastly, I’m not advocating the elimination of the train. Simply put, as a boutique travel experience it simply doesn’t compete against the airlines on long segments. Short? Yes there are many scenarios where I use and will continue to use their services, speaking of which I’ll likely be on the bright line today.


----------



## jebr

Bluejet said:


> As far as long range HSR, it’s just too expensive. A sub 500 network in California is gone because of the price tag, 50+ billion dollars. Now you want to have transcontinental HSR? It’d cost trillions, plus hundreds of billions of dollar in yearly maintenance, and it’d still be far slower then aviation.



1. As stated above, it's not "gone."

2. You could build a transcontinental HSR network _by building interconnected corridors that are under 1000 miles each._ It might not be time-competitive from the east coast to the west coast, but it should exist for all the major cities along the way. The case is much stronger for NYC - Chicago HSR, then Chicago - Denver HSR (perhaps via St. Louis and Kansas City,) then Denver - Albuquerque - Phoenix HSR, then Phoenix - Las Vegas - Los Angeles HSR. Each of those segments, on its own, is pretty competitive for HSR - 1000 miles max would be 10 hours if we could average even 100 MPH, and 5-10 hours on a train is quite competitive. It'd be even more competitive if we properly account for the emissions caused by flight and require that to be built into the cost of flying - those extra few hours would then likely be worth saving the cost of the short flight (or two short flights, if nothing direct is available.)

We don't build a HSR network for the NYC - LAX market; we build it for all the markets in the middle. Connecting/through traffic is just gravy on top.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bluejet said:


> What I find disingenuous is you balking at priority lanes and premium travel while paying thousands for roomettes and bedrooms.



I do agree with this general point. It annoys me when rail advocates compare a roomette to coach on an airline. I almost always fly first class, just like I always buy a roomette for long distance. (I just look for deals.. I don't have enough status with any airline for the upgrades yet.)


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bluejet said:


> Simply put, as a boutique travel experience it simply doesn’t compete against the airlines on long segments.



This is where you lose me... Amtrak is not a boutique travel experience. I consider the VIA Rail premium rooms a boutique experience but they are operating on a train that still moves Canadians within their own country in both coach and regular sleepers (that's based on my personal travel experience on VIA talking to fellow passengers). 

I feel like a decent percentage of amtrak sleeping car passenger trains on a few select trains could fall into the "boutique" travel or "experiential" but the far majority of coach passengers are using amtrak for transportation. Not a boutique travel experience. I don't have any data, and neither do you, but I'm guessing the majority of sleeping car passengers nationwide are also using amtrak for transportation.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Bluejet said:


> A shill for the airline industry? Ok, I was having a civil discussion that obviously ruffled your feathers. So gloves off…This whole thread was “why long distance trains vs aircraft,”, so as a pilot yeah I think I can chime in reasonably.


That was your version of holding back? Nothing says ruffled feathers like declaring it's time to take the gloves off. Your posts seem stuck in some sort of binary logic trap where we can only have one option or the other, and your wording implies that your views on transportation may come from emotional investment or loyalty to a paycheck rather than calm deliberation. As a pilot with operational shortcuts and insider workarounds it's not that surprising that you would have only the dimmest idea what it's like for average travelers with no special access.



Bluejet said:


> What I find disingenuous is you balking at priority lanes and premium travel while paying thousands for roomettes and bedrooms. If you want to compare a spade to a spade, coach tickets to coach tickets, see how you come out of you long distance train in coach class after 2 days without a shower. If you want to compare a premium experience then compare it to a premium airline experience. You cant data mine the worst of the airlines vs the best the railroad offers.


I'm no stranger to priority lanes or premium airline travel, but I still think it's important to remember that most passengers do not enjoy such benefits. I'm a fan of passenger rail, especially modern highspeed variants, but I am _not_ a fan of Amtrak specifically. Amtrak's pricing, service levels, and fitness for duty are all suspect and if it were possible to replace Amtrak with a better steward tomorrow I would support doing so. Since that's not practical I'm fine with implementing smaller highspeed corridors and then adding longer and longer segments to build out and connect a new network over time. Since airlines are doing so well and priced so competitively it sounds like now is the right time to remove any remaining government assistance and redirect those benefits elsewhere, such as for implementing new HSR.



Bluejet said:


> as for CAHSR, it’s “postponed” (basically dead unless you want to go where... Bakersfield?!?!) Its not political.... it’s MONEY. Even liberal wealthy California won’t pay its up to 90 billion dollar tab.


California may be liberal, but that does not change the fact that it takes a lot less money and effort to hold something back than it does to push it forward, and in my view that is the primary reason HSR has stalled in the US. Originally the plan was to use carbon credits and federal money to help shore up the HSR budget. Numerous legal attacks and political setbacks delayed implementation and raised costs. Partisan adversaries revoked some of CA's funding and financing leaving the state with a higher projected cost and fewer options to resolve it. It's possible that a change in our national government would be able to help bring those options back again. How you're able to separate government funding from politics is beyond my ability to comprehend.


----------



## Bluejet

Devil's Advocate said:


> That was your version of holding back? Nothing says ruffled feathers like declaring it's time to take the gloves off. Your posts seem stuck in some sort of binary logic trap where we can only have one option or the other, and your wording implies that your views on transportation may come from emotional investment or loyalty to a paycheck rather than calm deliberation. As a pilot with operational shortcuts and insider workarounds it's not that surprising that you would have only the dimmest idea what it's like for average travelers with no special access.
> 
> 
> I'm no stranger to priority lanes or premium airline travel, but I still think it's important to remember that most passengers do not enjoy such benefits. I'm a fan of passenger rail, especially modern highspeed variants, but I am _not_ a fan of Amtrak specifically. Amtrak's pricing, service levels, and fitness for duty are all suspect and if it were possible to replace Amtrak with a better steward tomorrow I would support doing so. Since that's not practical I'm fine with implementing smaller highspeed corridors and then adding longer and longer segments to build out and connect a new network over time. Since airlines are doing so well and priced so competitively it sounds like now is the right time to remove any remaining government assistance and redirect those benefits elsewhere, such as for implementing new HSR.
> 
> 
> California may be liberal, but that does not change the fact that it takes a lot less money and effort to hold something back than it does to push it forward, and in my view that is the primary reason HSR has stalled in the US. Originally the plan was to use carbon credits and federal money to help shore up the HSR budget. Numerous legal attacks and political setbacks delayed implementation and raised costs. Partisan adversaries revoked some of CA's funding and financing leaving the state with a higher projected cost and fewer options to resolve it. It's possible that a change in our national government would be able to help bring those options back again. How you're able to separate government funding from politics is beyond my ability to comprehend.



When someone calls me a shill my feathers indeed become ruffled. Yes I enjoy some (limited) benefits from being a pilot. Known crew member is fantastic, and I can use it on domestic personal travel. Internationally I’m right there with everyone, and yes I am well aware of TSA’s shortcomings. It’s an imperfect system, but it is what it is as long as crazy and it politically motivated people still have a desire to use an aircraft as a weapon of mass destruction.

And as I’ve said, let’s build HSR if when, and where it makes sense. A problem with today’s technology though is it’s likely still too expensive to ever recap the costs. At even the lowest estimates of 30 million dollars per mile, any corridors are going to be built for billions upon billions of dollars. And 30 million per mile is a very low estimate.


----------



## Qapla

Before air transport became commonplace - many back then thought it would never fly because the cost of buying planes and building airports was just too much money ... but, they went ahead and invested the money. Now that air and roadway congestion is reaching epidemic proportions, finding an additional means of mass transit would be an investment just like building roadways and airports were - and we have to keep in mind, the roads and airports were built with public money not expecting them to "make a profit".

If the HSR were given the same chance that highways and airports were, it would not be nearly as costly to build them ... but, unlike back when that initial expansion took place, today - law suits, greedy land owners and addition red tape increases the cost of building to an exponential amount that road and air travel did not face during their growing years.

It should also be considered that road and air travel ARE subsidized - it is just not as obvious. Those industries get to use the infrastructure that was built with tax dollars without a direct charge so they can make a profit - but people expect Amtrak to pay for the infrastructure and make a profit


----------



## dlagrua

If we group together the federal and state transportation budgets that number is in the hundreds of billions. Amtrak received about $2 billion in subsidies this year while its operating loss is something like $200 million. That is a bargain for the American taxpayer. 
Now if you examine how much fuel is used per passenger on an Amtrak train going coast to coast; it is a fraction of what is used per passenger on an airline. An airline has a fixed capacity of say two hundred passengers. The train can accommodate more than a thousand passengers who get on and off along that route. Why trains instead of planes? They are far more efficient and serve areas where small airports do not offer much. Many of us here also believe that trains are more comfortable. If the seats get any closer on an aircraft, why before you know it, they will start imposing a weight and size based ticket system as they do with cargo.


----------



## Anderson

I am just going to chime in and note that "priority travel lanes" are something that I resent, but not because "Oooh, it's somebody paying to skip the line". It's because the frakking line shouldn't exist in the first place [1] and essentially a bad situation has been created and then monetized.

[1] Ok, I'll admit that on super-peak days there was likely a bad security line pre-9/11. The issue is that the long line is a _regular_ thing that has been imposed in general at many airports. And I say this as someone who both travels almost exclusively "up front" and who has Global Entry, and thus almost always gets PreCheck.


----------



## Bluejet

dlagrua said:


> If we group together the federal and state transportation budgets that number is in the hundreds of billions. Amtrak received about $2 billion in subsidies this year while its operating loss is something like $200 million. That is a bargain for the American taxpayer.
> Now if you examine how much fuel is used per passenger on an Amtrak train going coast to coast; it is a fraction of what is used per passenger on an airline. An airline has a fixed capacity of say two hundred passengers. The train can accommodate more than a thousand passengers who get on and off along that route. Why trains instead of planes? They are far more efficient and serve areas where small airports do not offer much. Many of us here also believe that trains are more comfortable. If the seats get any closer on an aircraft, why before you know it, they will start imposing a weight and size based ticket system as they do with cargo.



The math was done earlier in the thread, but essentially the train doesn’t have a significant fuel burn advantage over modern jets. Now. Again, it’s a 1980s locomotive pulling entirely too heavy cars, so that could change in the (near) future, but as it currently stands they are pretty comparable.


----------



## toddinde

No


adamj023 said:


> With the expansion of Frontier Airlines, the price of flying has come down to more areas of the country. They have a promo of 75% off.
> 
> Amtrak requires federal and even state subsidies on some routes to stay afloat while Frontier Airlines is a private company as are all other airlines after government deregulated the industry.
> 
> The TSA is the biggest hassle to flying which makes Amtrak more viable for the Northeastern Corridor for instance which is a shorter haul route.
> 
> If I went from NYC to Chicago, IL, plane ticket costs are lower than Amtrak and even with the TSA, travel time is faster.


None of that means anything. Aviation gets huge subsidies at the federal state and local level. But besides that, there is nothing wrong with subsidizing public services. Roads, schools, fire, police, parks, waste water treatment, food inspection; none of it makes money. Nice that you were going from Chicago to New York, but what about people going from Elkhart to Buffalo? Or Cleveland to Rochester? The bottom line is that more people are going to have to travel by rail because of climate change. Air will be reserved for real long haul travel.


----------



## Anderson

Bluejet said:


> The math was done earlier in the thread, but essentially the train doesn’t have a significant fuel burn advantage over modern jets. Now. Again, it’s a 1980s locomotive pulling entirely too heavy cars, so that could change in the (near) future, but as it currently stands they are pretty comparable.


Yes, but what about cases where it _is_ a new(er) locomotive hauling those cars? e.g. How much better is a Charger over one of those 1980s locomotives (or the ACS over a GG-1, for that matter)?


----------



## Bluejet

An Airbus 321-200 with sharklets and V2500 powerplants will burn roughly 35,000lbs on a trip from New York to Los Angeles. At 6.8lbs/ gallon, the Airbus will burn 5150 gallons carrying 159 people in a low density configuration with 16 or those seats in buisness class. The a321neos coming online burn 20% less fuel, so about 4100 gallons. By Amtrak’s reporting (and if I’m wrong here, apologies) long distance trains average .4m mpg, so considering a trip from NYC to Los Angeles the train will burn roughly 7000 gallons. Now, I do realize that the train has a bit more capacity, but likely significantly lower load factor, so there can’t really be a direct burn per hour total comparison, but my guess is the loads are likely similar. Our NYC to LAX flights run 12x daily and have 90+% load factors.

Current AMD103 NYC-LAX r/t
Total 14000 gallons (.4 mpg)

a321CEO 5150 west bound 4100 East (tailwinds)
Total 9250 gallons

Airbus capacity 159 low density ~85% load factor 68 gallons / passenger (actual LF is higher)

Airbus 321 high density 200 passengera
54 gallons /passenger


Train capacity ~340 at ~61% LF (reported by Amtrak for the chief peak July 2018, less for the lake shore) 68 gallons /passenger

charger ~16% fuel burn reduction (reported Siemens) 58 gallons per passengers

a321neo low density ~20% fuel burn reduction
54 gallons per passenger.
A321NEO high density 43 gallons a passenger

If the train had full load factors they would be more efficient then the plane, but how trains run with multiple intermediary stops it’ll always have significantly lower load factor, so based on Amtrak’s numbers, they are almost exactly the same.

Id run airline CHI-LAX but I don’t have aircraft burn numbers for those cities.


----------



## jis

Indeed one of the tragedies in the US is the relatively inefficient operation of passenger trains leading to significantly suboptimal fuel economy. This comes not only from infrequent service leading to poor utilization but also from across the board reluctance and indeed resistance to electrification which immediately yields further energy efficiency due to the ability to regenerate and reuse energy, and indeed use energy from completely renewable sources.


----------



## Qapla

To get an apples-to-apples comparison we might want to compare not gallons/passenger ... but "ton miles" ... since a train carries more luggage than a plane. 

Also, since, as was mentioned, trains run with multiple intermediary stops, we should probably combine the fuel used by the "local puddle jumpers" (shuttle planes) that cover the same cities along a given route - for the example used, NYC to LA, we should also look at the passenger load and fuel used by the planes that only went between the the shorter stops if we are going to include that fuel used by the train that stopped at those cities.


----------



## Trollopian

Skyline said:


> I had a friend who moved into the Pennsylvanian after it first opened. His unit was basic and cramped. Not bad, and one of the first older downtown buildings repurposed for residential. That it was historic was a plus, I think. Fast forward to . . . now . . . buildings all over downtown plus the nearby North and South Sides are becoming residential or mixed residential. The Pennsylvanian was ahead of its time in its reincarnation!


The public areas (lobby and concourse) at the Pennsylvanian are glorious and well-preserved. The apartments are frankly very ordinary. Except for the views. Ceilings are high, enormous (and _heavy_) windows occupy much of that height, and if you're a railfan it's hard to beat this. Would everyone like a view over train tracks? No, but we do. I could never hear the trains, but my cat and I quickly learned to sense a telltale low rumble and we (well, I) would head to the window. It never staled.


----------



## jebr

Qapla said:


> To get an apples-to-apples comparison we might want to compare not gallons/passenger ... but "ton miles" ... since a train carries more luggage than a plane.



It still makes sense to look at it per passenger, since generally* the luggage is directly tied to the people on board that are travelling. Just because the train is heavier, or people bring more on board, doesn't mean that the fuel used to carry passengers' luggage should be considered separately. It's still directly related to getting that passenger from point A to point B.

*Both Amtrak and the airlines have cargo contracts as well, though if anything I'd imagine the airlines would carry a bit more since they have the "super express" niche and still have USPS contracts to carry mail.


----------



## Bluejet

Qapla said:


> To get an apples-to-apples comparison we might want to compare not gallons/passenger ... but "ton miles" ... since a train carries more luggage than a plane.
> 
> Also, since, as was mentioned, trains run with multiple intermediary stops, we should probably combine the fuel used by the "local puddle jumpers" (shuttle planes) that cover the same cities along a given route - for the example used, NYC to LA, we should also look at the passenger load and fuel used by the planes that only went between the the shorter stops if we are going to include that fuel used by the train that stopped at those cities.



Its never been debated trains win on Ton Miles. A super liner car weighs 150-180k pounds...... MGTOW of an A321 is 206,000lbs. Passengers cars, especially super liners are very very heavy, likely way too heavy, hence I said a fuel problem is the weight of the carriages, not just the age of the diesels.

Freight rail will always destroy air freight in fuel efficiency, always.


----------



## Qapla

jebr said:


> It still makes sense to look at it per passenger, since generally* the luggage is directly tied to the people on board that are travelling



Yes and no ... while it is true that luggage directly ties to passengers - a passenger can take much more luggage on the train. True, they may have to pay for "extra" baggage - but they can already take more baggage for free then air passengers can. Also, the extra baggage doe not require sending an extra train like it does/would for the plane - since a plane has to restrict it's weight in order to get off the ground ... excessive baggage would require another plane but excessive baggage does not require an extra train.

In any event ... no one is saying that planes should be discontinued in favor of planes - only that trains should be viewed as equitable means of travel and given the same respect as planes and cars. Planes and cars get the benefit of gov't money in the provision of the airports and roads and no one complains or "requires" the highways to be "profitable" like they do with Amtrak.


----------



## Bluejet

Qapla said:


> Yes and no ... while it is true that luggage directly ties to passengers - a passenger can take much more luggage on the train. True, they may have to pay for "extra" baggage - but they can already take more baggage for free then air passengers can. Also, the extra baggage doe not require sending an extra train like it does/would for the plane - since a plane has to restrict it's weight in order to get off the ground ... excessive baggage would require another plane but excessive baggage does not require an extra train.
> 
> In any event ... no one is saying that planes should be discontinued in favor of planes - only that trains should be viewed as equitable means of travel and given the same respect as planes and cars. Planes and cars get the benefit of gov't money in the provision of the airports and roads and no one complains or "requires" the highways to be "profitable" like they do with Amtrak.



Airlines, more specifically passengers, pay a LOT of taxes and fees that pay for airport access, security, etc. Airlines pay for the airport improvements made via landing fees and leases for facilities. Airlines are the most taxed form of transport in the United States, I don’t know that they are getting a subsidy.

Baggage, In a 200 seat or 159 seat config the airplane can haul as much fuel, people, and baggage as needed to fly a transcon. It won’t bulk out or weight out. Airlines don’t send another plane, if they weight out they deny boarding and send the passengers on the next flight, with a lot of compensation for the inconvenience.

You want to say it’s an equitable form of transport, but it’s simply not. Airlines will send three times as many seats between LAX and JFK then Amtrak will send on their entire long distance network tomorrow out of Chicago. That’s one route. Amtrak provides a niche form of long distance travel, but it’s responsible for less then 1% of what the airlines are doing daily. Probably a lot less then that 1%. From nyc it’ll take you 68 hours vs 6, and cost you more money then a buisness class lie flat seat. That’s not equitable. There might be some situations that are equitable especially from rural communities or such, but from the largest metros over long distances I don’t see it.


----------



## west point

Blue jet. Are your figures for aircraft SFC the whole route or just cruising altitudes ? As well aren't the neos able t cruise at higher altitudes?.


----------



## neroden

1. Regarding contribution to climate change:
Air "puddlejumpers" are shockingly, horrifically inefficient. Far better to fill a train from Utica, Syracuse, and Buffalo to Chicago than to run puddlejumpers from any of those locations to Chicago. I'm sure you can do the math, Bluejet. When you talk about LA-NY jumbo jets, you're doing apples to oranges. Compare apples to apples or I'll consider you to be arguing in bad faith.

2. Airlines are monumentally, massively subsidized.

This is mostly done through airport subsidies. I don't think you can deny that almost all airports in the US have been heavily subsidized for almost their entire existence. Hell, most of them were former Army Air Force bases which were *given for free* for use as civilian airports, so they started right off with free land and facilities. But coming to the modern era, they repeatedly get gigantic subsidies out of state and local tax dollars. (It's ***ing happening again to my local airport, for the third or fourth time, my state tax dollars being wasted on unnecessary airport expansion.) If you don't know this about airport funding, you're ignorant. Airports are DEFINITELY NOT funded just by landing fees, there's huge amounts of state & local tax money going into them.

And then there's "Essential Air Service" -- the annual funding for that is about 1/4 of Amtrak's annual funding by ITSELF! While EAS is justifiable in Alaska, most of the rest of it is subsidies to places which already have passenger train service which is cheaper. And it's subidies to those polluting puddlejumpers, too!c

3. I'm OK with subsidies for transportation, because it benefits the economy. But it's unfair and ridiculous to subsidize airlines by a huge amount, subsidize roads by far, far, far, far more, and then say that we won't subsidize trains.

4. Bluejet, if you don't realize who Amtrak is serving, I suggest you shut up and listen. 

A. There's the 10% of Americans who don't fly at all. Most of them drive. Amtrak is far more efficient than driving and saves the governments of the US a lot of money on highway spending. (Let's be clear -- nearly everyone going between the biggest of cities on Amtrak is in this group. We absolutely should support these people, it's 10% of the population, it's more expensive for taxpayers if they're all driving.)
B. There's people going from third-tier cities to big cities. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of them. Again, most of them drive. Amtrak is far more efficient than driving, again, and saves the government money. But also, Amtrak is massively more efficient on these routes than flying polluting, low-capacity puddlejumpers multiple times per day. That's not even commercially viable in a lot of places, hence "Essential Air Service"... and cities which don't have an air option at *all*.

Amtrak isn't really competing with flying, it's competing with driving. But on the other hand, flying is totally uncompetitive in most of the "puddlejumper" markets, and the puddlejumpers only exist to feed passengers into the big-airplane routes. Trains can do this just as well or better, which is why the airlines (who mostly want to get out of the puddlejumper business) have started supporting train service.

5. To help break you of your misguided airline-based point-to-point thinking, I suggest you think about Amtrak's longer-distance routes as being like the Interstate Highways. How many people take the Interstate route all the way from New York to Chicago -- let alone NY to LA? Very few. Most of the people using the interstates are taking much shorter trips. However, it is efficient to have one connected-up network so that it is *possible* to drive from NY to Chicago, even though most people will be driving from NY to Poughkeepsie, Syracuse to Buffalo, or South Bend to Chicago. This is exactly what Amtrak long-distance routes do.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Indeed one of the tragedies in the US is the relatively inefficient operation of passenger trains leading to significantly suboptimal fuel economy. This comes not only from infrequent service leading to poor utilization but also from across the board reluctance and indeed resistance to electrification which immediately yields further energy efficiency due to the ability to regenerate and reuse energy, and indeed use energy from completely renewable sources.



In addition, due to starvation funding, Amtrak is usually using really archaic locomotives. (Fuel efficiency went up significantly when the Sprinters arrived.) If you want to compare locomotive to airplane fuel efficiency, you would have to compare Amtrak's P42s with planes of the same era. So it's cheating to compare it to the A321neo, you have to compare it to the original 1994 A321.

Also, Amtrak passenger cars are too heavy. This is the result of archaic 1940s FRA regulations which have *finally* been repealed but only a couple of years ago.


----------



## Bluejet

west point said:


> Blue jet. Are your figures for aircraft SFC the whole route or just cruising altitudes ? As well aren't the neos able t cruise at higher altitudes?.



They are actual release burn. I was able to pull up a release on a random day and look at the burn number. Today’s modern software combined with computer modeled winds is shockingly accurate. Burn and EFOB (estimated fuel on board destination) are usually modeled within 2-300 lbs.

The NEOs don’t necessarily climb higher, though sometimes they can just by virtue that they carry less fuel, and thus weigh less allowing for a higher max recommended cruising altitude. The sharklets instead of wingtip fences allow for a 2000 foot increase in cruise altitude. Depending on wind the aircraft will give you a recommended max altitude (weight dependent) and an optimal cruise altitude. (Wind and weight dependent) Usually we will aim for the next highest cruise altitude above optimal as our cruise altitude, traffic dependent.


----------



## Bluejet

neroden said:


> In addition, due to starvation funding, Amtrak is usually using really archaic locomotives. (Fuel efficiency went up significantly when the Sprinters arrived.) If you want to compare locomotive to airplane fuel efficiency, you would have to compare Amtrak's P42s with planes of the same era. So it's cheating to compare it to the A321neo, you have to compare it to the original 1994 A321.
> 
> Also, Amtrak passenger cars are too heavy. This is the result of archaic 1940s FRA regulations which have *finally* been repealed but only a couple of years ago.




I did. Read the post above. I compared an a321CEO and an A321NEO to a genesis and a Sprinter. I also agree that half the battle is the hugely overweight cars, and lets be honest, the buy America stuff isn’t helping because even if you want a foreign off the shelf design, the manufacturer now has to spend massively to set up a FAL somewhere in the states just to be able to deliver the product. No where are the airlines required to buy domestic goods.


Also, I will not compare it to a 1994 a321 because A) I don’t have exact burn data, and B) were not in 1994. The failure of the railroads to innovate even reasonably isn’t the fault of the airlines they compete against. Airbus constantly innovates their products, so things like sharklets should absolutely be in the mix. A 1994 a321 while having the same components as one built in 2017 was woefully inadequate for what the airlines are doing with it today. Sharklets, weight reduction programs, multiple MTOGW programs, aux tanks, higher output motors have all contributed to the a321CEO being what it is when the last one rolls off the production line shortly vs what Airbus rolled out in 1994. The rail industry in this country could learn some things about innovation and constant updates of their products like the aviation manufacturers have committed to.


----------



## Bluejet

neroden said:


> 1. Regarding contribution to climate change:
> Air "puddlejumpers" are shockingly, horrifically inefficient. Far better to fill a train from Utica, Syracuse, and Buffalo to Chicago than to run puddlejumpers from any of those locations to Chicago. I'm sure you can do the math, Bluejet. When you talk about LA-NY jumbo jets, you're doing apples to oranges. Compare apples to apples or I'll consider you to be arguing in bad faith.
> 
> 2. Airlines are monumentally, massively subsidized.
> 
> This is mostly done through airport subsidies. I don't think you can deny that almost all airports in the US have been heavily subsidized for almost their entire existence. Hell, most of them were former Army Air Force bases which were *given for free* for use as civilian airports, so they started right off with free land and facilities. But coming to the modern era, they repeatedly get gigantic subsidies out of state and local tax dollars. (It's ***ing happening again to my local airport, for the third or fourth time, my state tax dollars being wasted on unnecessary airport expansion.) If you don't know this about airport funding, you're ignorant. Airports are DEFINITELY NOT funded just by landing fees, there's huge amounts of state & local tax money going into them.
> 
> And then there's "Essential Air Service" -- the annual funding for that is about 1/4 of Amtrak's annual funding by ITSELF! While EAS is justifiable in Alaska, most of the rest of it is subsidies to places which already have passenger train service which is cheaper. And it's subidies to those polluting puddlejumpers, too!c
> 
> 3. I'm OK with subsidies for transportation, because it benefits the economy. But it's unfair and ridiculous to subsidize airlines by a huge amount, subsidize roads by far, far, far, far more, and then say that we won't subsidize trains.
> 
> 4. Bluejet, if you don't realize who Amtrak is serving, I suggest you shut up and listen.
> 
> A. There's the 10% of Americans who don't fly at all. Most of them drive. Amtrak is far more efficient than driving and saves the governments of the US a lot of money on highway spending. (Let's be clear -- nearly everyone going between the biggest of cities on Amtrak is in this group. We absolutely should support these people, it's 10% of the population, it's more expensive for taxpayers if they're all driving.)
> B. There's people going from third-tier cities to big cities. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of them. Again, most of them drive. Amtrak is far more efficient than driving, again, and saves the government money. But also, Amtrak is massively more efficient on these routes than flying polluting, low-capacity puddlejumpers multiple times per day. That's not even commercially viable in a lot of places, hence "Essential Air Service"... and cities which don't have an air option at *all*.
> 
> Amtrak isn't really competing with flying, it's competing with driving. But on the other hand, flying is totally uncompetitive in most of the "puddlejumper" markets, and the puddlejumpers only exist to feed passengers into the big-airplane routes. Trains can do this just as well or better, which is why the airlines (who mostly want to get out of the puddlejumper business) have started supporting train service.
> 
> 5. To help break you of your misguided airline-based point-to-point thinking, I suggest you think about Amtrak's longer-distance routes as being like the Interstate Highways. How many people take the Interstate route all the way from New York to Chicago -- let alone NY to LA? Very few. Most of the people using the interstates are taking much shorter trips. However, it is efficient to have one connected-up network so that it is *possible* to drive from NY to Chicago, even though most people will be driving from NY to Poughkeepsie, Syracuse to Buffalo, or South Bend to Chicago. This is exactly what Amtrak long-distance routes do.




If you want to have a conversation then let’s have a conversation, the whole “shut up and listen” but gets old.

Amtrak vs “puddle jumpers”. I don’t know how many times I have to agree with people that Amtrak is far more efficient on short sub 400 miles journeys, so in case you haven’t heard... Amtrak is more efficient on short journeys. I take Amtrak almost weekly, on a short journey getting me to my aircraft.

EAS- a complete and utter waste for the most part of tax payer money.

Aiports- are usually bonded and landing fees, fuel taxes, etc pay for expansion and facilities. Even the 10 billion dollar expansion of JFK will be paid back via leasing fees and landing fees. Yes the original land was given and original airports were built to create a network, just like the original freight railroads were gifted their original right of ways. Today there is little if any subsidies being doled out, much like the freight railroads. You are correct that the original infrastructure was government built, but today little subsidy remains.

Highway modeling. That’s fine, again I’ve said that for some rural costumers long distance rail makes sense. No where, and I mean no where, have I advocated shutting down your long distance network. I’ve just stated it’s not competitive over long distances versus the airlines and that it is a niche travel product.

An a321 is not a “jumbo jet”. I’m arguing about long distance railroads vs flying. Short range I there’s a reason Acela and the railroads make so much sense and own so much market share.... they can compete in every way. Corridor services are very necessary, and very competitive. It’s long range rail in this country that is a niche public transportation product. You talk about arguing in bad faith, I’m having a discussion, one only necessarily because of the multitude of bad information that’s being put up on this thread. “Airplanes burn 10x as much gas as the train! A transcontinental jet burns 20000 gallons of gas to cross the country!” All hogwash, so there are the numbers. Regional jets can’t compete on short range flying against jets. Agreed. Short range trains make a lot of sense. Agreed. Long range trains are more fuel efficient then jets. Disagree.


----------



## jiml

neroden said:


> Also, Amtrak passenger cars are too heavy. This is the result of archaic 1940s FRA regulations which have *finally* been repealed but only a couple of years ago.


I am seeing both sides of the larger "argument" here, but this is a point, originally made by Bluejet, that deserves more attention. ("A super liner car weighs 150-180k pounds...... MGTOW of an A321 is 206,000lbs. Passengers cars, especially super liners are very very heavy, likely way too heavy, hence I said a fuel problem is the weight of the carriages, not just the age of the diesels.") If planes were built to the same standards as railroad passenger cars they would cost a lot more to fly - if they could fly at all. To compare the two goes far beyond apples and oranges. In those countries where railroad travel is held up as a model, passenger cars can be built to a lower and lighter standard for many reasons that contrast with the realities in North America, which include everything from greater sharing with heavy freight, more level crossings, more single track over longer distances, etc.


----------



## Qapla

A few things come to mind with this discussion.

At present, air travel is what it is and Amtrak travel is what it is. How to proceed going forth with regards to "long distance" travel seems to be the theme of this thread - but may have been a bit sidetracked or left sitting on the taxiway.

If you go back to when trains were the major way to travel across the country and cars were a new idea and the airline industry had not yet come in to existence what was the thinking?

Back at that time, as cars started to make an impact, an almost bottomless pit of money was made available to build a roadway system for this new means of travel. During this time, as the use of planes started to catch on - there were many who thought that, since planes were a niche market, they would never last and funding them was a mistake. There were many lawmakers who thought plane travel would die off - just like some thought when Amtrak was created.

Now, if those attitudes, funding major road construction and airport and air service (like air traffic control), had continued, there would not be Interstates and major air travel today.

However, now that the shoe is on the other foot, there are many who still think passenger trains should go away ... that they don't make sense. Actually, they make just as much sense as the Interstate Highway system did in the 1950's ... even though there were not enough cars on the road to warrant the planned expenditure of such a system - but, it was funded, built and is now part of the congestion problem because it is so extensively used.

Passenger rail was "thrown under the bus" and was not given the same funding then, or now, as the highway and air systems have gotten. If they had, it would not require the massive amounts of money needed to fix them. Again, if the reasoning is used that the cost is just too high ... think of where roads and air travel would be if that thinking had continued with respects to those industries. Perhaps one of the reasons that passenger rail has such a low % of the long distance travel market is because it hasn't been funded, supported and encouraged as much as roads and air. If the same funding had been made available to passenger rail as was given to road construction and airport expansion - Amtrak would probably be carrying a far larger percentage of the LD traffic than it currently does.

Yes, it will cost money to fix the problems ... but that is an investment in the future the same as the Interstate spending was in the 1950's.

It really doesn't matter if trains can compete "head-to-head" with planes for long distance travel ... both methods are needed and should be funded and retained. It should NOT be an either/or type of thing.



BTW - I live near I-10 and I 75 in Florida ... I have never traveled either of these roads from end-to-end even though I have used them quite extensively. That does not mean that I think they should just be "corridor" service with nothing being available in the wide-open areas where these Interstates go on for miles without any access to them (no local interchange).


----------



## Barb Stout

When I fly, I almost always have to first fly to some hub before getting to my final destination. Most of the hubs are way out of the way and some in the opposite direction of my final destination. It has been this way my entire life (my first flight was in the early '70s). Do you know what proportion of the flying population goes through these wasted trips and/or the impact of this situation on CO2 production?



Bluejet said:


> If you want to have a conversation then let’s have a conversation, the whole “shut up and listen” but gets old.
> 
> Amtrak vs “puddle jumpers”. I don’t know how many times I have to agree with people that Amtrak is far more efficient on short sub 400 miles journeys, so in case you haven’t heard... Amtrak is more efficient on short journeys. I take Amtrak almost weekly, on a short journey getting me to my aircraft.
> 
> EAS- a complete and utter waste for the most part of tax payer money.
> 
> Aiports- are usually bonded and landing fees, fuel taxes, etc pay for expansion and facilities. Even the 10 billion dollar expansion of JFK will be paid back via leasing fees and landing fees. Yes the original land was given and original airports were built to create a network, just like the original freight railroads were gifted their original right of ways. Today there is little if any subsidies being doled out, much like the freight railroads. You are correct that the original infrastructure was government built, but today little subsidy remains.
> 
> Highway modeling. That’s fine, again I’ve said that for some rural costumers long distance rail makes sense. No where, and I mean no where, have I advocated shutting down your long distance network. I’ve just stated it’s not competitive over long distances versus the airlines and that it is a niche travel product.
> 
> An a321 is not a “jumbo jet”. I’m arguing about long distance railroads vs flying. Short range I there’s a reason Acela and the railroads make so much sense and own so much market share.... they can compete in every way. Corridor services are very necessary, and very competitive. It’s long range rail in this country that is a niche public transportation product. You talk about arguing in bad faith, I’m having a discussion, one only necessarily because of the multitude of bad information that’s being put up on this thread. “Airplanes burn 10x as much gas as the train! A transcontinental jet burns 20000 gallons of gas to cross the country!” All hogwash, so there are the numbers. Regional jets can’t compete on short range flying against jets. Agreed. Short range trains make a lot of sense. Agreed. Long range trains are more fuel efficient then jets. Disagree.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bluejet said:


> It’s long range rail in this country that is a niche public transportation product.



At least you changed boutique to niche. If we are talking cross country, I agree the number of people who would rather take multiple trains for multiple days vs. the people who would prefer to fly are a smaller niche. It's a niche that does exist for a variety of reasons but I agree. But nobody is suggesting we should run a sealed non-stop train from New York to LA for those few niche people. It just so happens that even a moderately connected long distance system serves that niche market.


----------



## Bluejet

crescent-zephyr said:


> At least you changed boutique to niche. If we are talking cross country, I agree the number of people who would rather take multiple trains for multiple days vs. the people who would prefer to fly are a smaller niche. It's a niche that does exist for a variety of reasons but I agree. But nobody is suggesting we should run a sealed non-stop train from New York to LA for those few niche people. It just so happens that even a moderately connected long distance system serves that niche market.



Boutique was a poor choice of words, niche I think conveys better what I meant.


----------



## Bluejet

Barb Stout said:


> When I fly, I almost always have to first fly to some hub before getting to my final destination. Most of the hubs are way out of the way and some in the opposite direction of my final destination. It has been this way my entire life (my first flight was in the early '70s). Do you know what proportion of the flying population goes through these wasted trips and/or the impact of this situation on CO2 production?




I think it depends on where you live and where you fly to or take the rail road to. Yes hubs exist to transit passengers, they exist all over and are generally not that far out of the way. If you live on a rural stop on say the California Zephyr where you only transit between that stop and San Fran or Chicago, or any of the other large cities then maybe you save on emissions. But are you transiting to another city anywhere else? Then it seems you are talking apples and apples, a transit via an Amtrak “hub”. Chicago btw is the most convenient East west transit point for any mode of transit. A great tool is the great circle mapper, it can show you fairly quickly how out of sorts your transit options are.


----------



## neroden

I got moderated for being snippy, so let us try again.

The so-called long distance trains are really corridor trains. They are more efficient than airlines for their core travel markets, such as Toledo to Chicago and Cleveland to Buffalo. They have all the virtues of any other corridor train. It just happens that by connecting them up, running the train NY Poughkeepsie Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Cleveland Toledo Elkhart South Bend Chicago, you also serve the 10% of Americans who do not fly. This is a bonus, not the core market. The train's primary market is from those intermediate cities, Utica, Poughkeepsie, Toledo, South Bend. Cities whose air service is small, inefficient, half-full planes.

The airline mentality may be blinding Bluejet, because airplane routes practically always run point to point, maybe with one intermediate stop. Trains are different. Serving the Charlottesville to Chicago traffic and the Cincinnati to DC traffic is most efficiently done on one train. Optimal train routes are far, far longer than the city pairs they are primarily serving -- economies of scale apply. But you should not consider the Cardinal to be a Chicago to NY train -- that is simply incorrect in terms of its primary markets. It is a Charlottesville VA and Cincinnati train, taking passengers from those places to larger cities.

(In fact, the 10% of Americans who do not fly would never take the Cardinal from NY to Chicago or from DC to Chicago for transportation... we would take the LSL or Capitol Limited. Nevertheless it makes operational sense to run the Cardinal from NY to Chicago to serve the NY to Charlottesville, Cincinnati to DC, and Charlottesville to Chicago markets simultaneously, rather than trying to serve them with separate trains.)

I get very frustrated at this extremely common analytical error.

Long distance trains ARE corridor trains. Period. You need to understand that. Their primary market is from third tier cities to big cities. The ridership and revenue statistics prove it. It is simply more economically efficient to join a corridor leading to Chicago with a corridor leading to New York, so that there is an anchor on both ends, than to run a bunch of shorter corridor trains which misconnect. This can be demonstrated mathematically; you get higher load factors on an LA-SF train than on an LA-SLO train plus an SF-SLO train, because you serve a bunch of extra city pairs "for free".

This does not justify running a train through the void between San Antonio and El Paso, but then I never supported that. I support the corridor trains which are misleadingly referred to as "long distance".

The Interstate analogy applies. Hardly anyone takes I-90 from the east coast to Chicago; it exists because of all the intermediate exits. The few people who do drive NY to Chicago get served incidentally, but the main traffic is to and between intermediate points.


----------



## neroden

Barb Stout said:


> When I fly, I almost always have to first fly to some hub before getting to my final destination. Most of the hubs are way out of the way and some in the opposite direction of my final destination. It has been this way my entire life (my first flight was in the early '70s). Do you know what proportion of the flying population goes through these wasted trips and/or the impact of this situation on CO2 production?



This is normal. All the flights out of Ithaca go in the wrong direction, detouring wrong-way to Detroit for all but a couple of destinations; Elmira is worse; Rochester and Buffalo are getting pretty bad too. (Syracuse is still OK but for how long?). When I have found direct flights from third-tier cities to desirable first tier citirs, as with Bismarck ND to Chicago, they are usually in puddlejumpers.

Amtrak is not competing with NY-LA flights; they are an irrelevance. Amtrak is competing with Syracuse to Springfield, MA flights (which involve three legs, two hubs, and massively out of the way travel). Amtrak can provide direct service cost effectively because a train can stop at lots of intermediate stops cheaply.


----------



## seat38a

neroden said:


> I got moderated for being snippy, so let us try again.
> 
> The so-called long distance trains are really corridor trains. They are more efficient than airlines for their core travel markets, such as Toledo to Chicago and Cleveland to Buffalo. They have all the virtues of any other corridor train. It just happens that by connecting them up, running the train NY Poughkeepsie Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Cleveland Toledo Elkhart South Bend Chicago, you also serve the 10% of Americans who do not fly. This is a bonus, not the core market. The train's primary market is from those intermediate cities, Utica, Poughkeepsie, Toledo, South Bend. Cities whose air service is small, inefficient, half-full planes.
> 
> The airline mentality may be blinding Bluejet, because airlines practically always run point to point, maybe with one intermediate stop. Trains are different. Serving the Charlottesville to Chicago traffic and the Cincinnati to DC traffic is most efficiently done on one train. Optimal train routes are far, far longer than the city pairs they are primarily serving -- economies of scale apply. But you should not consider the Cardinal to be a Chicago to NY train -- that is simply incorrect in terms of its primary markets. It is a Charlottesville VA and Cincinnati train, taking passengers from those places to larger cities.
> 
> I get very frustrated at this extremely common analytical error.
> 
> Long distance trains ARE corridor trains. Period. You need to understand that. Their primary market is from third tier cities to big cities. The ridership and revenue statistics prove it. It is simply more economically efficient to join a corridor leading to Chicago with a corridor leading to New York, so that there is an anchor on both ends, than to run a bunch of shorter corridor trains which misconnect. This can be demonstrated mathematically; you get higher load factors on an LA-SF train than on an LA-SLO train plus an SF-SLO train, because you serve a bunch of extra city pairs "for free".
> 
> This does not justify running a train through the void between San Antonio and El Paso, but then I never supported that. I support the corridor trains which are misleadingly referred to as "long distance".
> 
> The Interstate analogy applies. Hardly anyone takes I-90 from the east coast to Chicago; it exists because of all the intermediate exits.



Well I think it works better for all LD trains if there were more reliable real corridor frequency to overlap the the LD train. For example, the the Coast Starlight overlaps with 3 separate high frequency corridor service along its route and the CS gets sold as one of the frequency when inside 3 corridors. From PDX -> SEA, the CS fills what I would consider an important time slot at 3:56 going northbound. Even southbound it fits nicely in at 9:45 am departure for Portland. Same with the less frequent North of LA Surfliner. Train 14 also fits in nicely as the last train going north from San Jose to compliment the Capitol Corridor at 8:23 PM, which is little over an hour after the last Capitol Corridor train at 7:15PM.

Even the CZ Eastbound at 9:10 AM slots into a nice hourly slot for Bay Area to Sacramento but seems to overlap on the Westbound.


----------



## neroden

seat38a said:


> Well I think it works better for all trains if there were more reliable real corridor frequency to overlap the the LD train. For example, the the Coast Starlight overlaps with 3 separate high frequency corridor service along its route and the CS gets sold as one of the frequency when inside 3 corridors.



Certainly. (Also, on time performance is critically important,)

The LSL joins up with the Maple Leaf from Toronto, plus two additional frequencies from Niagara Falls, to cross NY State. Then it meets up with the Adirondack and Ethan Allen at Albany and they all head for NYC, being joined by more trains from Albany and by Metro North at Poughkeepsie. The Boston section of the LSL is joined by MBTA commuter rail at Worcester.

I have advocated for an LSL reroute from Toledo through Dearborn to join the Michigan Service.

In fact, nearly every so-called long-distance train is the extension of a higher frequency corridor, or several. I will go through them all...

LSL: see above
CL: MARC service DC to West Virginia
Cardinal: NEC, Roanake service (also Crescent)
Crescent: NEC, Roanake service, plus part of the Carolinian & Piedmont
Silver Star & Meteor & Palmetto: NEC, VRE, Virginia Regional, Carolinian, + SunRail & TriRail
CONO: Illini/Saluki
TE: Lincoln Service
SWC: Quincy trains, Metra
CZ: Quincy trains, Metra, Capitol Corridor at the other end
EB: Hiawathas
Coast Starlight: Cascades, part of the Capitol Corridor, Surfliners

(Yes, the poor old Sunset Limited has got nothing. It is atypical.)


----------



## ehbowen

Bluejet said:


> Yes hubs exist to transit passengers, they exist all over and are generally not that far out of the way.


My last flight was from Kalispell (Whitefish), Montana back to Houston. I had to connect via Seattle...no more direct option. Are you stating that's atypical?


----------



## ehbowen

neroden said:


> (Yes, the poor old Sunset Limited has got nothing. It is atypical.)


I'm not in favor of discontinuing the _Sunset Limited_, by any means, but just as a blue-sky proposal what would you say to resurrecting the _California Special_ as a NOL-HOS-TPL-Lubbock-ABQ train with connections at Temple to/from the _Texas Eagle_ and operating it as a diverging section of the _Southwest Chief_, with or without the reroute via Amarillo?

Edit To Add: Especially if it was made a daily train?


----------



## neroden

ehbowen said:


> I'm not in favor of discontinuing the _Sunset Limited_, by any means, but just as a blue-sky proposal what would you say to resurrecting the _California Special_ as a NOL-HOS-TPL-Lubbock-ABQ train with connections at Temple to/from the _Texas Eagle_ and operating it as a diverging section of the _Southwest Chief_, with or without the reroute via Amarillo?
> 
> Edit To Add: Especially if it was made a daily train?


ABQ-Lubbock-(near Abilene)-Temple-Houston-NOL makes plenty of sense. And everything should be at least daily.

Though consider Denver-Pueblo-Amarillo-Lubbock-Temple-Houston-NOL. Especially if the SWC were rerouted via Amarillo, which could be an interchange.

None of this will happen, because Texas. Unless the demographic trends in Texas change the politics faster than I expect. I expect that by the time the politics change, Texas Central will be running.

If Texas Central opens, the network should be restructured around it. Similarly, Amtrak should seriously plan on restructuring Florida service around Brightline.


----------



## seat38a

neroden said:


> Certainly. (Also, on time performance is critically important,)
> 
> The LSL joins up with the Maple Leaf from Toronto, plus two additional frequencies from Niagara Falls, to cross NY State. Then it meets up with the Adirondack and Ethan Allen at Albany and they all head for NYC, being joined by more trains from Albany and by Metro North at Poughkeepsie. The Boston section of the LSL is joined by MBTA commuter rail at Worcester.
> 
> I have advocated for an LSL reroute from Toledo through Dearborn to join the Michigan Service.
> 
> In fact, nearly every so-called long-distance train is the extension of a higher frequency corridor, or several. I will go through them all...
> 
> LSL: see above
> CL: MARC service DC to West Virginia
> Cardinal: NEC, Roanake service (also Crescent)
> Crescent: NEC, Roanake service, plus part of the Carolinian & Piedmont
> Silver Star & Meteor & Palmetto: NEC, VRE, Virginia Regional, Carolinian, + SunRail & TriRail
> CONO: Illini/Saluki
> TE: Lincoln Service
> SWC: Quincy trains, Metra
> CZ: Quincy trains, Metra, Capitol Corridor at the other end
> EB: Hiawathas
> Coast Starlight: Cascades, part of the Capitol Corridor, Surfliners
> 
> (Yes, the poor old Sunset Limited has got nothing. It is atypical.)



I'm not sure if those Non Amtrak commuter / corridor services help Amtrak's LD trains or not since you can't buy tickets for both trains as one can for Amtrak run LD and corridors. Only Amtrak / Commuter that are complimentary that I know of is Metrolink, Coaster and the Surfliner which does offer recipricol benefits for monthly pass holders. Also, schedule patterns for the West Coast does seem to point to better schedule coordination. LOSSAN has been working to prevent schedule conflicts between Amtrak and Metrolink to prevent delays on both. You can probably better chime in on the other lines than I can.


----------



## Bluejet

ehbowen said:


> My last flight was from Kalispell (Whitefish), Montana back to Houston. I had to connect via Seattle...no more direct option. Are you stating that's atypical?



That’s not typical. A transit via SLC wouldn’t have been too far out of the way and is available.


----------



## Bluejet

neroden said:


> I got moderated for being snippy, so let us try again.
> 
> The so-called long distance trains are really corridor trains. They are more efficient than airlines for their core travel markets, such as Toledo to Chicago and Cleveland to Buffalo. They have all the virtues of any other corridor train. It just happens that by connecting them up, running the train NY Poughkeepsie Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Cleveland Toledo Elkhart South Bend Chicago, you also serve the 10% of Americans who do not fly. This is a bonus, not the core market. The train's primary market is from those intermediate cities, Utica, Poughkeepsie, Toledo, South Bend. Cities whose air service is small, inefficient, half-full planes.
> 
> The airline mentality may be blinding Bluejet, because airplane routes practically always run point to point, maybe with one intermediate stop. Trains are different. Serving the Charlottesville to Chicago traffic and the Cincinnati to DC traffic is most efficiently done on one train. Optimal train routes are far, far longer than the city pairs they are primarily serving -- economies of scale apply. But you should not consider the Cardinal to be a Chicago to NY train -- that is simply incorrect in terms of its primary markets. It is a Charlottesville VA and Cincinnati train, taking passengers from those places to larger cities.
> 
> (In fact, the 10% of Americans who do not fly would never take the Cardinal from NY to Chicago or from DC to Chicago for transportation... we would take the LSL or Capitol Limited. Nevertheless it makes operational sense to run the Cardinal from NY to Chicago to serve the NY to Charlottesville, Cincinnati to DC, and Charlottesville to Chicago markets simultaneously, rather than trying to serve them with separate trains.)
> 
> I get very frustrated at this extremely common analytical error.
> 
> Long distance trains ARE corridor trains. Period. You need to understand that. Their primary market is from third tier cities to big cities. The ridership and revenue statistics prove it. It is simply more economically efficient to join a corridor leading to Chicago with a corridor leading to New York, so that there is an anchor on both ends, than to run a bunch of shorter corridor trains which misconnect. This can be demonstrated mathematically; you get higher load factors on an LA-SF train than on an LA-SLO train plus an SF-SLO train, because you serve a bunch of extra city pairs "for free".
> 
> This does not justify running a train through the void between San Antonio and El Paso, but then I never supported that. I support the corridor trains which are misleadingly referred to as "long distance".
> 
> The Interstate analogy applies. Hardly anyone takes I-90 from the east coast to Chicago; it exists because of all the intermediate exits. The few people who do drive NY to Chicago get served incidentally, but the main traffic is to and between intermediate points.




That makes sense. The thread though is why trains over planes over long distances. We agree trains make sense over short distances, And I’ll agree that those trains serve corridors. They exist and are a transportation option.


----------



## ehbowen

Bluejet said:


> That’s not typical. A transit via SLC wouldn’t have been too far out of the way and is available.



It wasn't at the time I flew (March 2014).


----------



## seat38a

Bluejet said:


> That’s not typical. A transit via SLC wouldn’t have been too far out of the way and is available.


Sounds like flying on Alaska.(Unless I missed a post or 2). Sometimes smaller airlines don't exactly have the most efficient routing like the big 3 with their multiple hubs.


----------



## ehbowen

neroden said:


> ABQ-Lubbock-(near Abilene)-Temple-Houston-NOL makes plenty of sense. And everything should be at least daily.
> 
> Though consider Denver-Pueblo-Amarillo-Lubbock-Temple-Houston-NOL. Especially if the SWC were rerouted via Amarillo, which could be an interchange.



I like both of those thoughts, and I wish that we lived in a world where "both/and" was a viable option. I'd hate to lose through service to San Antonio, El Paso, Tucson and the Phoenix metro area especially at a time when all are booming, but I think that daily service over the old _California Special_ route might be a wiser use of Amtrak's limited equipment than the currently struggling triweekly _Sunset_.


----------



## ehbowen

seat38a said:


> Sounds like flying on Alaska.(Unless I missed a post or 2). Sometimes smaller airlines don't exactly have the most efficient routing like the big 3 with their multiple hubs.



Yep.


----------



## Qapla

The original post for this thread was actually a very simple question ...

It was not about why trains or planes "make sense" for LD travel ... it was why some "prefer" to take the train.


> Just curious as to why folks prefer the trains for long distance as opposed to planes"



Why someone may "prefer" one type of travel than another has nothing to do with some of the arguments presented in the 300+ posts in this thread. In fact, a simple "I just like to ride the trains" is a valid response to the OP question ...


----------



## ehbowen

Well, I just like to ride the trains....


----------



## Bluejet

Qapla said:


> The original post for this thread was actually a very simple question ...
> 
> It was not about why trains or planes "make sense" for LD travel ... it was why some "prefer" to take the train.
> 
> 
> Why someone may "prefer" one type of travel than another has nothing to do with some of the arguments presented in the 300+ posts in this thread. In fact, a simple "I just like to ride the trains" is a valid response to the OP question ...




Absolutely. A very valid response. Another.... I hate to fly, another valid response. I'm afraid of heights. Valid. I love to see the country. Valid. My entire point of entering this thread was the non valid responses that were down right mis-information. I ride trains because planes burn 10 times as much gas. Not Valid. Transcontinental flights burn 20000+ gallons fuel to cross the country. Nope. I ride trains long distances to save the environment. Debatable. I ride trains because i'm giving up a whole day so why not give up another day and a half. (I still dont understand that one) I ride trains because the TSA takes so long and coach class on the airlines is like cattle, so I'm going to pay 5x as much for a roomette. ( have you perhaps tried a more premium airline product)


----------



## jis

seat38a said:


> I'm not sure if those Non Amtrak commuter / corridor services help Amtrak's LD trains or not since you can't buy tickets for both trains as one can for Amtrak run LD and corridors.


At least when I lived in NJ, the existence of NJT service definitely helped Amtrak, and sometimes even helped the airlines too, since I often took NJT from either Short Hills (on M&E off the NEC) or Metropark (on NEC) to either Trenton or Newark to catch LD trains, and incidentally to Newark Airport too, to catch flights. Metropark parking lot was much cheaper than Newark Airport lots even taking into consideration the RT fare on NJT between MET and EWR. Buying tickets pretty much became a non issue since I could buy them at my leisure on my Smartphone.


----------



## ehbowen

Bluejet said:


> Absolutely. A very valid response. Another.... I hate to fly, another valid response. I'm afraid of heights. Valid. I love to see the country. Valid. My entire point of entering this thread was the non valid responses that were down right mis-information. I ride trains because planes burn 10 times as much gas. Not Valid. Transcontinental flights burn 20000+ gallons fuel to cross the country. Nope. I ride trains long distances to save the environment. Debatable. I ride trains because i'm giving up a whole day so why not give up another day and a half. (I still dont understand that one) I ride trains because the TSA takes so long and coach class on the airlines is like cattle, so I'm going to pay 5x as much for a roomette. ( have you perhaps tried a more premium airline product)



I've flown first class exactly once (it was a complimentary upgrade, else my company would never have paid for it). The bigger seat was nice, but there really wasn't that much difference over coach (of course, I was smaller then...). On board a train, OTOH, the upgrade from Coach to Sleeper is like the difference between night and day (quite literally...). As far as the "travel days" argument goes, in my case it's just to demonstrate that aboard a train a lot of what would be "dead time" in air travel can be used productively. Yes, a lot of times when I was a merchant seaman (early 90s) I would wake up at four in the morning to get to the airport to take a six am flight, and be on the ship and at work by two in the afternoon (transfers from airport to seaport can take a while).

But when I'm on my own nickel...you know what? I don't LIKE waking up at four in the morning! And with TSA, you can't reliably count on making a six am flight with an hour lead time (because everyone else is trying to make the same flight), so that's a THREE am wake-up call! So push back to a more reasonable hour of the day...and the TSA lines get longer, and the traffic to the airport gets worse (on both ends), and before you know it the entire day is basically shot.

Now, of course, it depends upon how far I'm going. We had an Alaska cruise out of Vancouver planned for September 2017 (Hurricane Harvey had other plans). And, yes, we would have flown to and from that cruise although it would have been possible to take Amtrak from Houston, to L.A., to Seattle, overnight there, and continue on Amtrak to Vancouver. And to take the Alaska Railroad and Marine Highway back! If I'd had unlimited money and time I would have done exactly that, but shoehorning that and an eleven day cruise/tour into a two-week vacation period just doesn't fit. So I would have gritted my teeth, woke up at three am (actually, would have paid extra for a hotel room at the big airport...extra night and expense to the trip), and suffered through airline coach for the duration (and much worse than that for the return from Fairbanks via Anchorage and Seattle). But when I was planning to travel from Houston to L.A. for a convention in May 2018, I didn't even seriously look at the airlines even though I now live within walking distance of Hobby Airport (well...hiking!). Much better to leave downtown at dinner time, spend a day relaxing aboard the _Sunset Limited_, and arrive L.A. before breakfast the second morning...at least as far as I'm concerned.

Rail travel doesn't work for all trips, obviously. But for certain city pairs it can be competitive in all respects. Depart Houston at lunchtime and arrive St. Louis immediately after breakfast the next day, spending less (for a Roomette shared two ways) than it would have cost to buy even the cheapest ticket available on Southwest Airlines at the time? A no-brainer, again as far as I'm concerned. I do agree that I'm cherry-picking my cases...but I also think that with a bit of wise management and consistent investment that there could be a good bit more cherries on dat tree....


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Bluejet said:


> I ride trains because i'm giving up a whole day so why not give up another day and a half. (I still dont understand that one)



That’s not at all what I said. I said the difference between flying is not 4.5 hours vs. 2 days. To me it’s the difference between 1 travel day and 2.


----------



## Barb Stout

Bluejet said:


> That’s not typical. A transit via SLC wouldn’t have been too far out of the way and is available.


Much of the time when I fly to Columbus Ohio from ABQ, I have been routed through Atlanta. I do choose my flights based on price, so maybe if I paid more, I would get a more sensible hub. I have not seen any direct flights from either Phoenix or ABQ to Columbus in all the decades that I have been flying there (early '80s). I am starting to see some transfers through Dallas in the last couple of years, which is only a little out of the way and one doesn't encounter weather situations there as much as going through Denver in the winter.


----------



## keelhauled

When I flew out of Logan Airport a couple months ago, I was through security in less than ten minutes, without any airline priority (based on status or onboard class) or TSA precheck/CLEAR. It probably would have been a bit longer a few hours earlier at the height of the morning rush, but I can’t remember the last time I had a line for security more than half an hour at any time of the day.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

ehbowen said:


> I've flown first class exactly once (it was a complimentary upgrade, else my company would never have paid for it). The bigger seat was nice, but there really wasn't that much difference over coach (of course, I was smaller then...). On board a train, OTOH, the upgrade from Coach to Sleeper is like the difference between night and day (quite literally...)



The difference between domestic coach and domestic first class is the same type of night and day difference for me. I would encourage you to give it another try.


----------



## jis

Actually IMHO comparing a Domestic air FC with an Amtrak Roomette is somewhat apples and oranges. A domestic flight is seldom longer than 6-7 hours, which is equivalent to a longish Amfleet I kind of ride on a corridor service. It is not like an overnight ride. So an appropriate comparison should be between Amtrak Business Class and Domestic First Class in air.

An Apples to apples comparison with Roomette on an east of Mississippi Amtrak LD would be with a 10 - 15 hour international flight with lie flats up front. I think a roomette falls somewhere between a lie flat pod in most airlines and a First Class Suite on the likes of Emirates.


----------



## ehbowen

crescent-zephyr said:


> The difference between domestic coach and domestic first class is the same type of night and day difference for me. I would encourage you to give it another try.


For you, perhaps. But I no longer travel as a condition of employment; at least, not presently. All of my travel is on my own nickel and for my own enjoyment. And, to me, airline first class is not worth the upcharge. Amtrak sleeper service is.


----------



## jloewen

jis said:


> At least when I lived in NJ, the existence of NJT service definitely helped Amtrak, and sometimes even helped the airlines too, since I often took NJT from either Short Hills (on M&E off the NEC) or Metropark (on NEC) to either Trenton or Newark to catch LD trains, and incidentally to Newark Airport too, to catch flights. Metropark parking lot was much cheaper than Newark Airport lots even taking into consideration the RT fare on NJT between MET and EWR. Buying tickets pretty much became a non issue since I could buy them at my leisure on my Smartphone.


Well, back to what was perhaps the original thread (lost in the sands of time ...), I use shorter long-distance trains for business, to get from Washington, DC, where I live, to engagements in such overnight places as Chicago, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Savannah, Jacksonville, and, when there was a sleeper, Boston. For such trips, Amtrak is definitely competitive. Re Chicago, for example, no need to figure out how best to get from ORD to downtown, no need to rent a hotel room, just get on at c.3:45PM and enjoy the scenery along the Potomac, then have dinner and sleep and shower and breakfast and get off in the Loop. You have to sleep anyway, so why not multitask and move while sleeping?
Now, WAS to Seattle is a different matter!
Another idea: when I had to speak in Glendive, MT, it was simply easier to fly to MKE, then take the Empire Builder to Williston ND, then rent a car, compared to the four different flights required from WAS. Most people, especially business travelers, never think to take the plane TO the train, but often it's the best way. For another example, from Boston to Oxford, MS, required departure after 5PM, it was more efficient efficient to fly to Midway, then taxi to Homewood, then City of New Orleans to Memphis, arriving in time to speak/work before 10AM. Could not be done any other way.
Of course, on-time performance is required for business travel....


----------



## crescent-zephyr

ehbowen said:


> For you, perhaps. But I no longer travel as a condition of employment; at least, not presently. All of my travel is on my own nickel and for my own enjoyment. And, to me, airline first class is not worth the upcharge. Amtrak sleeper service is.



Either way I’m paying for personal space. In first class I don’t have to worry about sitting next to a stranger that prohibits my ability to sit in a comfortable position for a few hours. The extra leg room and service is a nice bonus but just like an Amtrak roomette, I’m not paying for the food, I’m paying for the personal space. 

But everyone is different, in the past I never paid to upgrade to business class on corridor trains on Amtrak, was a waste of money I said. Then I rode on a train from Carbondale in coach with a group of just released inmates on the way back to Chicago..... after that business class became worth it! Plus the 2-1 seating is great on the trains that have it.


----------



## Bluejet

jis said:


> Actually IMHO comparing a Domestic air FC with an Amtrak Roomette is somewhat apples and oranges. A domestic flight is seldom longer than 6-7 hours, which is equivalent to a longish Amfleet I kind of ride on a corridor service. It is not like an overnight ride. So an appropriate comparison should be between Amtrak Business Class and Domestic First Class in air.
> 
> An Apples to apples comparison with Roomette on an east of Mississippi Amtrak LD would be with a 10 - 15 hour international flight with lie flats up front. I think a roomette falls somewhere between a lie flat pod in most airlines and a First Class Suite on the likes of Emirates.




The point I was making is the money aspect. Comparing a $200 basic economy fare to a roomette or bedroom which can be more then a thousand dollars isn’t apples to apples. If you are willing to pay for the roomette why not splurge on a first class ticket which usually affords you amenities like expedited boarding, larger luggage allotments, and expedited security. That’s all, I realize the hard products are not similar, though for the duration of time you’re exposed to them they really don’t have to be.


----------



## Bluejet

crescent-zephyr said:


> Either way I’m paying for personal space. In first class I don’t have to worry about sitting next to a stranger that prohibits my ability to sit in a comfortable position for a few hours. The extra leg room and service is a nice bonus but just like an Amtrak roomette, I’m not paying for the food, I’m paying for the personal space.
> 
> But everyone is different, in the past I never paid to upgrade to business class on corridor trains on Amtrak, was a waste of money I said. Then I rode on a train from Carbondale in coach with a group of just released inmates on the way back to Chicago..... after that business class became worth it! Plus the 2-1 seating is great on the trains that have it.



I don’t often upgrade to buisness on Amtrak because I’m usually on sub 2 hour trains. Where I have and always do is in Europe. The buisness class upgrades on OBB, Bahn, and Trenitalia is night and day. Far less crowded, far more space, and a very reasonable up-charge.


----------



## Qapla

I have not traveled in a roomette on Amtrak - but I have ridden in coach from Fl to NY (17+ hour ride) - this has been primarily due to the cost of a roomette over the cost of coach.

I realize that to travel from Jacksonville to Los Angeles is much different. By plane it looks to take 8-10 hours in the air while it would take about 90 hours on the train.

Cost wise, the flight looks to run about $250-$320 in a seat and by train it would run $295 in coach to $1377 in a roomette.

For me - I would not be going to LA if I did not have sufficient time to enjoy myself. I have no reason or desire to got here for business. So, since I do not fly, I would have no problem taking Amtrak coach both ways and save the extra $1,000 each way that a roomette would cost.

Now, if they discontinued LD trains - I would just never go to California - since I am not going to fly.


I might add, if they would reinstate the route from Jax to NO - it would take about 35 hours off the trip by train.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Qapla said:


> I realize that to travel from Jacksonville to Los Angeles is much different. By plane it looks to take 8-10 hours in the air while it would take about 90 hours on the train.



In the air time is not 8 - 10 hours. There doesn't appear to be any direct flights from JAX to LAX, so the times you're seeing include layovers. Philly to Los Angeles can be done in just over 6 hours on a direct flight


----------



## Qapla

Like I said, I don't fly ... so, I don't know the intricacies of schedules - I just did a Google search of JAX to LAX and the results showed those times ... the results did not specify layover times.

The 90 hours on the train also included layover times ... so, essentially, I was comparing trip vs trip times - I did not include any travel to airport/depot times or waiting times at point of origin or security times ... just the trip.

Regardless ... I would still take the train - I don't fly!


----------



## Bluejet

Qapla said:


> Like I said, I don't fly ... so, I don't know the intricacies of schedules - I just did a Google search of JAX to LAX and the results showed those times ... the results did not specify layover times.
> 
> The 90 hours on the train also included layover times ... so, essentially, I was comparing trip vs trip times - I did not include any travel to airport/depot times or waiting times at point of origin or security times ... just the trip.
> 
> Regardless ... I would still take the train - I don't fly!



Why not?

Ironically my best friend in the world is the same way. His sister in law just announced she’s getting married... in California. We’re in Connecticut. His phobia of flying is so great that he’s going to likely take Amtrak or drive. Heck, I’ve given him opportunities to even occupy cockpit jump seats to alleviate his fears, he won’t do it. It is what it is, some people just won’t fly even when their best friend can get them darn cheap business class seats.


----------



## Qapla

I can't take heights. 

I've had offers to go up for free. I have a friend that flies private twin engine jet ... the guy he works for has one that seats 8 if I remember ... he flies from Ocala, Fl to Jackson, Wy several times a week and I was invited to go with him all expenses paid... but, I do not like heights!

I have been 35 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean in a 24' boat with a Chevy 400 engine and a MerCruiser stern drive and I have also been down 95' in the Atlantic .... but then, boats and going under water don't bother me. I always wanted to go down in a sub ...

Have no desire to go up in a plane.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Qapla said:


> I can't take heights.
> 
> I've had offers to go up for free. I have a friend that flies private twin engine jet ... the guy he works for has one that seats 8 if I remember ... he flies from Ocala, Fl to Jackson, Wy several times a week and I was invited to go with him all expenses paid... but, I do not like heights!
> 
> I have been 35 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean in a 24' boat with a Chevy 400 engine and a MerCruiser stern drive and I have also been down 95' in the Atlantic .... but then, boats and going under water don't bother me. I always wanted to go down in a sub ...
> 
> Have no desire to go up in a plane.


As someone who's done both,( I am a Private Pilot) Nowdays I'd rather go down in the Sub than put up with the hassles @ the Airport and the discomfort aboard Airliners!


----------



## neroden

ehbowen said:


> I like both of those thoughts, and I wish that we lived in a world where "both/and" was a viable option. I'd hate to lose through service to San Antonio, El Paso, Tucson and the Phoenix metro area especially at a time when all are booming, but I think that daily service over the old _California Special_ route might be a wiser use of Amtrak's limited equipment than the currently struggling triweekly _Sunset_.


Well, FWIW, the political obstacles to Denver-Texas service are twofold:
1. Coal traffic south of Denver; have to buy off the freight railroads, though it gets chapter every year as coal traffic declines.
2. Apathy and unwillingness to spend money on rail in Texas at the state level and in the smaller cities (like Amarillo and Lubbock).

Overcome these two problems and I think that line could be established on its own (not cannibalizing anything else). The Colorado end has advocacy and local government support, while the Texas end has capacity on the tracks and a fairly friendly potential host (BNSF).


----------



## neroden

Bluejet said:


> Absolutely. A very valid response. Another.... I hate to fly, another valid response. I'm afraid of heights. Valid. I love to see the country. Valid. My entire point of entering this thread was the non valid responses that were down right mis-information. I ride trains because planes burn 10 times as much gas. Not Valid. Transcontinental flights burn 20000+ gallons fuel to cross the country. Nope. I ride trains long distances to save the environment. Debatable. I ride trains because i'm giving up a whole day so why not give up another day and a half. (I still dont understand that one) I ride trains because the TSA takes so long and coach class on the airlines is like cattle, so I'm going to pay 5x as much for a roomette. ( have you perhaps tried a more premium airline product)



Paying for any airline product premium enough for my girlfriend with arthritis to be comfortable in a plane means a lie flat seat at minimum. The pressure change due to altitude inherently makes arthritis worse, so the hard product has to be better than Amtrak to provide a comparable experience medically.

There are very few lie flat flights in the domestic US market. They are more expensive than Amtrak roomettes, by a lot (with the exception of the Hawaii routes) and they do not travel where I am going anyway. Remember, I am starting from central NY, Ithaca. The planes departing from Ithaca are puddlejumpers, and those departing from Syracuse are at best narrrowbodies. The airlines DO NOT OFFER a premium experience from my starting point.

You can get recliner first class from Syracuse, with a hard product comparable to coach on Amtrak, for a substantially higher price than an Amtrak roomette. Suddenly Amtrak looks like the better deal if you are not in a rush.

Again, your failure to consider the smaller-city markets is what is blinding you here. Would I fly lie-flat first class from NYC to LA? Sure, but I am not starting in NYC!!!

Likewise, when I quit flying, there was no way around the TSA abuses, and departing from Ithaca or Syracuse, there probably still isn't. They are too small for "express precheck" lines. (For me it was not the time in the TSA lines but the arbitrary and capricious changes of rules. I have to pack expensive custom toiletries and food for medical reasons and I do not like randomly having to throw part of it out on TSA whim.)


BTW, when you start looking at the pricing of premium airline products, things get interesting. A lie flat air trip from NY to London is much more expensive than a sea trip on the Queen Mary 2 -- though much quicker, of course. I am going to be talking to Cunard's about how to buy a return ticket, since they seem to blindly assume that people will want to fly back...


----------



## Siegmund

A lot of the recent posts in this thread have been leaping to comparing airline first class with roomettes. 

Let me remind you that *in coach* you can get a seat that actually reclines, a legrest, 52-inch seat pitch, a big window next to every row, a guarantee you'll never be in a middle seat, and a lot less engine noise. (And the ability to get up and move around, and the use of the lounge car, etc etc.) 
I have often said with tongue only partially in cheek that domestic airlines offer only fourth and fifth class. 

I sleep quite comfortably in coach, as long as I bring my own blanket pillow and blindfold with me - which I can as there is no strict baggage allowance. 

On the money front, the times I get my work to buy me a roomette are the times that my train trip is replacing a flight *and* a night in a hotel.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> Actually IMHO comparing a Domestic air FC with an Amtrak Roomette is somewhat apples and oranges. A domestic flight is seldom longer than 6-7 hours, which is equivalent to a longish Amfleet I kind of ride on a corridor service. It is not like an overnight ride. So an appropriate comparison should be between Amtrak Business Class and Domestic First Class in air.
> 
> An Apples to apples comparison with Roomette on an east of Mississippi Amtrak LD would be with a 10 - 15 hour international flight with lie flats up front. I think a roomette falls somewhere between a lie flat pod in most airlines and a First Class Suite on the likes of Emirates.



It’s apples to apples as they both get you across the country in reasonable comfort.

When I’m comparing modes of transit to get to California, I’m comparing roomette vs. domestic first class. I’m never comparing a roomette to California to a first class seat to another continent.


----------



## jis

Hey it’s a free country. You are free to compare whatever you like [emoji1]


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> I can't take heights.
> 
> I've had offers to go up for free. I have a friend that flies private twin engine jet ... the guy he works for has one that seats 8 if I remember ... he flies from Ocala, Fl to Jackson, Wy several times a week and I was invited to go with him all expenses paid... but, I do not like heights!
> 
> I have been 35 miles out in the Atlantic Ocean in a 24' boat with a Chevy 400 engine and a MerCruiser stern drive and I have also been down 95' in the Atlantic .... but then, boats and going under water don't bother me. I always wanted to go down in a sub ...
> 
> Have no desire to go up in a plane.


I don't mind the heights, especially when enclosed inside an airplane, it's the roller-coaster ride during turbulence that freaks me out. Looking out the window seeing the wings flexing doesn't help, either. I know it's (mostly) safe, and the real danger from turbulence is getting hit by stuff flying around the cabin, not the plane falling out of the sky, but my inner ear and I really don't like the sensation of free fall.

Also, as a human male getting on in years, the fact that you may have to spend significant portions of the flight with seat belts fastened and unable to use the lavatory makes flying less pleasant for me than it used to be. (It's one of the reasons why I specify aisle seats when I can, even though I do like to look out the window and see the clouds and scenery.)

As for being at sea, I've seen some You Tube videos of large cruise ships rolling around in some pretty heavy seas, and stuff like the bow of a large freighter getting totally submerged by a 50 ft. wave, and I think if I were on board, I'f be pretty freaked out at that too. 

Heck, I've been a little freaked of lying in my Superliner berth when it rolls at 79 mph over a bit of rough track and bounces around like it's going to fly off the rails. The Acela going at full speed does that occasionally, too. But it's never quite as bad as bumping around in a turbulent flight. I'm in fight or flight mode from the moment drive up to the airport until the moment the plane touches down at the end of the flight. However, I've learned to relax a little bit, and not get too upset unless I hear the pilot say, "flight attendants, please take your seats and fasten your seat belts."


----------



## Qapla

I guess this qualifies for this thread .... Amtrak seats recline much better

https://www.washingtonpost.com/trav...r-reclined-seat-internet-is-split-whos-wrong/

https://nypost.com/2020/02/15/woman...e-controversy-wants-to-sue-american-airlines/


----------



## crescent-zephyr

That could happen just as easily on Amtrak. A podcast I listen to had a similar altercation in first class on delta.


----------



## Qapla

crescent-zephyr said:


> That could happen just as easily on Amtrak. A podcast I listen to had *a similar altercation in first class on delta*.



Hmmm.... Isn't "Delta" an airline?

I guess it "could" happen on Amtrak - if a person had long enough arms, since the seats in coach are not as close together as they are in coach on a plane - but, so far, have not seen any stories about such an incident on a train go viral like this one on a plane did - just sayin'


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Qapla said:


> Hmmm.... Isn't "Delta" an airline?
> 
> I guess it "could" happen on Amtrak - if a person had long enough arms, since the seats in coach are not as close together as they are in coach on a plane - but, so far, have not seen any stories about such an incident on a train go viral like this one on a plane did - just sayin'



Of course it is. But I said delta first class which is between Amtrak regional coach and LD coach. 

I could see it happening on Amtrak, those seats recline quite a bit.


----------



## Qapla

Yes, I guess it "could" happen on Amtrak ... it DID happen on a plane


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Qapla said:


> Yes, I guess it "could" happen on Amtrak ... it DID happen on a plane



I mean a passenger on Amtrak DID stab people on a Michigan train and an Amtrak employee DID rape a passenger on an Amtrak train but I’m not saying that’s a reason to fly instead of taking Amtrak.


----------



## Thirdrail7

I've seen it happen on trains. Then again, I watched two women ram each other's laptops as they shared a table. Each alleged the other passenger was invading each other's space.


----------



## Qapla

Whatever ....

There are some who want to ride trains

There are some who want to ride planes

Both will get from where you are to where you want to go

Why is it so important that those of us who would rather one over the other try to "convince" the other that they should "want" to ride what we do ... and, yes, I have joined in this futile debate

I think I will leave this thread for now


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Qapla said:


> Whatever ....
> 
> There are some who want to ride trains
> 
> There are some who want to ride planes
> 
> Both will get from where you are to where you want to go
> 
> Why is it so important that those of us who would rather one over the other try to "convince" the other that they should "want" to ride what we do ... and, yes, I have joined in this futile debate
> 
> I think I will leave this thread for now


You're the one who posted about what could happen on planes. Nobody was trying to convince others to ride planes. You seem to have been trying to convince others to avoid planes.


----------



## Qapla

The title of the thread is "Why trains instead of planes" ... NOT ... Why planes instead of trains"

However, it seems that every time someone extols taking the train over the plane the idea gets shot down since planes are so much faster.

I merely posted an example of a current viral news item that speaks to "why trains instead of planes" - as the title of the thread specifies - I am not trying to convince anyone to avoid planes ... just stating WHY a train instead of a plane.

I'm sorry that my comments may have been taken the wrong way .... had the title been "Why planes instead of trains", I would not have advocated for trains in the thread.


----------



## Ryan

You're missing the point. Let's recap.



Qapla said:


> Hmmm.... Isn't "Delta" an airline?
> 
> I guess it "could" happen on Amtrak





crescent-zephyr said:


> I could see it happening on Amtrak





Qapla said:


> Yes, I guess it "could" happen on Amtrak





Thirdrail7 said:


> I've seen it happen on trains.





Qapla said:


> Whatever ....



You stress the "could" happen on trains to try and indicate that trains are better, since it has happened on planes, but was only a theoretical possibility on a train.

Right up the point where someone pointed out that it does happen on trains, and your answer is "whatever" and continue to blather on.


----------



## SarahZ

You resurrected a topic that’s been dead for two months and then threw a tantrum when people commented in kind.

If a thread upsets you that much, maybe you should avoid reading it.


----------



## jis

Thirdrail7 said:


> I've seen it happen on trains. Then again, I watched two women ram each other's laptops as they shared a table. Each alleged the other passenger was invading each other's space.



I guess just having a chance to watch two women going en garde with their laptops could be reason enough to ride Amtrak [emoji51]! Juuust kidding ‍


----------



## BLNT

Allowing everything else to be equal (it's not!), planes are my preferred mode of travel when I have a higher need to be to my destination relatively ON TIME. We've taken the Auto Train 4 times now in the last couple of months:

1> 12 hour delay
2> 5 hour delay
3> 30 minutes EARLY!
4> 2 hour delay

Not considered a good statistical sampling, but they're MY statistics!


----------



## JRR

BLNT said:


> Allowing everything else to be equal (it's not!), planes are my preferred mode of travel when I have a higher need to be to my destination relatively ON TIME. We've taken the Auto Train 4 times now in the last couple of months:
> 
> 1> 12 hour delay
> 2> 5 hour delay
> 3> 30 minutes EARLY!
> 4> 2 hour delay
> 
> Not considered a good statistical sampling, but they're MY statistics!



Just to comment on the topic: Now that I’m retired, I have the luxury of time so that I can afford (in terms of time) to travel by train. While working, the train was only practical for me traveling Baltimore to Washington or NYC. 

Now, however, time wise, I can consider it for long distance. Why would I consider doing so? Mainly because it is a relaxing and enjoyable way of traveling and the trip itself is as much a part of the travel experience as the destination.

That being said, what are the downsides? First of all, for long distance travel, I consider a sleeper is essential for comfort and enjoy ability. The downside is cost which for the most part is much more expensive than first class airfare. Secondly, for a lot of destinations the departure and arrival times are very inconvenient (middle of the night etc) and ability to connect for truly long distance travel. The lack of frequency, ie the Cardinal and Sunset, make it difficult to plan trips. The lack of on time performance also affects connectivity.

As a result, in planning a long distance trip, one needs to plan stop overs. While this can be used to advantage to visit other cities enroute, it also increases the costs and again makes the long distance travel an “experiential” choice rather than merely an option for getting from a to b.

Thus, from my point of view, long distance train travel is really a luxury but one I enjoy despite the increased costs and downgrades in service I have seen take place over the last few years (whether or not one blames Anderson, Congress, or someone else).

Notwithstanding the above, I’m still a fan!


----------



## Samsbigtrip

Caro said:


> I also agree - I’m coming to the States from the UK in part just for the fun of riding the trains


Me too, Caro! Travelling in May from Wiltshire to Grants Pass in Oregon to visit a fantastic quilt fabric shop (Jordan Fabrics), drive to California to dip my toe in the Pacific, hug a Redwood, go horseback riding Western Style and TAKE THE TRAIN (Empire Builder) from Seattle to Chicago and on to Norfolk then New York to stay with friends. I started planning this trip on 15th December and I have 92 days to go - so, so excited!


----------



## oregon pioneer

Samsbigtrip said:


> Me too, Caro! Travelling in May from Wiltshire to Grants Pass in Oregon to visit a fantastic quilt fabric shop (Jordan Fabrics), drive to California to dip my toe in the Pacific, hug a Redwood, go horseback riding Western Style and TAKE THE TRAIN (Empire Builder) from Seattle to Chicago and on to Norfolk then New York to stay with friends. I started planning this trip on 15th December and I have 92 days to go - so, so excited!



Oh, my, that sounds like an absolutely wonderful trip, and I am sure you will have a great time!

This brings up my response to the poster above, and anyone else that compares the cost to first class on an airline and then says that train accommodations are more expensive. If I compared the cost to the airline PLUS a hotel for the same number of days, PLUS three meals a days for those days, and THEN figured in taking an extra day off because, after all, when you take the plane the vacation doesn't start till you arrive at your destination -- well, then, the train would compare very favorably. For me, it is part of the vacation, and I am trading the amenity of lots of space and food choice for the amenity of a constantly changing view out the window.

Just my take on it. When I have the time to include a train as part of my vacation, I will. YMMV.


----------



## Samsbigtrip

oregon pioneer said:


> Oh, my, that sounds like an absolutely wonderful trip, and I am sure you will have a great time!



Thank you!



oregon pioneer said:


> when you take the plane the vacation doesn't start till you arrive at your destination.



Oh I think my holiday starts when I shut my front door behind me. Or perhaps when I start packing (in that case I'm already on holiday!), or when I start planning - in which case this holiday will last 5 months ;-)


----------



## crescent-zephyr

oregon pioneer said:


> If I compared the cost to the airline PLUS a hotel for the same number of days, PLUS three meals a days for those days, and THEN figured in taking an extra day off because, after all, when you take the plane the vacation doesn't start till you arrive at your destination -- well, then, the train would compare very favorably.



That depends on how you travel. I’ve enjoyed day trips in Washington DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Sacramento, and Portland. In those cases I’ve used the train as my hotel and transportation and indeed it has worked well. 

But if my goal is to get to LA for 4 days I’m not going to go to LA for 7 days if I fly vs. the train so those costs aren’t totally comparable. I do agree that adding a hotel after a long flight is usually an expense that I have to add vs. arriving on a train well rested.


----------



## jebr

oregon pioneer said:


> This brings up my response to the poster above, and anyone else that compares the cost to first class on an airline and then says that train accommodations are more expensive. If I compared the cost to the airline PLUS a hotel for the same number of days, PLUS three meals a days for those days, and THEN figured in taking an extra day off because, after all, when you take the plane the vacation doesn't start till you arrive at your destination -- well, then, the train would compare very favorably. For me, it is part of the vacation, and I am trading the amenity of lots of space and food choice for the amenity of a constantly changing view out the window.



I still find the comparison to a hotel for that additional time a bit hard to justify. As a comparison, traveling SAN - MSP takes three nights, assuming no delays for missed connections. The cost is around $900 at low bucket, and goes up as high as nearly $1400. Flights start at around $100 - $150, and I only need a coach seat for a daytime flight. (For a three-night train trip, a flat bed is basically required for me to consider it.) That leaves $750 for three nights food and accommodations at low bucket - and if I'm staying at a $100/night hotel room (which is about the price range that an Amtrak roomette would be at) and eating out at Denny's at $15/meal (which I consider roughly equivalent to Amtrak's food) I'm still $300 ahead. 

I do still enjoy riding by train, and when it works (or I want to do a specific route) I'm more than willing to give up a couple days to do it. But it's very difficult to justify the cost and additional time much of the time, especially once connections are involved and time becomes a bigger factor. I've done many of the routes that I want to do, and so I'd rather spend the time exploring my destination city or having time for other time off throughout the year. I'm planning on taking the Texas Eagle partways home later this year, and I still have to fly part of the way home in order to make the trip 3 nights instead of 4.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jebr said:


> Flights start at around $100 - $150, and I only need a coach seat for a daytime flight. (For a three-night train trip, a flat bed is basically required for me to consider it.)



I would highly encourage you to price out domestic first class... total game changer. If you were going to check a bag anyways, it’s not even that much more if you fly when the rates are good.


----------



## jiml

jebr said:


> I still find the comparison to a hotel for that additional time a bit hard to justify. As a comparison, traveling SAN - MSP takes three nights, assuming no delays for missed connections. The cost is around $900 at low bucket, and goes up as high as nearly $1400. Flights start at around $100 - $150, and I only need a coach seat for a daytime flight. (For a three-night train trip, a flat bed is basically required for me to consider it.) That leaves $750 for three nights food and accommodations at low bucket - and if I'm staying at a $100/night hotel room (which is about the price range that an Amtrak roomette would be at) and eating out at Denny's at $15/meal (which I consider roughly equivalent to Amtrak's food) I'm still $300 ahead.


Unfortunately this sums it up perfectly. Air fares have remained reasonable for the most part, hotel rates vary by season but bargains can be found, but LD train rides with accommodation are quite expensive. If not looking for the "experience" or the budget does not permit, you have to fly (or drive).


----------



## jis

For the life of me I cannot figure out why for purposes of comparison there is a tendency to saddle the air traveler with those extra days and hotel and what not, that s/he does not need, so as to just match the days spent by the rail traveler traveling. That is what makes many of these comparisons not particularly useful and thus best ignored by most serious travelers. Which is what they actually do most of the time anyway.


----------



## oregon pioneer

OK, I take the train because I WANT to, and because I like real-time travel over the landscape. Those aren't the only considerations on any given trip. Other factors like cost have to make the train a reasonable way for me to go.

But, as I said, YMMV. And one of the variations is whether you live close to a major city's airport. I don't, it's three to five hours' drive in any direction to Amtrak OR a minor airport. So my most recent plane trip was Boise to Boston. The cheapest tickets were ~$300, and I checked a bag both ways for another $60. I had to stay in an airport hotel the night before my 6am flight east, and park at the airport for to avoid another hotel stay before driving home. Add another $200. OK, we are getting closer to the cost of the train now... but time was an issue, this go-round (mostly the advance time I had not booked ahead to get low-bucket, as I did not have the advance notice).

Each and every trip is different. But I've given my reason why the train seems to have extra weight when I make my decisions.


----------



## jis

As I have pointed out before, while these reasons work for you, they are unlikely to be terribly persuasive for a generic traveler. [emoji57]


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> As I have pointed out before, while these reasons work for you, they are unlikely to be terribly persuasive for a generic traveler. [emoji57]



Why not? I’ve had to purchase hotel rooms at airport hotels the night before an early morning flight. Many “generic travelers” would understand that concept and cost.


----------



## Bonser

crescent-zephyr said:


> Why not? I’ve had to purchase hotel rooms at airport hotels the night before an early morning flight. Many “generic travelers” would understand that concept and cost.


Particularly if they didn't live close to an airport. There are quite a few like that. Everytime I'm on a LD train I encounter multitudes.


----------



## Ryan

crescent-zephyr said:


> Why not? I’ve had to purchase hotel rooms at airport hotels the night before an early morning flight. Many “generic travelers” would understand that concept and cost.


And I never have, so which one of us is a "generic traveler"?


----------



## Bonser

That's one of the prime reasons for LD trains - to serve small towns.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

Ryan said:


> And I never have, so which one of us is a "generic traveler"?


 I think both of us are?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

When I fly I can usually reduce meals and hotel nights by traveling faster and having more control over the departure, connection, and arrival times. I also have more options for the first and last few miles of my trip. If my flight leaves really early or arrives really late it's because that's the flight I chose to take. I can usually select another flight with a different schedule for significantly less than an extra hotel room plus meals. With the train I often can't control which day of the week I depart, let alone specific times and routing options. I truly wish we had more trains with denser schedules and improved calling times, and I'm only too happy to lobby and vote for more services in the future, but in a strictly practical sense taking the train almost always adds to the cost and duration compared to flying or driving. When I do take the train it's because I went out of my way to do so.


----------



## JRR

Devil's Advocate said:


> When I fly I can usually reduce meals and hotel nights by traveling faster and having more control over the departure, connection, and arrival times. I also have more options for the first and last few miles of my trip. If my flight leaves really early or arrives really late it's because that's the flight I chose to take. I can usually select another flight with a different schedule for significantly less than an extra hotel room plus meals. With the train I often can't control which day of the week I depart, let alone specific times and routing options. I truly wish we had more trains with denser schedules and improved calling times, and I'm only too happy to lobby and vote for more services in the future, but in a strictly practical sense taking the train almost always adds to the cost and duration compared to flying or driving. When I do take the train it's because I went out of my way to do so.



The only further comment I would make is that to further divide the LD into short segments will make the LD travel even more difficult to schedule, make connections etc., and effectively end LD travel experience.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Why not? I’ve had to purchase hotel rooms at airport hotels the night before an early morning flight. Many “generic travelers” would understand that concept and cost.



But if you happen to be flying cross country you don’t have to buy three hotel nights, i.e. the number of nights you’d be on the train. That is the point I was making. If you are making a different point about buying one night for convenience, that is of course your choice and you are arguing a different point. But that is not a necessity for the trip as Ryan has pointed out.


----------



## MARC Rider

I found LD train ride to be practically competive for a bunch of DC - Ann Arbor trips I used to take when I was working. I'd ride the CL to Toledo, pick up a rental car at the airport. once i took the Ambus to/from Ann Arbor, and I didn't even need to book a hotel room for my one day trip. Furthermore, the contract carrier airfare at the time was more expensive than a roomette on the CL. 

When I traveled for business, I nearly always planned to arrive the day before my business. Sometimes the bosses would whine about the extra night in the hotel, but I would point out all the times the cheapskate road warriors would try to fly out on the day of the meeting and miss most of the meeting due to flight delays. At least the CL comes into Toledo so early in the morning that even if it's a couple hors late, I'm still on time.


----------



## jis

I think, in many cases LD trains will be found to be very desirable when compared to offerings of airlines, when one is traveling from Podunk Town 1 to Podunk Town 2, provided of course that the two are served within reasonable distance by LD service.

OTOH, one would be hard pressed to find a favorable situation for LD trains when two major cities that are a large distance apart and are served by a major airline - specially with a non-stop route, are involved. MARCRider will point out that there are exceptions, and indeed there are. For me Orlando to Raleigh is one such. Of course additionally in specific cases, one could appeal to personal tastes, fears and other extenuating factors to try to tilt thing more to the favor of LD even in these case. Like for example, I have to stay in a hotel before an early morning flight, etc.

And then there are situations in between which will have different attractiveness depending on the specific situation of where the train stations and airports are located relative to the origin and destination and how those are served, involving how many changes and the nature of such connections, etc.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> But if you happen to be flying cross country you don’t have to buy three hotel nights, i.e. the number of nights you’d be on the train. That is the point I was making. If you are making a different point about buying one night for convenience, that is of course your choice and you are arguing s different point. But that is not a necessity for the trip as Ryan has pointed out.



Oh yes that I agree with. 3 nights on a train doesn’t equal 3 hotels. To me first class air vs. roomette has to work out sensibly, unless I’m taking the train just for fun and if I’m doing that I’ll go to Durango or something ha. 

Airport hotels exist for a reason, they are very much a necessity for many travelers.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> Oh yes that I agree with. 3 nights on a train doesn’t equal 3 hotels. To me first class air vs. roomette has to work out sensibly, unless I’m taking the train just for fun and if I’m doing that I’ll go to Durango or something ha.
> 
> Airport hotels exist for a reason, they are very much a necessity for many travelers.


Yup. But that additional hotel night is case specific and holds equally in cases where there is an early departure of a train from a station 70 miles from home that might cause one to bunk down in a hotel close to the station of departure for the night before the journey. My point regarding that was that such convenience additions to an itinerary are not peculiar to the use of airline flights alone.


----------



## Asher

Whatever fits is the best way to go. 1st class air, LD train roomette, coach plane or train. Time and money play a huge part. Some want to get there while some have to get there. It's a silly argument.


----------



## jis

anumberone said:


> Whatever fits is the best way to go. 1st class air, LD train roomette, coach plane or train. Time and money play a huge part. Some need to get there while some have to get there. It's a silly argument.


That is what we live and die for on AU and indeed on almost all Web Forums.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

jis said:


> OTOH, one would be hard pressed to find a favorable situation for LD trains when two major cities that are a large distance apart and are served by a major airline - specially with a non-stop route, are involved. MARCRider will point out that there are exceptions, and indeed there are. For me Orlando to Raleigh is one such.



I think the Florida trains in general compare very well with flying. The 2 night western trains will always take a full day longer than flying no matter how you slice or dice it (and in some cases 2 days), so you have to want to take the train for whatever reason there. (But of course said trains also provide 1 night trips to various destinations that can compare more favorably).

But yes there are so many variables. How close you live to an airport vs. a train station, flight times vs. train times, even how efficient your airport is all factor into someones decision.


----------



## jis

crescent-zephyr said:


> I think the Florida trains in general compare very well with flying. The 2 night western trains will always take a full day longer than flying no matter how you slice or dice it (and in some cases 2 days), so you have to want to take the train for whatever reason there. (But of course said trains also provide 1 night trips to various destinations that can compare more favorably).


The problem with Florida to Northeast travel though is that there are many dozens of flights with ridiculously low fares from virtually every major airport in Florida to every major airport in the Northeast. Trains don't have a chance against those in time and fare, even though trains have timings that could work for many city pairs. Afterall Florida - Northeast is one of the busiest air corridors in the US, if not the busiest.

I am a pretty typical traveler who travels Central Florida to Washington DC or NY/NJ area, and truth be told, I seldom find trains to be a persuasive alternative, and heck I like to travel by trains. But when I can usually snag a lie flat seat and including one pretty reasonable meal for a fare that is equal to or lower than a Sleeper fare on a train, and takes two hours instead of seventeen or nineteen hours overnight (to Washington DC), it is hard to make an argument in favor of trains. Suffice it to say that in spite of all that I do take the train at times like I am for going to the RPA Meeting in Alexandria late March this year.

But, if I was traveling to say somewhere like Columbia SC or Rocky Mount NC or even Richmond or Petersburg VA, the train would come out ahead I think even with the overnight.


----------



## west point

Your points get to the idea that the more options for travel there is the more people will use the various ones.


----------



## Samsbigtrip

crescent-zephyr said:


> Why not? I’ve had to purchase hotel rooms at airport hotels the night before an early morning flight. Many “generic travelers” would understand that concept and cost.


Always! But I'm also flying into Seattle the day BEFORE my afternoon train to Chicago ;-)


----------



## Samsbigtrip

Qapla said:


> I guess this qualifies for this thread .... Amtrak seats recline much better
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/trav...r-reclined-seat-internet-is-split-whos-wrong/
> 
> https://nypost.com/2020/02/15/woman...e-controversy-wants-to-sue-american-airlines/


As we can't see what happened prior to the actions of the man it's hard to judge how annoying she had been, but his behaviour really is appalling :-( I have four US Domestic flight in May so I shall certainly bear in mind the problems posed by reclining, and how to deal with it - so thanks for posting those links!


----------



## DonNewcomb

jis said:


> I think, in many cases LD trains will be found to be very desirable when compared to offerings of airlines, when one is traveling from Podunk Town 1 to Podunk Town 2, provided of course that the two are served within reasonable distance by LD service.......


You might believe this but you also have to consider the time of day that the towns are served. Many years ago I thought about taking the Sunset between Gulfport, MS (kind of podunkish) to DeFuniak Springs, FL (really podunk) and had to give it up because the train arrived in DeFuniak about 03:30 and it was just too unreasonable to arrive at that hour. One problem with LD trains is that 50% of their routes are run at night and a significant part of the time at hours that would be considered unreasonable to most people. The majority of airline flights occur during the day and evening hours.


----------



## crescent-zephyr

DonNewcomb said:


> You might believe this but you also have to consider the time of day that the towns are served. Many years ago I thought about taking the Sunset between Gulfport, MS (kind of podunkish) to DeFuniak Springs, FL (really podunk) and had to give it up because the train arrived in DeFuniak about 03:30 and it was just too unreasonable to arrive at that hour. One problem with LD trains is that 50% of their routes are run at night and a significant part of the time at hours that would be considered unreasonable to most people. The majority of airline flights occur during the day and evening hours.



So what did you choose for your mode of transit?


----------



## jis

DonNewcomb said:


> You might believe this but you also have to consider the time of day that the towns are served. Many years ago I thought about taking the Sunset between Gulfport, MS (kind of podunkish) to DeFuniak Springs, FL (really podunk) and had to give it up because the train arrived in DeFuniak about 03:30 and it was just too unreasonable to arrive at that hour. One problem with LD trains is that 50% of their routes are run at night and a significant part of the time at hours that would be considered unreasonable to most people. The majority of airline flights occur during the day and evening hours.


Apparently in your enthusiasm to respond you did not carefully read what I said.  I said that my statement is true in many cases (that is it is not necessarily true in all cases). Apparently your single example is not one of them and that in no way contradicts what I said.  I did already account for those exceptions you mention.


----------



## toddinde

A couple of points. Those who live in large cities tend to think only in terms of end to end trips. Amtrak’s own statistics show that is a minority of travelers. There are tons of flights, hourly in fact, between Chicago and LA or New York and Miami. For those travelers, the train i has to be an affirmative choice. They want to relax, aren’t in a hurry, want to see the country, they’re fearful of flying, have a disability, etc. Those are all perfectly valid reasons, and reason enough for Amtrak’s tiny subsidy. But those aren’t most travelers. I put my son on the train yesterday for a 24 hour trip from Tucson to Austin, Texas. The train made sense. When I take the train from Benson, Arizona, there are always people getting on to go to El Paso. Same when I lived in Wisconsin and would go from the Dells to Milwaukee or Chicago. The point is the long distance trains serve a huge number of markets. A bunch of little stub trains won’t work. They just increase costs of maintenance facilities and shut off a number of longer trips. As for serving communities late at night, I lived in Fargo, ND for awhile, so I can relate. It is doable. However, adding a second daily frequency, or additional routes, would economically solve that problem. Building mini corridors is incredibly expensive. Look at the NEC or the Midwest corridors. Expansion based on improvements to the long distance network, increasing capacity, partnering with the railroads in projects that improve reliability, and adding some strategic routes, is the way to go at a cost the country can afford. In the meantime, the low hanging fruit corridors will likely be developed by private interests.


----------



## Lacunacoil

I take train from nyc to los Angeles 2 times a year ...originally fear of flying, and needing last minute free change option.... I tried to get over it by watching u tube, and I realized seats shrunk in half from my last flight 23 years ago. I hate having men touching me, I'm a guy, but I just dont want a man's arms smooshing into me. Greyhound seats seem to be bigger and a in shape guy was rubbing into me, and he wasnt even fat. So I cant fly ever


----------



## jtonns

I take a trains instead of planes for long distance to decompress before getting to destination. Both taking train to a destination and a return train are great buffer period to get ready for what is waiting for me at the end of the trip. And I enjoy the time on the train. It is a time to slow down and enjoy the trip.


----------



## tomfuller

jis said:


> Apparently in your enthusiasm to respond you did not carefully read what I said.  I said that my statement is true in many cases (that is it is not necessarily true in all cases). Apparently your single example is not one of them and that in no way contradicts what I said.  I did already account for those exceptions you mention.


In early February I was going from Chemult OR (Podunk) to Yuma AZ (not as Podunk). Since I didn't want to get off in YUM at 4AM, I stayed on until Tucson and got my rental car there. I still had to wait over half an hour for Enterprise to open 9AM Arizona Time. At least I had a seat to myself to try to sleep more after we went through Yuma.
I have a Facebook friend that I met on the Maple Leaf in October 2001. He worked in one of the WTC buildings but was late to work on 9/11/01.


----------



## jis

A similar experience for me was when I took the Silver Star from Orlando/Kissimmee to Columbia SC to see the Solar Eclipse. It arrived very very early in the morning. I hung around the station until the time the hotel shuttle started operating, and then took it to the hotel. I could have taken Uber, but why bother. It was a lovely star filled night and there were places to sit and wait. I could not have checked into the hotel anyway, without paying for an extra night. But on the whole it was still more convenient and cheaper than trying to fly there.


----------



## Asher

On the same note, a trip from DC to Indianapolis on the Cardinal, which arrives at O dark 30 created nightmares for my inlaws, believing they were in danger having to go to the Amtrack station at that time of night to pick us up. arriving at odd hours is an issue.


----------



## ehbowen

anumberone said:


> On the same note, a trip from DC to Indianapolis on the Cardinal, which arrives at O dark 30 created nightmares for my inlaws, believing they were in danger having to go to the Amtrack station at that time of night to pick us up. arriving at odd hours is an issue.



Agreed, but as noted above a second daily frequency on all LD routes would go a long, long way towards mitigating that concern.


----------



## IndyLions

anumberone said:


> On the same note, a trip from DC to Indianapolis on the Cardinal, which arrives at O dark 30 created nightmares for my inlaws, believing they were in danger having to go to the Amtrack station at that time of night to pick us up. arriving at odd hours is an issue.



For that reason, I use Crawfordsville IN instead of Indianapolis. 7am versus 5am westbound, 10pm vs midnight eastbound. And a small town station instead of the disgrace that they have allowed Indianapolis Union Station to become. But I’m a west sider, so it’s 30 minutes to IND or 30 minutes to CRF - no difference.


----------



## Twinkletoes

I travel by train for the same reason. It's a nice little capsule especially when you get a sleeper. I love to read entire books in one sitting, and catching up on movies and binge watching TV shows. However, your mention of traveling on the Silver Star to see the eclipse in 2017 brought back my memories of taking the Silver Star down from Boston on the same day to reach Columbia, SC for the eclipse. It was exciting walking from the station to visit Starbucks. I met Penny and learned about this forum! I never made a hotel reservation. The eclipse was awe inspiring and I even got free eclipse glasses from a retired NASA scientist who hung out on the University of SC campus. She had a stack of them, gave a talk, and handed out material. I left the same day on the 4:00 Greyhound to DC to connect to the Boston train because I didn't want to hang around just to get the Silver Star again or need a hotel. A terrible bus trip which will not be described here.


----------



## DonNewcomb

crescent-zephyr said:


> So what did you choose for your mode of transit?


Hopped in the car and drove I-10.



jis said:


> Apparently in your enthusiasm to respond you did not carefully read what I said. ....


I did. I just wanted to point out that a lot of podunk towns end up having the train pass through a really odd hours.



jis said:


> ....., but why bother. It was a lovely star filled night and there were places to sit and wait.......


I think Virgil Tibbs said the exact same thing.


----------



## Qapla

This is a nice article that helps explain the allure of taking the train for LD travel


----------



## iplaybass

DonNewcomb said:


> I think Virgil Tibbs said the exact same thing.



You're dating yourself. And me. They used the Sparta, IL station for the movie. Can't remember if it was IC or GM & O.


----------



## v v

In answer to the OP's question.

Flew 4.5 hours London to Cairo, travel in budget as it allows us more travel for the cash we have available. 5 days later train from Cairo to Luxor, 11.5 hours along the Nile in 1st class for peanuts, but 2nd class on Egyptian 'express' trains isn't at all bad either looking at the seats and car layout.

Flight was ok, cramped seats, slightly uncomfortable seating not as good as Greyhound in any respect. Usual faff at both airports, retail always comes before passenger comfort and totally without any human contact. For me airports are a necessary evil that are designed for corporate benefit and not much else.

Railway stations on the other hand are magic places, whether small, lonely and basic or glamorous such as LA Union, Grand Central, St Pancras, Milano and Marseilles. Then there are the odd ones, they have a few in Moscow, Surf Beach, CA, Portland a throw-back to earlier times etc etc etc, to me railway stations connect with us humans in a way airports can never do.
Almost any of these plus many more put you in a good frame of mind to start your upcoming journey, or a good end point to the journey just travelled. Have never felt that about airports where individuals are far too insignificant.

Then there is the train. You are in a geographical and time capsule with real life and scenery passing by your window day and night, you live in 'train time'. Then there are always if you choose fellow passengers who you can interact with, it appears to me as though train passengers have a different social outlook to plane passengers. More open, more interested in what and who is around them, and of course more time.

There are occasions where time and sometimes cost constraints have the upper hand, then a flight it has to be, but Japan, China, and some of mainland Europe are now faster by train for some city centre to city centre journeys.

Our first of many to come Egyptian trains was no exception with people interacting, Egyptians with each other, with other Africans, and with us handful of Europeans (5) on a 15 car train that was always full. I thought it would be difficult to interact as I only have 2 words of Arabic, most Egyptians away from the heavily touristed areas do not speak or understand English, not even younger people.
But we found language wasn't a barrier, often it was replaced with big smiles and gestures, and un-asked for help, yet again the train came up to hoped for expectations.

I'm not denying that planes have their place in transport systems, we flew to Egypt, but when there is the opportunity to take a train a plane comes a long way second.

Of course, just a personal opinion.


----------



## basketmaker

1. NO TSA BULL****!
2. Comfort (And a bed if wanted or needed)
3. Food
4. Scenery is a fantastic bonus!

I grew up on the Miami International Airport from infancy and in planes (large and small). Dad was an air traffic controller supervisor for 30 years as well a private pilot and plane owner. Mom was a bartender in the terminal for 25 years. And I had a 40+ year career in aviation doing everything except pilot but including flight attendant. And now utterly despise commercial air travel! If I fly it will be on Amtrak.


----------



## DonNewcomb

basketmaker said:


> 1. NO TSA BULL****!
> 2. Comfort (And a bed if wanted or needed)
> 3. Food
> 4. Scenery is a fantastic bonus!


1. Yeah, TSA is a PITA
2. Relative. Less discomfort spread over a longer time.
3. Not what it used to be. I remember train travel as a child and some dining cars* were such gourmet experiences that there was nothing on the menu that appealed to a kid (e.g. hamburger, spaghetti). No, just yucky stuff like filet mignon, brussels sprouts, etc. The best Amtrak has managed is about like a business-class airline meal. 
4. Some places the scenery is industrial or just a green tunnel through the forest.

*e.g. The old California Zephyr. (ca 1956-61)


----------



## basketmaker

DonNewcomb said:


> 1. Yeah, TSA is a PITA
> 2. Relative. Less discomfort spread over a longer time.
> 3. Not what it used to be. I remember train travel as a child and some dining cars* were such gourmet experiences that there was nothing on the menu that appealed to a kid (e.g. hamburger, spaghetti). No, just yucky stuff like filet mignon, brussels sprouts, etc. The best Amtrak has managed is about like a business-class airline meal.
> 4. Some places the scenery is industrial or just a green tunnel through the forest.
> 
> *e.g. The old California Zephyr. (ca 1956-61)


Agree with it being relative. Can't say the food is 5-star but I have never had a bad meal on Amtrak. Don't do brussel sprouts or any of the foofoo food. I'll inhale a filet any day/anytime. Since the CZ passes my window the scenery ain't bad at least westbound.


----------



## Qapla

Besides, while those in the cities often enjoy the countryside scenery .... those who live in the countryside can enjoy the "industrial" and urban sprawl we don't see on a regular basis

I know the first time I rode the train into the Northeast cities I was intrigued

Just because it is not all snow-capped mountains doesn't mean it doesn't have beauty to someone


----------



## DonNewcomb

basketmaker said:


> Agree with it being relative. Can't say the food is 5-star but I have never had a bad meal on Amtrak. Don't do brussel sprouts or any of the foofoo food. I'll inhale a filet any day/anytime. Since the CZ passes my window the scenery ain't bad at least westbound.


I found some menus from the old CZ online and they did have hamburgers a lunch but since we traveled from Chicago to Omaha on the CZ, I just got dinner. That was a classier sort of meal. We'd sneak up to the dome car when the train crossed the Mississippi for the view but the rest of the way was coach. I do distinctly remember the radiotelephone in the observation car. I always wanted to call someone, anyone, on that phone. Never understood why Dad wouldn't pay for it.


----------



## Bob Dylan

DonNewcomb said:


> I found some menus from the old CZ online and they did have hamburgers a lunch but since we traveled from Chicago to Omaha on the CZ, I just got dinner. That was a classier sort of meal. We'd sneak up to the dome car when the train crossed the Mississippi for the view but the rest of the way was coach. I do distinctly remember the radiotelephone in the observation car. I always wanted to call someone, anyone, on that phone. Never understood why Dad wouldn't pay for it.


I always wanted to send a Telegram when riding on the Famous Trains when I was a Boy, but didnt have the Dollar it cost!


----------



## railiner

Rad


DonNewcomb said:


> I found some menus from the old CZ online and they did have hamburgers a lunch but since we traveled from Chicago to Omaha on the CZ, I just got dinner. That was a classier sort of meal. We'd sneak up to the dome car when the train crossed the Mississippi for the view but the rest of the way was coach. I do distinctly remember the radiotelephone in the observation car. I always wanted to call someone, anyone, on that phone. Never understood why Dad wouldn't pay for it.


Radiotelephone in the observation car?
I remember some trains having that (such as the Afternoon Congressional, and the seasonal Florida Special, but not the CZ...

Some trains had a land-line phone in their obs car plugged in at the terminal, until departure...


----------



## DonNewcomb

railiner said:


> ......Radiotelephone in the observation car?
> I remember some trains having that (such as the Afternoon Congressional, and the seasonal Florida Special, but not the CZ...
> 
> Some trains had a land-line phone in their obs car plugged in at the terminal, until departure...


Give me some slack here; I was at most nine years old.  I was told it was a radiotelephone. My Dad's objection to using it was the cost, not that it only worked when stopped in stations.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

DonNewcomb said:


> Give me some slack here; I was at most nine years old.


Nine years old and already a slacker. 



Bob Dylan said:


> I always wanted to send a Telegram when riding on the Famous Trains when I was a Boy, but didnt have the Dollar it cost!


If this is real then I think you win the battle Jim. The closest I ever came to this sort of thing were the $7 per minute "Airfones" on some aircraft. Supposedly there were some long range intercontinental aircraft equipped for sending and receiving facsimiles in flight, but I never had the chance to see any in use and when I asked how it worked nobody knew.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Devil's Advocate said:


> Nine years old and already a slacker.
> 
> 
> If this is real then I think you win the battle Jim. The closest I ever came to this sort of thing were the $7 per minute "Airfones" on some aircraft. Supposedly there were some long range intercontinental aircraft equipped for sending and receiving facsimiles in flight, but I never had the chance to see any in use and when I asked how it worked nobody knew.


Same for me when I started Flying regularly Chris.

My employer ( the Guvment) wouldn't pay for such fancy stuff, so most "Road Warriors " carried a Pager and upon artival @ Airports ran for the Payphones ( what's that Grandpa?)!


----------



## basketmaker

DonNewcomb said:


> I found some menus from the old CZ online and they did have hamburgers a lunch but since we traveled from Chicago to Omaha on the CZ, I just got dinner. That was a classier sort of meal. We'd sneak up to the dome car when the train crossed the Mississippi for the view but the rest of the way was coach. I do distinctly remember the radiotelephone in the observation car. I always wanted to call someone, anyone, on that phone. Never understood why Dad wouldn't pay for it.


I made 2 calls from Amtrak when they had the phonebooths installed. I can't remember what train or where I was heading. A quick call home and to the office cost like $15.00. Did it for the novelty. I didn't bring my heavy big battery corded handset cellphone on the trip.


----------



## ehbowen

DonNewcomb said:


> I remember train travel as a child and some dining cars* were such gourmet experiences that there was nothing on the menu that appealed to a kid (e.g. hamburger, spaghetti). No, just yucky stuff like filet mignon, brussels sprouts, etc. The best Amtrak has managed is about like a business-class airline meal.
> 
> *e.g. The old California Zephyr. (ca 1956-61)



A Bit OT (although I had just taken her family on a Houston-LA-Houston Amtrak trip; so there ), but when my niece turned thirteen I decided that for her birthday we'd dress up and I'd take her to a really nice restaurant. I remember her looking at the menu, then asking, "What is fill-it mig-nan?" The first thing which ran through my mind was, "You're not getting out of here for less than eighty bucks...."


----------



## jloewen

basketmaker said:


> I made 2 calls from Amtrak when they had the phonebooths installed. I can't remember what train or where I was heading. A quick call home and to the office cost like $15.00. Did it for the novelty. I didn't bring my heavy big battery corded handset cellphone on the trip.


The "Metroliners" had little pay phone booths in them, and definitely did not have to be in a station. That was a selling point. That and their "astounding" speed, which as I pointed out here http://hnn.us/blog/143567 was not as fast as the City of New Orleans and/or Magnolia Star on the Illinois Central pre-Amtrak.


----------



## basketmaker

jloewen said:


> The "Metroliners" had little pay phone booths in them, and definitely did not have to be in a station. That was a selling point. That and their "astounding" speed, which as I pointed out here http://hnn.us/blog/143567 was not as fast as the City of New Orleans and/or Magnolia Star on the Illinois Central pre-Amtrak.


I do remember it was a low-level car. And most likely in the NEC to/from BOS. But I don't remember riding a "Metroliner" but have done "Amfleet" on the LSL from CHI to BOS and once BOS-NYC to catch the LSL out of NYP back to CHI. Connecting there to the CONO to FTN. Glad I did since Boston (North Shore area) was slammed with a major blizzard about 2 hours after I left. Family couldn't get out of the house for four days.


----------



## railiner

On the streamliner’s that did have, the radiotelephones required contacting the mobile operator to get connected, as well as assistance from the car attendant to use.

When the MU Metroliner’s came into service in 1969, their phones were pushbutton, coin operated, and completely automatic. They did have a color warning light that told when they reached a couple of stretches where there was no service available.

IIRC, some of the Amfleet club or cafe cars had a later version (“Railphone”?),
that accepted credit cards...


----------



## basketmaker

railiner said:


> On the streamliner’s that did have, the radiotelephones required contacting the mobile operator to get connected, as well as assistance from the car attendant to use.
> 
> When the MU Metroliner’s came into service in 1969, their phones were pushbutton, coin operated, and completely automatic. They did have a color warning light that told when they reached a couple of stretches where there was no service available.
> 
> IIRC, some of the Amfleet club or cafe cars had a later version (“Railphone”?),
> that accepted credit cards...


It must of been the Club or Cafe Amfleet version. It was a credit card version. Also, it was in the "cellular" era. I did use a radiotelephone (with rotary) in a co-workers van several year earlier. And look at us know!


----------



## crescent-zephyr

I think some of the heritage lounges may have had the railphone as well.


----------



## railiner

That was the same era when “Airfone’s” came out on airliner’s...might have been the same company providing both. Not sure...
IIRC, some planes only had one or two near the galley, later ones had one with every three seat row...


----------



## jloewen

ehbowen said:


> A Bit OT (although I had just taken her family on a Houston-LA-Houston Amtrak trip; so there ), but when my niece turned thirteen I decided that for her birthday we'd dress up and I'd take her to a really nice restaurant. I remember her looking at the menu, then asking, "What is fill-it mig-nan?" The first thing which ran through my mind was, "You're not getting out of here for less than eighty bucks...."


When MY niece was maybe half that age, we went to a really nice restaurant for breakfast and she ordered "a quickie." Turned out to be a sort of egg pie with cheese in it....


----------



## drdumont

Amtrak phones started with Manual Mobile - An operator placed the call and took care of billing, same as the regular LD or Maritime Mobile operators.
They then played with IMTS radios, which was the analog FM system you used when you "dialed" a call from your friend's van. It was semi private, but channels were limited. And expensive, subject to bad handoffs and physical woes the same as any electronics mounted in a railcar.
AMTRAK then began experimenting with cellular technology in the earliest days, before coverage was almost universal.
Not needed nowadays, of course.
I remember it being hideously expensive, as it was in the early cellular days.
And as for Internet service, it has been my experience that even when the onboard or station AMTRAK Internet service is available, I get superior service using my phone as a hotspot.


----------



## railiner

The Penn Central Metroliner’s were running with automatic pay phones two years before Amtrak started...I don’t know what technology they used, but the only difference between their coin phone’s, and land ones that I recall, was a light that showed whether or not they were in a service area...


----------



## basketmaker

anumberone said:


> On the same note, a trip from DC to Indianapolis on the Cardinal, which arrives at O dark 30 created nightmares for my inlaws, believing they were in danger having to go to the Amtrack station at that time of night to pick us up. arriving at odd hours is an issue.


Not per se a fear of any criminal activity though downtown Denver can be a bit iffy. I use FMG instead of DEN. Beats the heck out of fighting downtown traffic and "trying" to find parking plus the long walk to the station. FMG is all open Interstate highway and free parking trackside. It is an hour's drive from front door-to-vestibule but traffic, parking and getting into the station is about the same time-wise just way more convenient, cheaper and less stressful.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

drdumont said:


> I remember it being hideously expensive, as it was in the early cellular days.


Early cell phones were crazy expensive but only lightly used by many who owned one, whereas early smart phones had lower fees but were generally subjected to routine use and were constantly sending and receiving data long before flat rate contracts were offered. As a result my most most expensive smart phone bill was more than double the cost of my most expensive analogue cell phone bill.


----------



## basketmaker

Bought the first model that Radio Shack offered (about '78-'79) with the big heavy battery and corded handset for $500 and got a $500 rebate check after 2-years of service with Bell South. Airtime was like 35¢/minute but since I used it for my business (local cartage) I wrote it off at tax time. Used to deliver parts/supplies to the Bell South lab in Nashville during the development of the cellular system. Have gone through many many phones over the years. Even the fantastic Motorola BRICK! And the IBM that had a phonebook and games built in.


----------



## Bob Dylan

basketmaker said:


> Bought the first model that Radio Shack offered (about '78-'79) with the big heavy battery and corded handset for $500 and got a $500 rebate check after 2-years of service with Bell South. Airtime was like 35¢/minute but since I used it for my business (local cartage) I wrote it off at tax time. Used to deliver parts/supplies to the Bell South lab in Nashville during the development of the cellular system. Have gone through many many phones over the years. Even the fantastic Motorola BRICK! And the IBM that had a phonebook and games built in.


Yep, everytime I watch Old Movies and TV Shows I'm reminded of how far we've come in Phone ( and ALL) technology!


----------

